jonshep: So this guy does have a drug charge pending but its just one I think? I guess DELV is delivery but POSS is def. possession. So the police must of found something to charge him with possession. not sure about MAN... Maybe manufacture? Meth is a commonly manufactured drug. I found charges like this all over google with different parts of it removed so this is not a generic charge, it means they suspect him of all 3 below. so what was he in possession of? Reason magazine, a Farker found this shiat yet you couldn't? And this is why i HATE this new emotional journalist bullshiat. Give me a REAL researched story with SEVERAL sources on BOTH sides and none of your opinion or GTFO. Funny part is I dont think these people even know how to research anymore.

"Deliver" or "delivery" means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one (1) person to another of a controlled substance or counterfeit substance in exchange for money or anything of value, whether or not there is an agency relationship;

(16) (A) "Manufacture" means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly by extraction from a substance of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
(B) "Manufacture" includes any packaging or repackaging of a controlled substance or labeling or relabeling of a controlled substance's container.
(C) However, "manufacture" does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for his or her own use

(13) (A) "Drug" means a substance:
(i) Recognized as a drug in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
(ii) Intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or animals;
(iii) Other than food intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or animals; and
(iv) Intended for use as a component of any article specified in subdivisions (13)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(B) "Drug" does not include a device or its components, parts, or accessories;
(C) In determining whether an object is "drug paraphernalia", a court or other authority shall consider, in addition to any other logically relevant factor, the following:
(i) A statement by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use;
(ii) A prior conviction, if any, of an owner or of anyone in control of the object under any state or federal law relating to any controlled substance;
(iii) The proximity of the object in time and space to a direct violation of this chapter;
(iv) The proximity of the object to a controlled substance;
(v) The existence of any residue of a controlled substance on the object;
(vi) (a) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner or of anyone in control of the object to deliver it to a person whom he or she knows, or should reasonably know, intends to use the object to facilitate a violation of this chapter.
(b) The innocence of an owner or of anyone in control of the object as to a direct violation of this chapter does not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use or designed for use as "drug paraphernalia";
(vii) An oral or written instruction provided with the object concerning its use;
(viii) Descriptive materials accompanying the object that explain or depict its use;
(ix) National and local advertising concerning the object's use;
(x) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale;
(xi) Whether the owner or anyone in control of the object is a legitimate supplier of a like or related item to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of a tobacco product;
(xii) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the objects to the total sales of the business enterprise;
(xiii) The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community; and
(xiv) Expert testimony concerning the object's use;


/mostly from here (new window)

I'm the author of the post, and a tfarker.

Those who've criticized me for not "telling both sides" might note that I mentioned in the article that I tried to contact both the prosecutor and the police department. Neither returned my calls. The Arkansas Times also tried to contact both, to no avail. The police won't talk about what happened. The police won't even release the affidavits, which are supposed to be public record (I'll be sending an open records request for them next week). The prosecutor even tried to get a gag order imposed on Ingle.

You've got a shot-up guy served with a no-knock warrant where no drugs were found, and nobody on the police side is talking.

I thought that was a story worth telling. If it seems one-sided, it's because only one side would talk.