TheGeneral_KD

Members
  • Content count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Well,my state allows for DUI by allowance,in which a vehicle owner knowingly allows an impaired person to drive their vehicle....under that theory driving isn't a necessary element. However, we don't extend that to felonies like vehicular assault/homicide, and have never heard of any state that does. Perhaps that could be the case. At any rate, anytime you can get a felony with the word "homicide" in it dropped to a misdemeanor, it's probably in your daughter's interest to strongly consider it and discuss it in detail with an experienced criminal defense attorney.
  2. 1) Probably not, depending on the state. In my state, there is a felony offense called "initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine", where you only need prove that an item had been altered outside the intended purpose for the purpose of meth production. Finding any actual product is not needed. The drink bottle you mentioned is what they call a gas generator, where the chemical process takes place that results in methamphetamine. 2) No, it was the truth. Everyone there was going to be charged with it, because everyone there (in the eyes of law enforcement) was in constructive possession of the items used to manufacture meth. There was sufficient probable cause to justify them arresting everyone there, other than maybe just a transient visitor. Now, would everyone there have been convicted? That's a whole different story. 3/4) I have no idea. I don't know that they didn't. The whole point of an "officer safety" sweep is to make sure there are no guys hiding in a bedroom ready to come out with guns blazing, and every officer knows that, so I can't imagine why a closed off room wouldn't have been "swept" (clear it for people and close the door back). No officer I know has ever missed a chance to do a safety sweep. Meth manufacturing or anything like it is a serious felony, carrying very harsh consequences. Anyone charged with such an offense needs to consult experienced local counsel quickly.
  3. Also, why do you describe yourself as an "ex-felon"? Has the conviction been somehow expunged from your record? Have you been pardoned? Because you're a felon for life unless one of those apply, or something else along those lines. Rarely is there such a thing as an "ex-felon"...
  4. Well, to answer the question you posed in the title of your thread, the way to get around being charged with violation of a protective order is to NOT violate the protective order, which you clearly say he did. Under a protective order, the Court has ordered him to stay away and only the Court can tell him otherwise. Your husband needs to consult an attorney and you should call the local DAs office to see what can be done. If it's a condition of probation that he not come around you, then you may have to convince a judge not to revoke his probation and to modify or altogether eliminate that condition of probation going forward.
  5. Your post makes an AWFUL lot of assumptions that you are treating as established fact. The gun being stolen (you cant't possibly know that), the fingerprints (why would he need to wipe fingerprints off of his own gun?), the prosecutor's beliefs about the police (I seriously doubt he told you that he was going to lie to protect the police from a lawsuit)....especially since you have no grounds for a lawsuit against anyone other than the man himself. For some reason, you're jumping all the way to "it's a vast conspiracy" when you have absolutely no basis to support that. Essentially, your post comes down to this...someone did something that you think is criminal, the police did not make an arrest that you think they should have made, and the prosecutor's office is not pursuing criminal charges against the guy who didn't get arrested (not that you gave them much of a chance...I agree with Fallen that them not giving you the answer you wanted THE NEXT DAY does equal "getting the runaround"). Ultimately, it is up to the district attorney (or whatever they're called in OH) to make the call as to whether a criminal prosecution is warranted, and if he or she feels that it is not a case that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then he or she will not pursue it. If you haven't already, you should try to schedule a meeting with the district attorney and ask for an explanation, which I'm sure you will be given. However, if you go in to that meeting and start attacking his or her integrity by spewing your conspiracy theories, you will likely be told not to let the door hit you on your way out.
  6. Not totally sure if I follow what you're asking, but if your question is "Does the fact that they forgot their camera render the pictures on it inadmissible", then the answer is clearly "no". Why would it? Sure, the fact that it was forgotten makes the police appear a bit oafish, but there's no 4th Amendment violation there, so on what grounds would someone argue that the pictures are inadmissible?
  7. Yeah, as others have noted, conspiracy to commit robbery and murder IS a crime, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating "no crime committed" as if it were a fact.
  8. Yeah, the CIs prior felonies, while certainly relevant to credibility, are not surprising. It's not like police can recruit the town mayor or an elder at the Sugartree Baptist Church to go make controlled buys for them, for obvious reasons that hopefully need not be explained. This is highly confusing to me. A controlled buy is the CI using police-issued money to buy from the defendant, yet you're talking about possession at the time of arrest....perhaps you are actually talking about a controlled sale, rather than a controlled buy? Not sure.
  9. Yet you didn't actually ask any question....don't know what you expect anyone to do with the information you provided.
  10. Which, of course, doesn't mean she has put no effort into resolving his case. Especially in a drug possession case, consultation with the defendant has actually very little to do with case preparation. She may well be concentrating on whether the search yielding the drugs (if there was one) was constitutionally permissible, whether there is an appropriate chain of evidence from the police to the drug lab and back, what sort of deal the snitch is getting (if there was one) and so forth. None of that needs to be done in the presence of the defendant. Essentially, what I found during my years as a defense attorney, is that defendants who are incarcerated (and who have the lawyer's services for free) mostly want to tell you their whole life story and bitch and moan about how much it sucks to be in jail...the lawyer has neither any need nor desire to hear anything about anything other than the facts of this case, but the guy in jail doesn't care if he's wasting your time or not. And particularly here, in a drug possession case....if he wants to tell the lawyer "the drugs weren't mine, they belonged to Ray Ray", then a) that will be the ten millionth time the lawyer will have heard that story in a drug case and "possession" is not the same as "ownership". "Possession" is a legal term with a specific definition, and depending on the facts, his version of events really may not make any difference at all. Trust your attorney. Good luck to you.
  11. Certainly, everything you said happened is entirely possible....but two of the excuses you mentioned (run off the road by a vehicle that fled the scene and the throttle stuck) are, when joined by the classic "a dog/deer ran out in front of me", the Holy Trinity of unverifiable "The Dog Ate my Homework" stories that officers hear when they are working single car DUI crashes. Add that in with your refusal to take a sobriety test (and the officer's suspicion that one was needed in the first place), and you have a recipe for a DUI charge. Surely you can't be THAT surprised that the investigators don't believe what you're saying, even if it happens to be true. You need to consult with expereinced local counsel for whom criminal defense is a large part of his/her practice. It wouldn't be surprising for the outcome of any criminal charges to have a big impact on the resolution of any CPS case. Good luck to you.
  12. Agree with Tax...your girlfriend's motion to suppress will be denied based on a lack of standing. She has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a home that isn't hers, even aside from the probation issue. And you can't file a motion to suppress on your behalf if you weren't charged with anything, which it clearly seems you were not. These cops were smart and did it the right way, for the purpose they were trying to accomplish. In terms of any action in criminal court, neither you nor her have any recourse here whatsoever. Talk to a civil lawyer about suing the department if you want, but within the parameters of this board, you have no cards to play.
  13. Agreed, it doesn't say that in the post, but the next time I see the police executing a search warrant for "possession" (as opposed to suspected selling or manufacturing) will be the first time. It just doesn't happen, at least not in my state. Generally, your probable cause for the warrant to be issued in the first place will be a controlled buy from a suspected dealer, carried out by an informant...who, at least around here, are equipped with audio and video recorders to capture the incident, so it's not simply a matter of "the police believing their informant". Rather, they believe what they see and hear on video. At any rate, although you're correct that the post doesn't say it, I agree with adjusterjack that it's a very reasonable assumption, especially since the OP clearly isn't exactly a detached and impartial narrator of the events.
  14. Your question has been answered. There is no legal prohibition of him working the case if he's been asigned to it. If you think the investigator's impartiality is compromised, you are free to contact his superior officer and express your concerns. As a piece of advice, I wouldn't say anything about your suspicion that the officer himself (who presumably was not present at the scene of the "crime") is involved in your brother's death....not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway. Good luck to you.
  15. Well, first of all, "he" is a "she", as I understand it. Secondly, there was nothing demeaning in Fallen's post....she is trying to explain that this OP, like many, includes far too many details that no one here needs to hear in order to answer the ultimate question being asked....as if we are the people who need to be convinced that the OP is in the right, which we certainly are not. Further, Fallen gave her opinion that expecting the police to drop everything in order to stop someone from driving by and spinning tires on a public road is pretty ridiculous, with which I wholly concur. And if you think that Fallen got overly snarky, clearly you haven't spent much time on this site....I thought her response was pretty mild compared to what pg1067 likely would've written.