Jump to content

Fuzzz

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fuzzz

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. True. I made the assumption that if they are possessing a firearm, they would be possessing the felony level controlled substances. Even small quantities or personal use can be felonies depending on what is possessed. It is likely that if it is marijuana or a low level schedule drug it would be at the misd level.
  2. I would agree with this. Your posts are hard to follow but it is apparent that you have little understanding of how the courts operate or the procedures they follow. You made the motion at the hearing? And requested the judge sign subpoenas at the hearing? These things should have been filed in motions prior to the hearing. This allows the judge time to read over your motions and subpoenas and do any research that may be required to rule on them. Asking the judge to make a split second decision about them is improper. There are also time limits and constraints that usually govern the proper time frame to file a motion. Improperly filing a motion will almost certainly result in it being rejected. Why would you assume that and what bearing does that have on the case? The court has clerks and other staff that will be charged with keeping the courts schedule and mailing out subpoenas. They usually have a boiler plate form for the different hearings. You not realizing, being unprepared, or in over your head just points to the fact that you should seek legal aid. Its possible that you could have asked for a continuance at the hearing. Depending on how many other continuances have been granted and how you worded the motion you could have bought more time. Just saying to the judge that you are unprepared and didn't understand the purpose does not qualify as a request for continuance. See above about the will not being admitted. As already stated if you missed a deadline to file motions and subpoenas then there would be no reason to re hear the motions. There would be no motions to reconsider as no valid motions were filed. Often times when people who are unprepared and have no understanding of the court system come into the court and tell the judge he is wrong it can upset them. It is a very very bad idea to upset the judge. So what exactly is missing? Is it anything that will factually affect the case? From your initial post: Was the part that is missing you going on about "mumbo jumbo" and not about anything factual about the case? Where you discussing the will that the judge had already ruled could not be entered into evidence? Often times if your statements are incoherent or rambling about non nonsensical things they will not be included as they have no bearing on the case. Also if you discuss things that the judge has ruled will not be introduced into the trial it can be stricken from the record. This has been gone over already. You are in over your head. The court is not required or likely to try and decipher your statements. If you want a continuance, you have to specifically request it. If you want discovery, you have to specifically request it. You can not ask one thing and expect the court to magically know what you want, then file the proper motions for you. That's what attorneys are for. That is the problem with most people who represent themselves. A few hours/days of online research does not prepare you to handle a case of this caliber. Different hearings are set for different reasons. If you want certain things, such as subpoenas or discovery, you have to file them at the proper time. You go into the hearing with a pre conceived notion of what is going to happen, and it doesn't live up to it and you blame it all on the court being unfair. The best thing you can do is find some legal aid.
  3. No. If he gets in trouble for something that will be a new and separate charge. Unless his actions provide some direct evidence to the unknown reason he was arrested for. The prosecutor can wait until the end of the statute of limitations before filing charges, although it is generally frowned upon to hold charges for no valid reason (And I've seen minor cases dismissed by a judge before when the prosecutor couldn't explain why charges were delayed). Depending on the charges they may have had to wait on an outside agencies, such as a lab, before charging. People not getting court paperwork because "they moved" is their own fault. Most states have laws that require you to update your address within a short time after moving and courts usually send out multiple notices. Those are basic charges?? I didn't see if you listed a state but I am confident in saying that these have a high probability of being felonies in most states. Those are beyond "basic crimes" and most likely result in large fines and jail/prison time. Some states (including mine) require these types of crimes to go through a grand jury prior to formal charges being filed. While my county has one that hears cases every work day, the county next to us only hears cases one day every two weeks. Its possible that they are just getting their case together before going through the filing process. And that could be further delayed if they are waiting on lab results or other evidence from outside sources. As stated if he shows up to the next date and no charges are filed he should get his bond back. If he believes the officers did not have probable cause to make the arrest he can seek an attorney to review the incident and advise him what the next steps would be. Just be cautious not to confuse the fact that no charges were filed meaning the arrest lacked probable cause.
  4. What is her side of the story? Did the officer speak with her? These are questions that you will need for your defense. I would not completely rely on anything that SHE has told you as she apparently has issues of her own to deal with. Its very possible that the officer spoke to her and she advised that SHE had left first, then told you that she never spoke with the officer. Until you get the officer's report your kind of shooting in the dark. The officer telling you that your are receiving charges is just a courtesy. Ultimately it is up to the prosecutor. If you are charged you will receive paperwork from the court. You will be notified of your official charges when you are arraigned.
  5. That is the thing about courts. Not all justices agree on every case. In fact it is not very common for there to be a unanimous decision. The thing is that it is the majority that set the case law. The dissenting opinions can some times shed light and expound on the issues, but they do not set case law. The precedent that was set in the case remains dependent on whether the party felt free to terminate the encounter. It still is precedent that police blocking in vehicles does not automatically convert the consensual encounter into a 4th a amendment seizure. Just because two justices dissented does not change the case law. Are there times where officers have blocked people in or obstructed them leaving that turned it into a 4th amendment seizure? Yes quite a few. But painting a broad picture that just merely parking to the front or rear of a vehicle or approaching someone automatically makes it a seizure is incorrect. You must look at the totality of the circumstances, what the officers said and did, and what the individual perceived and did during the encounter. Well there is one major difference between this case and what the OP posted. Both sides stated that Brown refused to identify himself, attempted to terminate the encounter, and was subsequently detained and arrested. The act of the officers approaching and speaking with Brown did not convert the encounter into a 4th amendment seizure. That did not occur until Brown was detained and arrested. The initial encounter was consensual and lawful, it was the application of the Texas stop and identify law to seize Brown that violated the 4th amendment. In OP's post he never stated that he refused to answer questions, attempted to terminate the encounter, felt like he could not terminate the encounter, was detained, was arrested, was charged, or was any other way stopped from going about his business PRIOR to the discovery of what I suspect is narcotics. May he have a case? Possibly. But claiming that he was "clearly" seized in violation of the 4th amendment is a huge stretch and not supported by anything that the OP stated in his post. There would need to be a LOT more facts and details about what exactly was said, what the OP did, where the cruisers where parked, did he try to terminate the encounter, was he detained, etc. Until those are clearly answered there is no way that you can argue a clear violation of the constitution. (In case the OP comes back- Seek out an attorney and give him all the details. This is beyond an internet forum.) Well that is your opinion (A very ignorant one IMHO). Its my rights and I can exercise them as I please. If an officer came up to me and asked for consent to search my vehicle its my choice to say yes or no. Maybe I have extra time and I will consent. Maybe I am running late and will say no. Either choice it is my RIGHT to do with as I please. Just because I temporarily waive one right in certain circumstances does not mean the I surrender ALL of my rights ALL THE TIME. Have you ever been to court? The right to a speedy trial is routinely waived at the request of the court. It makes scheduling their docket a lot more manageable. Most defendants do it in the hopes that the officer, the victim, the star witness, etc., are not available on the set court date months later and their case gets dismissed. Often times waiving this right is beneficial to the individual. Other times they will not waive their right if they believe the prosecution is not prepared. This runs them into the time limit wall and often results in dismissals too. Just because one case it is beneficial to waive a right does not mean that they will ALWAYS waive ALL of their rights or give them up to the government. (Also I just want to clarify that the Constitution does NOT grant rights. But that is a more technical issue and it is commonly accepted to state someones 4th amendment rights. For the sake of our argument I will keep with your wording. This is a common misunderstanding and I just like to point it out for educational purposes.)
  6. Wow talk about doing some Olympic style contorting on that one. You are trying to split hairs but are on the wrong side. That law does not make the conversation itself illegal, just the content of it. You could go and strike up a conversation with anyone and talk to them for hours on end and it be legal. But the second you asked them to do a specific act it would then be illegal. The words and intent would make it illegal, not the act of conversing with someone. Also it does not specify that it would need to be a conversation. You could pass a note, send an email, old fashion snail mail, or any other way you could get your request across. So no this does not come close to "prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process". It just prevents someone from going up to someone and asking for a specific thing. That is close, but cot completely accurate. The supreme court has sated "one must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence." This case dealt with a consent search but has been used as the standard for consensual encounters. Even in cases where police have blocked in vehicles, that did not automatically convert it to a 4th amendment seizure. No this would not clearly demonstrate that. The OP stated he pulled into Walmart with the intent to go inside. Last I checked you couldn't drive a truck into Walmart to get milk. Clearly the OP would have to park his vehicle and get out.The officers could have legally parked their vehicles to the front and rear of OP's truck after he stopped. He never stated that he was blocked in, if they activated their lights, or if the used some other form of authority to make him believe he was not free terminate the encounter. Just that one was positioned to the front, and one to the rear of his truck. Beyond that the OP stated his intent was to presumably walk inside the store to pick up milk. If his truck was temporarily blocked by the parked cruisers this would not stop or obstruct him from merely walking inside as he had already planned prior to the encounter. No you are clearly not a lawyer and should definitely do some research before posting advice and getting into arguments with people who have clearly done that.
×
×
  • Create New...