Plan B?

[Giddyup]

Jurisdiction

Georgia

I called several attorneys and can not afford any of them. The last attorney said I do not have a defense since I allowed my vehicle to be searched. The only other time I was arrested, I refused to let the officers search my vehicle and they created a probable cause to search my vehicle. I had a public defender in that case and his question to me was, " Does it really matter how they gained access to my vehicle?" So, I don't trust the public defenders here. What are my options?

 

[Zigner]

I called several attorneys and can not afford any of them. The last attorney said I do not have a defense since I allowed my vehicle to be searched. The only other time I was arrested, I refused to let the officers search my vehicle and they created a probable cause to search my vehicle. I had a public defender in that case and his question to me was, " Does it really matter how they gained access to my vehicle?" So, I don't trust the public defenders here. What are my options?

Go it alone.
Go with the public defender.
Hire your own attorney.

 

[Giddyup]

Go it alone.
Go with the public defender.
Hire your own attorney.

If I go it alone, will I have the opportunity to discuss plea deals with the district attorney? Are there any resources available to guide me in the "go it alone" option?

 

[Zigner]

If I go it alone, will I have the opportunity to discuss plea deals with the district attorney? Are there any resources available to guide me in the "go it alone" option?

The public defender is an attorney, just like any other attorney.

 

[adjusterjack]

If I go it alone, will I have the opportunity to discuss plea deals with the district attorney?

Prosecutors don't want trials for bottom of the barrel druggies, They take time and cost money. If you plead not guilty and start asking for "discovery" you are likely going to be offered a plea deal.

Are there any resources available to guide me in the "go it alone" option?

See:

how do i defend myself against a criminal drug possession charge at DuckDuckGo

 

[Tax Counsel]

What are my options?

Your options are pleading guilty, pleading not guilty if you have not yet entered a plea, coming up with money to pay a lawyer to represent you, ask for a public defender (PD), or represent yourself. By far the worst of those is the last one: representing yourself. You aren't an attorney and you don't know the rules of procedure and evidence, nor do you have any experience in dealing with the prosecutor. You could easily say or do something representing yourself that makes matters worse, not better. Rarely have I seen a defendant represent himself/herself and come away better than what a PD can do for them. The PD's deal with the prosecutors often and have a good idea what kind of plea deals they are likely to offer/accept. They also know when and how to challenge the state if the cops screwed something up in the investigation and arrest. They'll spot things that you don't have the experience to know might be a problem.

The public defender is an attorney. Like with private attorneys and prosecutors, a few PDs are really great, a few of them are really terrible and most are somewhere in the middle. You had a bad experience with one PD. That doesn't mean that they are all that way anymore than having one bad customer service experience with a store cashier means that all cashiers are that way. But even with a bad attorney you are better off than representing yourself. If the lawyer does a truly bad job representing you then you can file a motion for a new trial with a different lawyer citing ineffective assistance of counsel. If you represent yourself and screw it up, you have no option for a do over as a result of your mistakes.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Prosecutors don't want trials for bottom of the barrel druggies, They take time and cost money. If you plead not guilty and start asking for "discovery" you are likely going to be offered a plea deal.

That's overly simplistic, Jack. Whether a deal is offered and the exact details of any offer depends on a lot of factors. But receiving discovery requests is not one of them. Handling evidence requests is a routine part of the job and in every case where an attorney is representing the defendant the defense attorney will ask for discovery if the state doesn't turn it over first as some states require. It is true that over 90% of criminal cases result in a plea bargain. That's because most of those charged are, in fact, guilty and don't want to run the risk that the judge will impose a tougher sentence than what the prosecutor has put on the table for a plea offer.

When representing themselves a defendant won't know a good plea offer from a bad one or how to counter a bad plea offer with something better. And the defendant can easily say or do something that makes his/her situation even worse.

 

[Giddyup]

Go it alone.
Go with the public defender.
Hire your own attorney.

If I go it alone, will I have the opportunity to discuss plea deals with the district attorney? Are there any r

Your options are pleading guilty, pleading not guilty if you have not yet entered a plea, coming up with money to pay a lawyer to represent you, ask for a public defender (PD), or represent yourself. By far the worst of those is the last one: representing yourself. You aren't an attorney and you don't know the rules of procedure and evidence, nor do you have any experience in dealing with the prosecutor. You could easily say or do something representing yourself that makes matters worse, not better. Rarely have I seen a defendant represent himself/herself and come away better than what a PD can do for them. The PD's deal with the prosecutors often and have a good idea what kind of plea deals they are likely to offer/accept. They also know when and how to challenge the state if the cops screwed something up in the investigation and arrest. They'll spot things that you don't have the experience to know might be a problem.

The public defender is an attorney. Like with private attorneys and prosecutors, a few PDs are really great, a few of them are really terrible and most are somewhere in the middle. You had a bad experience with one PD. That doesn't mean that they are all that way anymore than having one bad customer service experience with a store cashier means that all cashiers are that way. But even with a bad attorney you are better off than representing yourself. If the lawyer does a truly bad job representing you then you can file a motion for a new trial with a different lawyer citing ineffective assistance of counsel. If you represent yourself and screw it up, you have no option for a do over as a result of your mistakes.

Sir or Mame,very respectfully, I thank so much for taking the time to explain that to me in a way I can understand.

 

[Giddyup]

Tax Counsel, I'm writing an editorial for submission and want to share a portion of it that requires no response. Thanks again.
I have a friend that joined the Air Force right after college, retired from the military, then went on to graduate law school.. He went to worked for a firm before opening his own family law practice.
So, I gave him a call to express my shock and disbelief in how our justice system works. He seemed to be annoyed and frustrated when he said, "Look, I got into this profession to make a difference. I learned very quickly that I can't make a difference in our justice system and decided family law is where I could do the most good." I was too scared to ask him what he meant by " not being able to make a difference ".

 

[welkin]

I had a public defender in that case and his question to me was, " Does it really matter how they gained access to my vehicle?"

It sure does. If the stop was for a routine traffic stop and it was prolonged beyond what was necessary to complete it, and depending on the facts, an attorney might be able to get further evidence of a crime suppressed. You need to be represented by an attorney.

 

[Zigner]

The only other time I was arrested, I refused to let the officers search my vehicle and they created a probable cause to search my vehicle.

It's more likely that they discovered probable cause to search your vehicle.

 

[welkin]

It's more likely that they discovered probable cause to search your vehicle.

What do you think that probable cause might be stemming from a traffic stop?

If a car is stopped for a routine traffic infraction the police can no longer use unrelated probable cause to prolong the stop unless there is obvious evidence of a crime without questioning the driver or passengers. That is what the ninth circuit court just ruled in a CA case on Sept 12.

In this case, the driver was pulled over for a broken stop light and suspicion that the car was stolen. . The police questioned the driver about what he may have in his car. They did find marijuana in the car and the evidence was suppressed.

The courts are moving in this direction more and more.

A seizure violates the Fourth Amendment when an officer "extend a traffic stop with tasks unrelated to the traffic mission, absent independent reasonable suspicion." United States v. Landeros, 913 F.3d 862, 866 (9th Cir. 2019). "This `mission' is limited to `address[ing] the traffic violation that warranted the stop' and `attend[ing] to related safety concerns.'" United States v. Evans, 786 F.3d 779, 785 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015)). "Tasks not related to the traffic mission . . . are therefore unlawful if they `add[] time' to the stop, and are not otherwise supported by independent reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing." Id. (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 357).

United States v. Williams, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2023 - Google Scholar

 

[Zigner]

What do you think that probable cause might be stemming from a traffic stop?

Wait, do you really think I'm going to list all of the possibilities? Thanks for the laugh.

 

[welkin]

How did you end up the strike through of most of that citation you provided? You might want to change that if it's possible. Strike outs usually stand for information is no longer valid or is being replaced, and I assume that was not your intent here.

It happened when I tried to quote from the court decision on previewing the post and I couldn't change it and I did try. I tried to delete the passage and repost it several times.

 

[welkin]

Wait, do you really think I'm going to list all of the possibilities? Thanks for the laugh.

I'm glad you got some humor out of it. But I don't think you got the point of the post.

The point is that if the police don't have independent (of the traffic stop) reasonable suspicion of a crime they can't prolong the stop looking for a crime.

So unless the police can see something obviously a crime during the stop without asking unrelated questions to the traffic stop there is no probable cause.

So with that in mind, what probable cause could they have had?

 

[Zigner]

I'm glad you got some humor out of it. But I don't think you got the point of the post.

The point is that if the police don't have independent (of the traffic stop) reasonable suspicion of a crime they can't prolong the stop looking for a crime.

While true, it really doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

So unless the police can see something obviously a crime during the stop without asking unrelated questions to the traffic stop there is no probable cause.

BINGO!

So with that in mind, what probable cause could they have had?

I wasn't there. I can guess at tons of different things, but that doesn't do any good, does it? My opinion still stands that, in the matter that the OP referenced, it is less likely that the cops "created" probable cause and more likely that the cops DISCOVERED probable cause.

 

[Giddyup]

Tax Counsel, I'm writing an editorial for submission and want to share a portion of it that requires no response. Thanks again.

It sure does. If the stop was for a routine traffic stop and it was prolonged beyond what was necessary to complete it, and depending on the facts, an attorney might be able to get further evidence of a crime suppressed. You need to be represented by an attorney.

Tax Counsel, to clarify, the case I referred to with the question my defender asked me and the suspicious probable cause was dismissed. I'm facing entirely different charges now. I brought thatt up to show what happened when I refused their request to search, I was charged and when I did grant permission to search, I was charged. As far as my suspicion about the probable cause, I can only tell you the facts. The probable cause they said was methamphetamine on the back of my shirt. The shirt was never tested at the lab. No methamphetamine was found in my car or in my blood and I was never charged for anything related to methamphetamine. I do have another question. I can't afford 7500-8500 for a lawyer. I can't come up with that much money. I was just told I make too much to qualify for a public defender. I remember your reply and going it alone is not wise. I don't know what to do next. Any information for me to consider would be much appreciated.

 

[Giddyup]

I should have worded it differently. Their probable cause was suspicious initially. When I received the discovery packet, it road an entirely different story than actual events. Outside of a courtroom, that says a lot.

 

[Giddyup]

I

It sure does. If the stop was for a routine traffic stop and it was prolonged beyond what was necessary to complete it, and depending on the facts, an attorney might be able to get further evidence of a crime suppressed. You need to be represented by an attorney.

I was surprised to hear him ask that question too. Considering all the disagreements my attorney and I had, including turning down a plea deal, it's understandable, not acceptable.thank you for thevreply.

 

[Giddyup]

While true, it really doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

BINGO!

I wasn't there. I can guess at tons of different things, but that doesn't do any good, does it? My opinion still stands that, in the matter that the OP referenced, it is less likely that the cops "created" probable cause and more likely that the cops DISCOVERED probable cause.

As far as my suspicion about the probable cause, I can only tell you the facts. The probable cause they said was methamphetamine on the back of my shirt. The shirt was never tested at the lab. No methamphetamine was found in my car or in my blood and I was never charged for anything related to methamphetamine. Also, their version of events on the discovery were entirely different than what really happened. Although, I pointed out the discrepancies that could be proven, nothing was ever researched. I turned down a plea deal for one reason only....to tell the whole truth, not just the part of the truth that would convict me. I never got the chance, charge was dismissed.