If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Juneau Empire)   Instead of accepting a misdemeanor ticket for possessing a joint, man swallows it when a cop approaches. Which is considered tampering with evidence. Which is a felony   (juneauempire.com) divider line 73
    More: Dumbass, false evidence, joints, cannabis cultivation, misdemeanors  
•       •       •

4440 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2012 at 8:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-19 01:29:59 PM

sauce_jenkins: Prove it. Beyond a reasonable doubt, prove it. Can't? Oh well, no case.


Yup. It reminds me of the last time I was on a jury in a pot possession case. The situation was that the defendant was in front of a parked car, which two officers approached from behind. As they did so, they saw the defendant make a "throwing motion" below the level of the car hood, then found a bag of weed under the car. They then arrested the guy for possession.

Our reasoning was that since the cops never actually saw the bag in the guy's hand, never saw it leave his hand, or land under the car, the bag could have been anybody's. The "throwing motion" could just as easily been him swatting a fly away. Verdict: not guilty.

Do I believe it was his bag? Hell yes. Did they prove it? No.
 
2012-08-19 01:33:21 PM

lewismarktwo: Day_Old_Dutchie: Bathia_Mapes: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

RTA. A police officer saw him eat the joint.

And cops never, ever, lie.

That seems to be what every judge ever to hold court thinks.


Not necessarily true. I went to court and the cop had the nerve to tell me in front of the judge that he was "a human lie detector." The judge laughed in his face and told him he was full of shiat right in front of me. It really does depend on the judge. Also helps that I actually wasn't lying and the cop was.
 
2012-08-19 01:43:21 PM

Aigoo: lewismarktwo: Day_Old_Dutchie: Bathia_Mapes: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

RTA. A police officer saw him eat the joint.

And cops never, ever, lie.

That seems to be what every judge ever to hold court thinks.

Not necessarily true. I went to court and the cop had the nerve to tell me in front of the judge that he was "a human lie detector." The judge laughed in his face and told him he was full of shiat right in front of me. It really does depend on the judge. Also helps that I actually wasn't lying and the cop was.


You were arrested by DareDevil?
 
2012-08-19 02:10:55 PM

JesusJuice: Smoking weed is not a crime, no matter what the law says.


If the law says it's illegal, it is, by definition, a crime. Whether or not it's immoral is another matter.
 
2012-08-19 02:22:35 PM
Hmmm. So, if a teenager, seeing an approaching cop, dumps out the can of beer he's drinking and throws it in the trash can, is that felony tampering with evidence too?

Seems like some common sense ought to be used in these cases.
 
2012-08-19 03:33:43 PM

JesusJuice: Smoking weed is not a crime, no matter what the law says.


Smoking weed is not a crime!
 
2012-08-19 03:35:02 PM

Ed Grubermann: JesusJuice: Smoking weed is not a crime, no matter what the law says.

If the law says it's illegal, it is, by definition, a crime. Whether or not it's immoral is another matter.


Does a written law trump your own judgment and intelligence?
 
2012-08-19 04:13:36 PM

Arthur Jumbles: Loren: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Agreed. How can the cop prove he destroyed evidence?

Since the cops had a reasonable belief that the defendant was destroying evidence they could have detained him, got a warrant for his stomach contents, and had a hospital pump his stomach. That would have been legal.... since they didn't do that they have no case as long as the defendant shut the farks up.


You need probable cause for a warrant. Not sure where you got your law degree from...
 
2012-08-19 05:05:20 PM

rvabenji: Arthur Jumbles: Loren: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Agreed. How can the cop prove he destroyed evidence?

Since the cops had a reasonable belief that the defendant was destroying evidence they could have detained him, got a warrant for his stomach contents, and had a hospital pump his stomach. That would have been legal.... since they didn't do that they have no case as long as the defendant shut the farks up.

You need probable cause for a warrant. Not sure where you got your law degree from...


The cop with his years of experience is all the probable cause needed. Smelling marijuana and seeing the defendant eat something that his years of experience determined was a joint is probable enough cause for any judge.
 
2012-08-19 05:14:54 PM

Arthur Jumbles: rvabenji: Arthur Jumbles: Loren: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Agreed. How can the cop prove he destroyed evidence?

Since the cops had a reasonable belief that the defendant was destroying evidence they could have detained him, got a warrant for his stomach contents, and had a hospital pump his stomach. That would have been legal.... since they didn't do that they have no case as long as the defendant shut the farks up.

You need probable cause for a warrant. Not sure where you got your law degree from...

The cop with his years of experience is all the probable cause needed. Smelling marijuana and seeing the defendant eat something that his years of experience determined was a joint is probable enough cause for any judge.


And wrong.
His "years of experience" should understand proving a charge.
More than likely there was a personality exchange and now the perp is getting the only beating the cop could give for being a prick.
With YOUR FARKING MONEY!
 
2012-08-19 05:23:22 PM

Pud: That's going to be a write off.


Link
 
2012-08-19 05:29:45 PM

snocone: Arthur Jumbles: rvabenji: Arthur Jumbles: Loren: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Agreed. How can the cop prove he destroyed evidence?

Since the cops had a reasonable belief that the defendant was destroying evidence they could have detained him, got a warrant for his stomach contents, and had a hospital pump his stomach. That would have been legal.... since they didn't do that they have no case as long as the defendant shut the farks up.

You need probable cause for a warrant. Not sure where you got your law degree from...

The cop with his years of experience is all the probable cause needed. Smelling marijuana and seeing the defendant eat something that his years of experience determined was a joint is probable enough cause for any judge.

And wrong.
His "years of experience" should understand proving a charge.
More than likely there was a personality exchange and now the perp is getting the only beating the cop could give for being a prick.
With YOUR FARKING MONEY!


A similar case were a warrant wasn't even need given exigent circumstances, which applies in this case too.
 
2012-08-19 05:34:36 PM
Also, for some of us, the misdemeanor ticket could result in the loss of our jobs. Working for a government agency that gives you a position of public trust clearance requires no drug activity for the past 7 years, no matter how minor. If I were the type to smoke pot, I'd swallow it in a second and then fight the "evidence" charge in court.
 
2012-08-19 07:33:07 PM

Cataholic: Loren: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Agreed. How can the cop prove he destroyed evidence?

He can simply testify as to what he saw. Remember, they don't have to prove that it was a joint. They only have to prove that the defendant swallowed something that would have been evidence in a proceeding or investigation (even if the evidence would have exonerated him).


Eating isn't a felony.
Eating in the presence of cops is not a felony.
 
2012-08-19 07:56:03 PM
Alleged.

That's really the only word this whole thread needs.
 
2012-08-19 09:21:40 PM
I'm a law & order kind of a guy...but unless this is on video, I would tell the judge WHAT evidence?
 
2012-08-19 10:51:57 PM
When is a joint not a joint? IANAL, nor am I a Merkin, but I think the key word here is "evidence". If I throw out some garbage tomorrow, and some cop then claims it contained evidence that would link me to a crime, does that suddenly become a felony?
I would have thought evidence was only evidence after the cops initiate a search or make an arrest. Until then, eating it or burning it, it was just a guy doing what he wanted with his own possessions. I mean, did the guy even have a lawyer? Sheesh.
 
2012-08-19 10:52:34 PM

ReverendJynxed: Girion47: Also, for some of us, the misdemeanor ticket could result in the loss of our jobs. Working for a government agency that gives you a position of public trust clearance requires no drug activity for the past 7 years, no matter how minor. If I were the type to smoke pot, I'd swallow it in a second and then fight the "evidence" charge in court.

If one were to hold such a job, it could be expected said individual would give up certain choices and indulgences to maintain said job.


Nah, F that just do Heroin or meth and never get caught with a piss test.
 
2012-08-19 10:56:29 PM

lewismarktwo: ReverendJynxed: Girion47: Also, for some of us, the misdemeanor ticket could result in the loss of our jobs. Working for a government agency that gives you a position of public trust clearance requires no drug activity for the past 7 years, no matter how minor. If I were the type to smoke pot, I'd swallow it in a second and then fight the "evidence" charge in court.

If one were to hold such a job, it could be expected said individual would give up certain choices and indulgences to maintain said job.

Nah, F that just do Heroin or meth and never get caught with a piss test.


it isn't about the piss test. There's single scope background investigations, CI poly's and lifestyle poly's. Lie on one of those and you can do 7 years in prison, not to mention you aren't getting the job.
 
2012-08-20 12:44:48 AM

Girion47:
it isn't about the piss test. There's single scope background investigations, CI poly's and lifestyle poly's. Lie on one of those and you can do 7 years in prison, not to mention you aren't getting the job.


I'm a bit suspicious of that, when a polygraph is not 100% accurate. If someone could potentially go to jail for failing a polygraph, no reasonable person would ever apply to that job.

Maybe if all your "friends" told the background check interviewers that you've pretty much been high and tripping nonstop, for as long as you've known them...
 
2012-08-20 07:09:54 AM
A competent lawyer should still be able to get him off. It doesn't become "evidence" until it's in police possession. Otherwise, every last physical object on the planet is "evidence".
 
2012-08-20 08:51:23 AM

CourtroomWolf: Girion47:
it isn't about the piss test. There's single scope background investigations, CI poly's and lifestyle poly's. Lie on one of those and you can do 7 years in prison, not to mention you aren't getting the job.

I'm a bit suspicious of that, when a polygraph is not 100% accurate. If someone could potentially go to jail for failing a polygraph, no reasonable person would ever apply to that job.

Maybe if all your "friends" told the background check interviewers that you've pretty much been high and tripping nonstop, for as long as you've known them...


it isn't the results you'd be convicted on, however the results would be used to direct their questioning until a logical explanation is hammered out of you, maybe 5 hours later. All recorded on tape of course.
 
2012-08-20 11:30:31 AM
So would flicking a joint out a window or otherwise hiding it be "tampering with evidence"?

Also:

FTA: Alaska law allows a person to possess less than four ounces of marijuana (plant or dried) in the home, but not in public.

Wait, WHAT???
 
Displayed 23 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report