Jump to content


Photo

arrested for being on meth in public,without any labs etc.


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 specialk68

specialk68

    New Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:46 PM

I was pulled over for running a stop sign(but i didn't) i was ilegaly detained for 2 1/2 hrs without being placed under arrest and i have since found out the officers never called dispatch until they were taking me to jail. i refused to take feild sobriety tests and asked to go to e.r. for tests. cops refused and forced me to do feild tests then arrested me for being under the influnce in public on meth. then they searched my car etc. they Cops are not DRE certified. so shouldnt all my charges be dropped since they are not DRE certified and they have no labs to prove i wasn't high!!!!!!

#2 BOR_BOR

BOR_BOR

    Bronze Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 11:22 AM

I was pulled over for running a stop sign(but i didn't) i was ilegaly detained for 2 1/2 hrs without being placed under arrest


There is no bright line litmus test concernin how long an investigative detention can last, however, IF, for the sake of argument, it was unjustified for what is considered normal to conduct buiness, that in and of itself is an arrest. The Court is the arbiter.

Whle arrest in the traditional sense is transporting a person to jail to answer for a crime, that is not the only time an arrest is effected,. I seem to remember an airport detention case where the person was held for 2 hours by police while they were investigated and it was upheld, HOWEVER, each case is fact specific.



and i have since found out the officers never called dispatch until they were taking me to jail. i refused to take feild sobriety tests and asked to go to e.r. for tests. cops refused and forced me to do feild tests then arrested me for being under the influnce in public on meth. then they searched my car etc. they Cops are not DRE certified. so shouldnt all my charges be dropped since they are not DRE certified and they have no labs to prove i wasn't high!!!!!!


Lets leave out the prolonged detention to answer this. The 4th AM requires an arrest be based on Probable Cause. While the 4th AM is silent on this, this has been the ruling. At one time in this country, a person could be taken in for so called "questioning/investigative detention" absent probable cause, no longer.

The courts/your attorney will decide if PC existed.

#3 specialk68

specialk68

    New Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:12 PM

does it matter that where i was detained? I had just pulled up to my apartment, so after a hour of the officers harrassing me with no probable cause except them saying i didnt completely stop at the stop sign ,i should of been given a citation and they should of left the area. They kept telling me i looked high i told them no i wasn't and they asked me to do field tests i refused and told them because of my medical conditons i wouldnt pass the tests and to take me to the e.r. for tests. the officers refused to take me. i finally had enough and said now you guys are harrasing me they then opened my car door and pulled me out of the vehicle and forced me to the side walk. i kept telling them NO i am not going to take your tests ,please take me to e.r. again they refused. One officer stood behind me holding my shoulders making me look at the other officer who performed the 3 tests the romberg,(i have no balance due to brain damage and no concentration skills when having a flare up with the 3 autoimmune diseases i have,extreme high pulse when im on 50 to 100mg of prednisone a day on top of the fact i was scared to death of one officer that had fractured my hand in 2006) pluse test,and eye test (which the meds i take for diseases have made me loose periphial vision and when flare up is onset i loose muscle ability to to my left eye). it was then another half hr to 45 minutes when officer announced i was high on meth in public! why the hell didnt i get a dui? i was driving for god sakes,and had ran a stop sign! they then searched my car and called for lady officer to search me. Once on scene she not only searched me once but 9 times under my shirt and bra. She couldn't find anything! the officer started yelling at me where is it where is it, i said i dnt know. he then told me to make sure and took the handcuffs off telling me that once im in booking if they find anything i will get charged with more felonys if im holding anything. so i checked my pockets, and bra where i found a baggie on the lft side under my bra and pulled it out. they grabbed it from my hand and loaded me up to go to jail. i have never seen photos of the 4 baggies they say i had or toxicology reports, lab tests etc. at my prelim the officer that searched my persons wasnt even there and her statement wasnt even in my discovery.
Does this sound ethical,legal,proffesional,and just? I dont think so!

#4 adjusterjack

adjusterjack

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,299 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:32 PM

Very amusing. You walk around with a baggie hidden in your bra and you complain about what the police did when you got caught.

No, your charges won't be dropped.

As long as the police can justify pulling you over then everything that happened between the stop and the jackpot (the baggie) isn't likely to make a bit of difference in the charges or the consequences.

Hire yourself a good lawyer.

Warning: Legal issues are complicated. Explanations and comments here are simplified and might not fully explain the ramifications of your particular issue. I am not a lawyer. I do not give legal advice. I make comments based on my knowledge and experience. I guarantee nothing. If you act on my comments without the advice of an attorney, you do so at your own risk.


#5 specialk68

specialk68

    New Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:02 AM

Very amusing. You walk around with a baggie hidden in your bra and you complain about what the police did when you got caught.

No, your charges won't be dropped.

As long as the police can justify pulling you over then everything that happened between the stop and the jackpot (the baggie) isn't likely to make a bit of difference in the charges or the consequences.

Hire yourself a good lawyer.

Very amusing. You walk around with a baggie hidden in your bra and you complain about what the police did when you got caught.

No, your charges won't be dropped.

As long as the police can justify pulling you over then everything that happened between the stop and the jackpot (the baggie) isn't likely to make a bit of difference in the charges or the consequences.

Hire yourself a good lawyer.



#6 specialk68

specialk68

    New Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

Hidden baggie in my bra is not what the issue is! The issue is are gov. is out of control and he who see's no wrong in what takes place on a daily basis needs to be treated the way us (united states citizens) are treated day after day after day!!!!!!
You are not the law, those creeps that call themselves cops are not the law, you merely represent the law, and those that think God has choosen them to be the law need to pack bags and get out of this country!!!!! Cause we the people wont let you the LAW destroy us anymore!!!!

I dont have a good attorney, JUST A HONEST ONE!!!!!

#7 FindLaw_Amir

FindLaw_Amir

    Platinum Contributor

  • Moderators
  • 62,345 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:18 AM

To learn more about your rights, you may want to visit the Criminal Law Center: Criminal Rights and read Search and Seizure as a good resource.
FindLaw's Legal Heads-Up! newsletter can provide you with the legal resources you need to make informed decisions when law touches aspects of your everyday life.

#8 pg1067

pg1067

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,214 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:19 PM

shouldnt all my charges be dropped since they are not DRE certified and they have no labs to prove i wasn't high[?]


In a word, no (although it's worth pointing out that it's not exactly clear what you've been charged with). The question is whether they made observations that are consistent with being under the influence. If so, nothing else matters. Certainly, at trial, your attorney can question the officers about their training and can make a bunch of noise about the lack of a certification. However, if they've had sufficient training, I wouldn't really expect the jury to care too much about that.


i have no balance due to brain damage and no concentration skills when having a flare up with the 3 autoimmune diseases i have,extreme high pulse when im on 50 to 100mg of prednisone a day on top of the fact i was scared to death of one officer that had fractured my hand in 2006) pluse test,and eye test (which the meds i take for diseases have made me loose periphial vision and when flare up is onset i loose muscle ability to to my left eye


Let me get this straight. Because of these conditions, you can't take field sobriety test (which you probably impliedly consent to when you apply for a driver's license), but it's ok for you to get behind the wheel of a car?! Given your description, I have a hard time believing you actually have a driver's license.

#9 TheGeneral_KD

TheGeneral_KD

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 236 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:30 PM

Agree with PG. You cannot be forced to take FSTs (or cooperate with a blood test), but there are consequences when you don't that you likely already agreed to without realizing it. And while i'm not sure exactly what you were charged with, i am sure it wasn't "being on meth in public". Since meth is an illegal substance, being "on it" is just as illegal behind closed doors as it is in public. That just doesn't make any sense. Public intoxication, maybe? You said it wasn't DUI. Your railing about "government gone haywire" is making it difficult to understand what you're asking. BTW, you know who gets on message boards and writes things through gnashed teeth like "we the people won't let you the LAW destroy us anymore"? Yeah...guilty people, that's who. And "good lawyer" and "honest lawyer" are not mutually exclusive of one another, no matter what pop culture leads you to believe, but if you have to choose between the two....pick "good". Best of luck.

#10 specialk68

specialk68

    New Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:43 PM

Im affraid to ask but your telling me that in the state of Idaho when we us you and i apply for a D.L. we are giving up our civil rights?
Then why is this not in BIG BOLD LETTERS on the form or at every clerks window.....
APPLY AT YOUR OWN RISK!! BY APPLYING FOR AND SIGNING YOUR DRIVERS LICENCE YOU (YES YOU) ARE GIVING UP YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS, SUBJECTING YOURSELF TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT!!! BY APPLYING AND SIGNING FOR YOUR D.L. YOU MAY BE SUBJECTED TO RELENTLESS HARRASMENT BY ANY CITY COUNTY STATE OR GOV LAW OFFICER. WE THE CITY, COUNTY, STATE, GOV. WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONISIBLE FOR ANY MENTAL EMOTIONAL PHYSICAL TRAMA OR DAMAGE FROM BEING SEARCHED AND SEIZED AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT WHILE BEHIND THE WHEEL OF YOUR VEHICLE . WE WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CITATIONS,COURT COSTS, RESTITUATION, ATTORNEYS FEES, BONDS, BAILS, PRETRIAL SERVICE COSTS, LOSS OF JOB, LOSS OF LIFE,
LOSS OF TIME WHILE INCARCERATED, PROBATION COSTS,PAROLE COSTS, DRUG COURT COSTS, ASSESSMENTS,OUT PATIENT TX COSTS, GROUP COUNSELING COSTS, ANYTHING THAT COULD RESULT FROM GIVING YOUR CONSENT BY APPLYING AND SIGNING FOR YOU IDAHO STATE DRIVERS LICENSE IS YOUR RESPONIBILITY!!!! APPLY AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!!!!!!!

#11 specialk68

specialk68

    New Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:18 PM

I was not high on meth!!!! I was not high on any kind of ilegal drug, or prescribed narcotic.
If the officers would have been more honest and did what most honest respectable officers do they would have called in DRE(Drug Recognition Expert) and let him or her go by protocol, 12 steps and procedures that includes a U.A. That includes questions and concerns about any health conditions or past injury's that could be challenging for them to do sobriety tests.
Maybe they should start asking if there is any kind of dx of post tramatic stress syndrome
due to police harassment, abuse, that resulted in mental emotional physical damage.
I NEVER REFUSED A U.A OR A BLOOD DRAW!!!!! I ASKED TO GO TO E.R. SO I COULD HAVE THESE TESTS DONE ON ME!!!! IS THIS WRONG??? THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FACT IN THERE FACE ON PAPER WITH PROFFESIONALS IN A CONTROLED ENVIROMENT I WAS NOT F.......HIGH ON ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!
I DID HOWEVER ASK MY ATTY AT THAT TIME IF A HAIRFOLLICLE TEST WOULD BE APPROPRIATE , LMAO... HE SAID THERES NO NEED FOR THAT!!!! I DID IT ANYWAY, GOT THE RESULTS FROM ACREDITED LAB OUT OF CALIFORNIA WITH CERTIFIED CHEMISTS..... NEGATIVE NEGATIVE NEGATIVE,..I ALSO HAD MY COUNSLER MAKE THE APPT AND TAKE ME TO A NEARBY CITY FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND SHE CONFIRMED AND SIGNED LETTER STATING THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO HAIR CHANGE OF ANY KIND SINCE BEFORE THE ARREST. MY ATTORNEY NEVER FILED A MOTION TO SUPRESS OR ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE RESULTS TO THE COURTS. BAD MISTAKE ON HIS BEHALF....

Really we us you and i in this state can be pulled over unlawfully detained ( isnt that called restricted my freedom of movement) at any time ? Well i think we us you and i better inform the public of this we need to have billboards with lights telling the people of idaho about this, because if thats really the way it is for all of us poor, rich, selected few, disabled, etc then i am concerned that not everyone knows there civil rights and or idahos constitution or the federal laws or supreme court rulings on this matter. i think it would only be appropriate to go public with all this so we us you and i can better prepare oursleves, our children for what lies ahead, the inivetable. that way a proper understanding of THE LAWS IN IDAHO stand , a very serious decision can be made whether or not to go out in public.

#12 Tax_Counsel

Tax_Counsel

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,273 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:39 AM

Im affraid to ask but your telling me that in the state of Idaho when we us you and i apply for a D.L. we are giving up our civil rights?
Then why is this not in BIG BOLD LETTERS on the form or at every clerks window.....


Your exaggeration of the matter notwithstanding, you do not give up all your civil rights when obtaining a driver’s license. However, nearly every state, including Idaho, does have an implied consent law. Under this law, by operating a motor vehicle on the roads of the state, you give implied consent to alcohol and/or drug testing if the police officer has reason to suspect you were driving under the influence. If you refuse to give actual consent for the test when asked by the police officer, there are penalties for that which apply that are independent of whatever might happen on the DUI matter. The state does indeed tell you about that in the driver’s manual issued by the Idaho DMV. So, it’s not some big secret here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users