EastBoundandDown

Can They Really Do This?

8 posts in this topic

I was stopped by a task force in AZ and did not consent to a search. After 30 minutes of questions and delays the cop ran the serial number on my bicycle and 15 minutes after that arrested me without telling me why. At the police station I was informed my bicycle was stolen and text messages on my phone could bring conspiracy charges. The police wanted me to turn informant. I stood to lose everything if I went to jail that night and so I agreed. $200 was taken from me and never returned.

I would get calls asking what I knew regarding some heavy criminal activities in which I could not offer any useful information. One evening I had missed a call from the police and 30 minutes later I was stopped by my police contact. He asked if I had any weapons and I said no. He asked me if he could search me and I said no. His Sgt. was present during the stop. The cop tells me that he knew where I had gone and asked me if I had drugs on me and I said no. Again he asks if he can search me and I say no. Thats when the Sgt. says "we can can always run you in on your original charges so let him do it." Thats when the cop takes the drugs that were on me. After that I was told to call in everyday at 3pm and sent on my way.

I complied after that but had not gotten the police any cases. A month later the police swarmed in on me, and as stated in their report, used the previous encounter as probable cause to execute a warrant to arrest and search me. Drugs were found and I am now approaching a court date where the judge decide if the evidence against me can be used or not.

These cops had it in from me and I firmly believe they trumped up the stolen bike charges that started this nightmare that could end with a 20 year sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stopped by a task force in AZ and did not consent to a search. After 30 minutes of questions and delays the cop ran the serial number on my bicycle and 15 minutes after that arrested me without telling me why. At the police station I was informed my bicycle was stolen and text messages on my phone could bring conspiracy charges. The police wanted me to turn informant. I stood to lose everything if I went to jail that night and so I agreed. $200 was taken from me and never returned....These cops had it in from me and I firmly believe they trumped up the stolen bike charges that started this nightmare that could end with a 20 year sentence.

Let's start with this. There is a lot missing here. Like why the cops made the stop in the first place. What kind of "task force" was this? While the cops didn't tell you the reason for the stop, do really have no idea why they decided to stop you? The stop is good if they had reasonable suspision that you committed some offense. Might they, for example, have had an idea the bike was stolen? Or might you have had some other reason to think you were involved in criminal activity? After all, they asked you to be an informant, which suggests they had some reason to believe you were connected enough with criminal activity to be useful as an informant. They don't generally ask someone whose only crime is the theft of one bike to do that.

And why do you think the charges on the bike theft were "trumped up?" Was the bike actually stolen? If it was, I don't see how the charges could be trumped up, since that term means to "to fabricate or invent." Oxford Desk Dictionary, American Ed. If the bike was stolen and in your possession, a charge of at least possession of stolen goods wouldn't be fabricated. You might have some defense to the charge, but that doesn't mean the cops made it up and didn't have probable cause for the arrest.

The cop tells me that he knew where I had gone and asked me if I had drugs on me and I said no. Again he asks if he can search me and I say no. Thats when the Sgt. says "we can can always run you in on your original charges so let him do it." Thats when the cop takes the drugs that were on me.

The cops said they knew where you had gone. Where might that have been? If it was where you allegedly bought the drugs, that's almost certainly good enough to justify the stop. An after the cop threatened to "run you in on your original charges" did you consent to the search? If so, then if the stop was justified, the search was almost certainly good because you gave consent. The cops could have arrested you on the bike theft charges and, incident the arrest, done a search and they'd have found it anyway. Both would have been good searches.

A month later the police swarmed in on me, and as stated in their report, used the previous encounter as probable cause to execute a warrant to arrest and search me. Drugs were found and I am now approaching a court date where the judge decide if the evidence against me can be used or not.

Unless there was some defect in the warrant application, it would seem that this search is likely good. More information would be needed to determine that.

If you indeed had a stolen bike in your possession, and then illegal drugs in your possession twice, you've made some bad decisions. Especially after knowing the cops had their eye on you, buying drugs would seem to be a particularly bad choice. In any event, now is the time to make a good choice and get yourself a lawyer to help you defend against all this. If, as you say, you might face 20 years, then this is certainly not a do-it-yourself project. The lawyer will know a lot more of the detail than you've shared here, and will be able to spot any weaknesses in the state's case to exploit. But it's certainly at least possible that each search was good and that the state can go after you for the stolen bike and both drug possessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey how are you doing I have a friend who is going to trial for F1 Agg. Robbery in April he is a first time offender and has no juvenile history, he gradated from high school and was on his way to college, he has alway had a Job since he was 14 and he's a really good person he just went down the wrong path for a while he is very sorry for his action and he takes full responsibility. They have a full confession and the prosecutor is being very unreasonable he offered him to plea out to 2 F1's and take 14 years Or plea to a F1 Agg.. Rob And a F2 Felonious assault open plea, both charges have gun specs. I was just wanting to get some help for him he is a very good person he has been out on bail for 3 months and has been working and going to drug programs if you could please give me some advice he can use to help him when it come to sentencing or getting a better deal.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

corey, you've posted/piggybacked on an unrelated thread. In future, best to post as a new question elsewhere, otherwise it may be disregarded as just another follow-up response to original post.

That said, please note that you didn't bother to say where you are and it's unclear what you expect folks to say. Your friend needs local counsel (and the message boards aren't the place to look for an attorney even if we knew where you were). If he did X crimes, the prosecutor isn't obligated to offer a plea to lesser charges -- and you need to understand in general that police and prosecutors in general only care about winning and their performance record (or backing up each other). It's simply human nature at work. Do not make the mistake of thinking they care about truth, justice and the (so-called) American way. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a full confession and the prosecutor is being very unreasonable...

From your perspective, the prosecutor is being very unreasonable. But you are biased; this is your friend and you obviously want him to get the least sentence possible out of all this. But if the prosecutor has a “full confession” and assuming the confession is admissible, the prosecutor doesn’t reallly need to offer anything. After all, if the confession is admissible, the prosecutor has a pretty easy case to win a conviction before a jury if it went to trial. Your friend is accused of “aggravated robbery” and your post implies a gun was involved. If this was a robbery at gunpoint, that’s a very violent criminal offense, and neither you nor your friend should be surprised that the prosecutor has little sympathy for defendants who commit such a crime. In some states, the sentence for such a crime can be quite long indeed. You did not say in what state this is taking place, and that’s important to evaluating what he’s looking at here.

Given the serious nature of these charges, he really needs a lawyer representing him and he should discuss this case ONLY with the lawyer. Anything he tells you is not privileged and by telling you anything you become a potential witness against him should the prosecution find out about it.

As to your comment that he’s a good person, well, one can say that about a lot of criminals — they are nice people, if you ignore the crimes they committed. Of course, you can’t overlook the crimes they committed. That has to be considered in evaluating how “good” or “bad” a person is. Certainly at sentencing he can point out the good side of himself in an effort to mitigate the sentence. It won’t be a factor at trial in determining his guilt on the charged crimes, however.

Do not make the mistake of thinking they care about truth, justice and the (so-called) American way. :)

A lot of them do care. That said, if they are prosecuting you, they at least believe you committed the crime. So, it’s not surprising that they treat suspects in conformity with that belief, i.e. treating them like they are criminals. Whether or not they are right is what the jury is there to determine. It is true that courts (whether judge or jury) don’t determine some absolute truth. All they can do is evaluate the evidence that is put before the court. And if the evidence suggests the person is guilty, he'll be convicted even if the reality is he did not commit the offense at all. Likewise, the person could be guilty as sin but be judged “not guilty” because the evidence was lacking. In short, it boils down to what evidence there is in the case and what each side thinks it can do with that evidence to persuade the jury to reach the result they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stopped by a task force in AZ and did not consent to a search. After 30 minutes of questions and delays the cop ran the serial number on my bicycle and 15 minutes after that arrested me without telling me why. At the police station I was informed my bicycle was stolen and text messages on my phone could bring conspiracy charges. The police wanted me to turn informant. I stood to lose everything if I went to jail that night and so I agreed. $200 was taken from me and never returned.

I would get calls asking what I knew regarding some heavy criminal activities in which I could not offer any useful information. One evening I had missed a call from the police and 30 minutes later I was stopped by my police contact. He asked if I had any weapons and I said no. He asked me if he could search me and I said no. His Sgt. was present during the stop. The cop tells me that he knew where I had gone and asked me if I had drugs on me and I said no. Again he asks if he can search me and I say no. Thats when the Sgt. says "we can can always run you in on your original charges so let him do it." Thats when the cop takes the drugs that were on me. After that I was told to call in everyday at 3pm and sent on my way.

I complied after that but had not gotten the police any cases. A month later the police swarmed in on me, and as stated in their report, used the previous encounter as probable cause to execute a warrant to arrest and search me. Drugs were found and I am now approaching a court date where the judge decide if the evidence against me can be used or not.

These cops had it in from me and I firmly believe they trumped up the stolen bike charges that started this nightmare that could end with a 20 year sentence.

No truer words have ever been spoken by Law enforcement, "You Have the Right to Remain Silent". Every American knows these by heart. But most fail to use them when they are needed the most. For your failure this is what you receive. If during your original incounter you had requested to speak with an attorney before you agreed to anything, you would not be in this situation. Yes they can do this and are doing it. Speak with an attorney!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now