Searched & arrested

[imnothng]

When I was pulled over as I mentioned in a previous reply, I didn't say how they found my pot. I gave him my paperwork and then he came back to my car and asked why my papers smelled like pot. I laughed and said that I had no idea and if I could smell it. So he gave me my papers back and I smelled it, well I really laughed now and said, **** it does doesn't it. He then asked to search and I said sure but I only had a pipe. Well longer story short, him and three other cops that came couldn't find my pipe, so the cop asked me if I would get it for him. I went and grabbed it and gave it to him.

I guess the moral point of my story is they may not actually find what you have, so you really have nothing to lose by making them do their job. Never consent to a search.

Also for what it's worth, this was in 2000, and I crossed the border (Gary, take note that it is spelled border, not BOARDER, lol spell check wouldn't catch that), twice after the charge was withdrawn. My lawyer that I got only cost 400$.

 

[DDON]

If the search was without a warrant, then it will be illegal. I am sure there will argue you gave them consent so unless you they attempt to charge you for possession, i will just plead the reckless driving. If they want to do you for the weed, i will fight the search. Your lawyer should be able to tell you that. Any evidence obtained without a search warrant is not admissible in court. Yes..I am a lawyer.

 

[SlowNLow]

You are a lawyer? You don't need a warrant to search someone, you need probable cause. And you fail to note the guy told them he had weed? You also fail to note that he admitted that the cops said they could smell the weed, and that the weed was very strong smelling when he got it.
He's screwed, plain and simple... Remind me not to hire you as a lawyer if I ever get in trouble. OP broke the law, he got caught... First rule of thumb when being pulled over is..... Shut your mouth.....

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

 

[FiReSTaRT]

By the way, mention to your lawyer that you posted about the incident on a public Internet forum and make sure you get him on video and post it on youtube

 

[Dr.Manhattan]

I don't want to freak the OP out anymore, but you do know that careless driving is still a pretty serious offence. I know it carries a fine from $400 - $2000, gives you 6 lovely Demerit points, and they can also pull your license for 2 years if they want, it also affects your insurance of course. Since your careless doesn't seem to quite as bad ( no accidents or the such ) I am hoping you will do alright, it is still a pretty broad charge though.

 

[Nyx13]

I TOO can provide "specifics" for this. I go on motorcycle trips several times throughout the summer, and we USE to go with a friend who was convicted 5 years ago of simple possession (personal weed). He use to cross with us at several borders with no issues at all (once questioned heavily, but still allowed to cross after). NOW, he cannot cross with us, and simply does not come anymore. No questioning or searches will allow him to cross, and all he can do is get a Pardon, which as well does not grantee his ability to cross in future, because the United States does not honor our Pardons.

Unless I missed a post here somewhere, the big thing no one has mentioned is why this is a HUGE issue for the OP.... Roughly 3-4 years ago the Ontario law regarding possession changed. Before, what you were carrying and the amount when busted made a difference in the charges and more importantly, sentencing. That is no longer the case. For example: If you get busted for 1/2 a joint, the charges are just as serious as being busted for possession of Cocaine/heroin/crack...not talking about trafficking amounts, just that they don't see it any differently anymore. Possession is possession, flat out....half a joint or ounce of coke or heroin...no difference and they prosecute based on this. Your chances of getting into university/jobs/travel...all sorts of things are going to be affected by this charge if you get nailed on it. With the careless....wow. Sorry to hear about your insurance rates

 

[short stop]

If the search was without a warrant, then it will be illegal. I am sure there will argue you gave them consent so unless you they attempt to charge you for possession, i will just plead the reckless driving. If they want to do you for the weed, i will fight the search. Your lawyer should be able to tell you that. Any evidence obtained without a search warrant is not admissible in court. Yes..I am a lawyer.

Um...I'm not sure anyone here buys that based on your legal advice.

 

[yamahar1]

If you get busted for 1/2 a joint, the charges are just as serious as being busted for possession of Cocaine/heroin/crack(

You are HORRIBLY mistaken my friend. I assure you there is a HUGE difference between getting caught with a single joint, or with an ounce of heroin. Go carry a couple Oxicotin pills that are not yours, and you will see even more of an issue. Spend a few hours in a Criminal Court room and you will see exactly what I mean. Carry a joint or 2, and you get convicted and a fine (and quite often only "alternative measures".......get caught with heroin or crack, and you get jail time every time out of the gate (and substance abuse treatment).

 

[yamahar1]

Um...I'm not sure anyone here buys that based on your legal advice.

I either don't buy he is a lawyer, or he is simply one of the "mis-guided" ones. The Police CAN and DO conduct searches without warrants ALL THE TIME. All that is needed is probable cause. This burden was EASILY met the minute they either smelled the cannabis, or he admitted to having it on his person. Warrants are only needed if the officer cannot meet his burden of probable cause, and then he must convince a Justice why this warrant should be issued.

The last court date I attended, a defendant tried to challenge the officers search because he did not provide consent for this search, and the officer found narcotics. The officer said he "saw a beer bottle cap on the floor of the car from the window", and this formed his probable cause to search the vehicle for open alcohol. While conducting this search, he then found the narcotics. This was found to be acceptable by the courts, and the evidence was used to convict the man. Next time you get pulled over......tell the officer you have a machine gun in the trunk of your car, and see how long he waits for his warrant to search and seize it.

 

[suprPHREAK]

but that would be an illegal search and seizure. The police have absolutely no reason to search you for a traffic violation. You would have to give them some sort of reason to search you, or give them permission which you did. If you say no, then they would need a valid reason and prove it in court.

Not exactly true. Because a motorcyclist is on the outside of the vehicle, they present a certain risk to the officer that is different from a car. Where in a car there is a certain amount of safety with the driver being inside the vehicle (and less able to just jump the officer), on a bike no such protection exists. As such, they can do a cursory pat down to ensure that you are not carrying any weapons or objects that can be used as a weapon. No special cause is required for a pat-down. The thing is, if they are searching for weapons, and find contraband substance, the substance can be confiscated (since it is illegal), but cannot be used as evidence against, as it was not part of the original search (unless the traffic stop was for impaired). However, when the officers asked the OP "do you have anything on you", and he admitted to an illegal substance, he now admitted to a crime, and the substance now becomes admissible as evidence. So, the OP brought the drug charge on himself.

The traffic ticket is, however, a "see what sticks" tactic.

Also OP, if you have insomnia, have you seen a doctor to get a prescription? That would also save you the aggravation.

 

[Nyx13]

You are HORRIBLY mistaken my friend. I assure you there is a HUGE difference between getting caught with a single joint, or with an ounce of heroin. Go carry a couple Oxicotin pills that are not yours, and you will see even more of an issue. Spend a few hours in a Criminal Court room and you will see exactly what I mean. Carry a joint or 2, and you get convicted and a fine (and quite often only "alternative measures".......get caught with heroin or crack, and you get jail time every time out of the gate (and substance abuse treatment).

No. I'm not. Not the way the written law was amended. I also know someone that was stupid enough to light up in front of a cop shortly after the amendments were made and I helped research all this before he contacted his lawyer (he WAS supposed to be going to law school....this actually ruined it for him). However, what happens in a court room is up to each judge as he/she is required to interpret the law and deems what is 'suitable' punishment. The best chance this guy has is the fact there have been multiple challenges to the possession laws regarding cannabis due to the added issue of availability and legal obtaining of medical marijuana.
If he finds a judge that can't be bothered with the issue...he'll probably slide quite well. It's on his record though and until/if he can get it removed, he's screwed in a lot of other ways.

 

[strictlye]

You are a lawyer? You don't need a warrant to search someone, you need probable cause. And you fail to note the guy told them he had weed? You also fail to note that he admitted that the cops said they could smell the weed, and that the weed was very strong smelling when he got it.
He's screwed, plain and simple... Remind me not to hire you as a lawyer if I ever get in trouble. OP broke the law, he got caught... First rule of thumb when being pulled over is..... Shut your mouth.....

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

You're right. And if they say they smell weed thats probable cause. Also this is not the USA, if evidence is found during an illegal search, it is still evidence. In the USA it would be thrown out of court. I remember my law professer telling us that in school. You could try and argue that it was planted and what not but they wouldn't say "oh I'm sorry, the police didn't have a warrent, here's your weed and have a good day". They would mostly charge you with something and not let you get off.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

If the search was without a warrant, then it will be illegal. I am sure there will argue you gave them consent so unless you they attempt to charge you for possession, i will just plead the reckless driving. If they want to do you for the weed, i will fight the search. Your lawyer should be able to tell you that. Any evidence obtained without a search warrant is not admissible in court. Yes..I am a lawyer.

Then I'm afraid that you should know better, when it comes to the rules of evidence. An admission is probable cause. If he hadn't made the admission then they would have had no grounds for the search, based on the charge involved.

OP, you need to obtain counsel. Now. No more posts here. You are facing to serious charges, that can have a serious effect on your future.

 

[SeanB]

Its just a weed charge theey really probably wont charge you its not like they are trying to accuse you of trafficing. Idk but it wont let me post, hopefully this one works. **** THE POLICE. lol idk how many people will hate me for that one,but what cops was it? Toronto? Durham??

 

[FiReSTaRT]

The question is whether the OP gave consent to the search and they had reasonable grounds before they started the search. The admission came after the fact.. You can't get reasonable grounds for a search AFTER you began to search the suspect. Of course, that's for the lawyer to argue.. I'm just offering a bit of logic here

 

[yamahar1]

The question is whether the OP gave consent to the search and they had reasonable grounds before they started the search. The admission came after the fact.. You can't get reasonable grounds for a search AFTER you began to search the suspect. Of course, that's for the lawyer to argue.. I'm just offering a bit of logic here

They had reasonable grounds to search the second he stopped and they smelled it. He only admitted it after they asked "do you have anything on you". They likely asked this BECAUSE they smelled it and wanted to simplify their search, and to test his honesty". MANY times when an officer asks a question, they already know the answer and they are simply testing your credibility. Lets stop telling this guy to challenge the officers right to search him. There isn't a court in this country that will dismiss this evidence as "illegal search" if the officer says he could smell it, and then after questioning this guy about it, he admitted to having it on him. This is the officers job people, and he simply did it. No Judge will side with this guy over the officer. All you will do is confuse this guy, or make him think (and waste money) on a defense that WON'T stand in court.

Get a good lawyer, play the "I've never done anything like this before" card, and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. If you are young, and still starting your life, then that is just another "card" to play in court. Its funny how EVERYONE who breaks the law, finds way to either justify it, or blame the Officer charging them. These SAME people get convicted and later say they wish they did what I am saying to do right now. I have a TON of experience in this, trust me.

 

[DDON]

Then I'm afraid that you should know better, when it comes to the rules of evidence. An admission is probable cause. If he hadn't made the admission then they would have had no grounds for the search, based on the charge involved.

OP, you need to obtain counsel. Now. No more posts here. You are facing to serious charges, that can have a serious effect on your future.

Let him follow my advise and then give you some feedback. Its easy to BS but the facts are such that it will not help the anxious dude if we were to get into an argument on the way the rules of evidence actually works. If there is another counselor on site, i will be happy to discuss the merits of my statement.

 

[DDON]

You are a lawyer? You don't need a warrant to search someone, you need probable cause. And you fail to note the guy told them he had weed? You also fail to note that he admitted that the cops said they could smell the weed, and that the weed was very strong smelling when he got it.
He's screwed, plain and simple... Remind me not to hire you as a lawyer if I ever get in trouble. OP broke the law, he got caught... First rule of thumb when being pulled over is..... Shut your mouth.....

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

You could not pay me considering...Indeed i did not miss any of the details but if you think i am daft enough to give him a get out of jail card in a public forum then there are some practice rules you need to get familiar with. Besides your advise to keep quiet if the weed was smelling that strongly is not helpful.Will only antagonize the cops.

 

[SlowNLow]

You could not pay me considering...Indeed i did not miss any of the details but if you think i am daft enough to give him a get out of jail card in a public forum then there are some practice rules you need to get familiar with. Besides your advise to keep quiet if the weed was smelling that strongly is not helpful.Will only antagonize the cops.

Correction, I would not pay you. Your name isn't Jackie Childs is it? You didn't by any chance represent Jerry, Cosmo, Elaine, and George did you?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

 

[DDON]

Hmmmmmmmm..Something i definitely have picked up on this site is that there are a few that consider a rebuttal to statements others make as a personal issue. I have nothing to gain by misdirecting anybody but to jump to the conclusion that someone is that what they claim simply because you disagree with there opinion lacks any subjective credibility. i am not the only professional on this site and i am sure plumbers disagree on the best ways to prevent leaks. When i blog on here, its because i want to contribute to a worthwhile site not attract insults from others who give advice without credentials. It will be helpful if we can disagree without taking the focus from what is evidently someone's distress.