Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Probation Officer Seizure

[gideont4]

My girlfriend was recently convicted for drug possession/paraphernalia (Heroin, needles, and a broken crack pipe with residue). As she lives with me my house is now subject to searches and I am not allowed to have guns/weapons or drugs/alcohol. I overlooked a tobacco hookah as it's legally available to purchase and own for legal flavored smoke-tobacco. Her probation officer, on a random search, asked what was in it. It was sitting in a metal combo box ontop of the fridge--very conspicuous--so I took it down and showed it to him, at which point he called for police backup and hand-cuffed her. Having been unused, the police officer didn't do anything more than take a picture of it, but the probation officer confiscated it and violated her probation for it. The probation officer said that he is not bound by "reasonable-cause" requirements. What is he allowed to do and what governs this?

 

[CdwJava]

The probation officer has a great deal of latitude when dealing with a person on probation. Understand that being probation is not a right, it is a privilege. I suspect there will be a hearing coming up and at that hearing the probation officer will have to articulate to the court why the hookah was a violation of the probation order. If a judge does not believe it can be articulated as an item for smoking dope, then she will likely be released. Perhaps it smelled like marijuana or something. Who knows? Unless tobacco and related products are also prohibited, I suspect this is a weak violation.

 

[army judge]

My girlfriend was recently convicted for drug possession/paraphernalia (Heroin, needles, and a broken crack pipe with residue). As she lives with me my house is now subject to searches and I am not allowed to have guns/weapons or drugs/alcohol. I overlooked a tobacco hookah as it's legally available to purchase and own for legal flavored smoke-tobacco. Her probation officer, on a random search, asked what was in it. It was sitting in a metal combo box ontop of the fridge--very conspicuous--so I took it down and showed it to him, at which point he called for police backup and hand-cuffed her. Having been unused, the police officer didn't do anything more than take a picture of it, but the probation officer confiscated it and violated her probation for it. The probation officer said that he is not bound by "reasonable-cause" requirements. What is he allowed to do and what governs this?

Here is PA Law on revocations:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter7/s708.html

http://pcs.la.psu.edu/Probation_statutes.pdf

Now, here is how the process works in PA.
PA does not allow probationers to post bond.
Judges and probation officers won't listen to excuses.
The judge and the DA must listen to the law.
This was probably done to make her compliant and obedient.
She must now be contrite.
You will have to "man up" and claim responsibility for the oversight!
It might work.
She'll stew in jail a few days, maybe a couple of weeks.
You should try and get her a lawyer.
They will appoint one for her.
Sooner is better than later, in her case.
She is entitled to a speedy hearing.
Her own lawyer will get a hearing much quicker and he can get her out.
This is only a technical violation.
These are easy to overcome.

These are some reasons that get people revoked:
* Failure to report when ordered
* Drug possession or use, to include paraphernalia
* Absconding supervision
* Positive blood, urine or breath tests
* Failure to pay fines and assessments
* Failure to notify probation officer of job changes or address changes
* Being in the company of other felons
* Drinking alcohol or being in a bar or liquor store
* Failing a drug test
* Purchasing a gun or having of a firearm
* Losing employment
* Computer usage, if prohibited

 

[gideont4]

Research has found that the parolee must:
§ 63.4. General conditions of parole.
(i) Abstain from the unlawful possession or sale of narcotics and dangerous drugs and abstain from the use of controlled substances within the meaning of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (35 P. S. § § 780-101—780-144) without a valid prescription.
This states, among other things:
In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority should consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use, prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any State or Federal law relating to any controlled substance, the proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this act, the proximity of the object to controlled substances, the existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object, direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons who he knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this act, the innocence of an owner or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this act should not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use or designed for use as drug paraphernalia, instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use, descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use, national and local advertising concerning its use, the manner in which the object is displayed for sale, whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products, direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the objects to the total sales of the business enterprise, the existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community, and expert testimony concerning its use.
She has no charges or conviction for marijuana, and my record is clean as a whistle, but he tagged it is 'general' drug paraphernalia and she does have a drug charge.

 

[army judge]

Research has found that the parolee must:
§ 63.4. General conditions of parole.
(i) Abstain from the unlawful possession or sale of narcotics and dangerous drugs and abstain from the use of controlled substances within the meaning of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (35 P. S. § § 780-101—780-144) without a valid prescription.
This states, among other things:
In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority should consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use, prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any State or Federal law relating to any controlled substance, the proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this act, the proximity of the object to controlled substances, the existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object, direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons who he knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this act, the innocence of an owner or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this act should not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use or designed for use as drug paraphernalia, instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use, descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use, national and local advertising concerning its use, the manner in which the object is displayed for sale, whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products, direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the objects to the total sales of the business enterprise, the existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community, and expert testimony concerning its use.
She has no charges or conviction for marijuana, and my record is clean as a whistle, but he tagged it is 'general' drug paraphernalia and she does have a drug charge.

The PO doesn't care about proving any of this.
He doesn't have to prove it.
She has to prove the negative.
In this case, that'll be pretty easy, according to you.

If I were you, I'd get rid of any of that crap until she gets through this mess.
Otherwise, the PO will be back as regular as roaches, looking, peeping, snooping into your "bitness"!!!

I told you how to beat the case.
Hire a lawyer, or work with her court appointed one to "take the fall".
Say it was a collector's item.
But, it was YOURS, not HERS!!!
Bring it to court for the judge to see.
The cop will testify that it looked clean, because that's why he didn't seize it.

Use your energy for the courtroom.
You don't have to convince me about anything.
Convince that judge in PA, he can set her FREE!

 

[CdwJava]

The cop did not seize it because possession of a hookah is not a crime, and it may not even be a crime to possess a pipe that has been used to smoke marijuana. The PO likely seized it because he believed it had been used to smoke marijuana or other drugs for some reason and because she had a condition that said she needed to stay away from drugs and paraphernalia.

As was pointed out, she has to convince a judge that it was not used for drugs. In the meantime, she cools her heels and you have time to clean up anything and everything that might be misconstrued to appear as drug paraphernalia.