Get rid of the candy man (credit, lawyer, closing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did read this...and it makes sense b/c Florida is so close to Mexico it could be a port of transport for drugs from Mexico. However, trying to find examples of the car situation you mentioned, sorry no luck on that.
That's because it's not true. The only one who can be arrested is the person who's in possession of either the drugs, the vehicle, or the bag/container/etc that the drugs are in. Depending on the drugs type and weight of the drugs found, they'd be charged with either felonious or misdemeanor possession which falls under the 893 section of the FL statutes. But, hey, what do I know, right?
Sigh. I grew up in Suffolk. Here visiting mom, pop and the rest of the gang. I've read these forums, and the FL forums for months. Personally, whether or not you believe me, I don't really give a damn, but if you're going to spew incorrect information around, then I'm going to call you out on it. I'd advise you to do some research onlineand look up case law and the proper laws dealing with narcotics.
Do you know the minimum age to join C-D? Have you reached that age on your last birthday?
I did read this...and it makes sense b/c Florida is so close to Mexico it could be a port of transport for drugs from Mexico. However, trying to find examples of the car situation you mentioned, sorry no luck on that.
That's because not every little thing ends up in the media.
I will try and find an example that got a lot of press for you.
Do you know the minimum age to join C-D? Have you reached that age on your last birthday?
Very intelligent. You know you've won an argument and that the other person is out of ammo when they resort to comments like that. What's odd, is that I don't recall making any comments that'd even remotely give you the idea that I was a kid.
You gave out incorrect information, not maliciously of course, just because you're naive on the subject which is understandable, and you got called out and proven wrong. Accept it and move on.
That's because it's not true. The only one who can be arrested is the person who's in possession of either the drugs, the vehicle, or the bag/container/etc that the drugs are in. Depending on the drugs type and weight of the drugs found, they'd be charged with either felonious or misdemeanor possession which falls under the 893 section of the FL statutes. But, hey, what do I know, right?
What are your thoughts on mandatory minimum sentencing and its effect on women?
In case you don't know what that is, here is some background:
In recent years, federal courts around the country have seen an emergence of a new type of drug offender--women who are minimally involved in drug crime, but are disparately punished by the existing criminal justice system. These women are the wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, and nieces, who become involved in crime because of their financial dependence on, fear of, or romantic attachment to a male drug trafficker. These "women of circumstance" find themselves incarcerated and subject to draconian sentences because the men in their lives persuade, force, or trick them into carrying drugs.
Very intelligent. You know you've won an argument and that the other person is out of ammo when they resort to comments like that. What's odd, is that I don't recall making any comments that'd even remotely give you the idea that I was a kid.
You gave out incorrect information, not maliciously of course, just because you're naive on the subject which is understandable, and you got called out and proven wrong. Accept it and move on.
Nothing has been proved.
Is this how you prepare for court, officer, when you are gathering proof?
March 9, 2009 Miami Tourist Arrested for Grand Theft/Drug Possession: Retaining a Local Attorney Resulted in No Conviction
A black Toyota sporting an out of state license, a broken windshield and a missing front bumper was enough to create suspicion in Miami-Dade police officers of criminal activity. The official police report stated the automobile matched the description of a vehicle used in an armed robbery the night before.
The traffic stop resulted in the arrest of 3 individuals, one of them being a 29 year old, disabled individual, who was on vacation in Florida. Charges against the Indiana resident included: Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree, possession of stolen property and possession of a controlled substance in violation of Fla. Statutes Section 893.13(6)(a).
The out of state resident, whose health was not well, turned to the legal defense team at Musca Law. Our firm was able to get quick results and the felony charge of Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree was dismissed. In the State of Florida, Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison. The out of state resident still faced serious drug related charges but was relieved to have local criminal defense attorneys fighting on his behalf.
The defendant returned to his home state of Indiana but because of debilitating health problems was unable to return to Dade County to attend Plea hearings. The Court issued a bench warrant which would allow law enforcement officials of any jurisdiction to take the defendant into custody. The Court also estreated, or forfeited, the defendant's bond for failure to appear at the Plea hearing.
Once again, our criminal defense attorneys moved quickly motioning the Court to set aside the bench warrant and reinstate the defendant's original bond. The Court found good cause had been shown in the Motion. The Court agreed with the legal defense presented by our attorneys, that the defendant's failure to appear was unintentional and he had extenuating circumstances because of his health problems. In addition, the fact he had maintained representation with a local attorney appearing on his behalf at the Plea, was enough for the Court. The Court determined the defendant's absence did not cause any disruption or delay to the disposition of this cause. The bench warrant was dismissed and the original bond was reinstated. The bond agency had no objection to reinstating the original bond while the Court proceedings on the drug related charge continued.
*******
All three individuals were arrested. The police didn't pick out which one actually had the drugs. They don't have to. It's actually impossible to determine if the drugs were in a common area of the car and not, say, in someone's pocket or purse. Nobody would admit it's their drugs and all would blame the other. So what happens then? Police sends them home and waves bye bye? It's enough that there were drugs in the car and it doesn't matter "who" they actually belonged to.
In March of 1991, Stanley and Cynthia were arrested after Stanley sold $5,700 worth of crack cocaine to undercover agents. Cynthia was in Stanley's car, which made her part of the drugs sold, and in his possession.
What are your thoughts on mandatory minimum sentencing and its effect on women?
In case you don't know what that is, here is some background:
In recent years, federal courts around the country have seen an emergence of a new type of drug offender--women who are minimally involved in drug crime, but are disparately punished by the existing criminal justice system. These women are the wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, and nieces, who become involved in crime because of their financial dependence on, fear of, or romantic attachment to a male drug trafficker. These "women of circumstance" find themselves incarcerated and subject to draconian sentences because the men in their lives persuade, force, or trick them into carrying drugs.
Soooooo, they're in possession? Glad that's settled. Big difference between being in possession and getting locked up, then bein in the car with someone who's in possession. Next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but
Nothing has been proved.
Is this how you prepare for court, officer, when you are gathering proof?
Don't need to gather anything. YOU flat out said they were in possession. First you were talking about EVERYONE being arrested from a vehicle because there were drugs in the car, and now you're talking about women IN POSSESSION being arrested. I don't care HOW or WHY they're in possession. If they're dumb enough to get themselves into that situation, or dumb enough to be tricked into carrying drugs, oh well.
March 9, 2009 Miami Tourist Arrested for Grand Theft/Drug Possession: Retaining a Local Attorney Resulted in No Conviction
A black Toyota sporting an out of state license, a broken windshield and a missing front bumper was enough to create suspicion in Miami-Dade police officers of criminal activity. The official police report stated the automobile matched the description of a vehicle used in an armed robbery the night before.
The traffic stop resulted in the arrest of 3 individuals, one of them being a 29 year old, disabled individual, who was on vacation in Florida. Charges against the Indiana resident included: Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree, possession of stolen property and possession of a controlled substance in violation of Fla. Statutes Section 893.13(6)(a).
The out of state resident, whose health was not well, turned to the legal defense team at Musca Law. Our firm was able to get quick results and the felony charge of Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree was dismissed. In the State of Florida, Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison. The out of state resident still faced serious drug related charges but was relieved to have local criminal defense attorneys fighting on his behalf.
The defendant returned to his home state of Indiana but because of debilitating health problems was unable to return to Dade County to attend Plea hearings. The Court issued a bench warrant which would allow law enforcement officials of any jurisdiction to take the defendant into custody. The Court also estreated, or forfeited, the defendant's bond for failure to appear at the Plea hearing.
Once again, our criminal defense attorneys moved quickly motioning the Court to set aside the bench warrant and reinstate the defendant's original bond. The Court found good cause had been shown in the Motion. The Court agreed with the legal defense presented by our attorneys, that the defendant's failure to appear was unintentional and he had extenuating circumstances because of his health problems. In addition, the fact he had maintained representation with a local attorney appearing on his behalf at the Plea, was enough for the Court. The Court determined the defendant's absence did not cause any disruption or delay to the disposition of this cause. The bench warrant was dismissed and the original bond was reinstated. The bond agency had no objection to reinstating the original bond while the Court proceedings on the drug related charge continued.
*******
All three individuals were arrested. The police didn't pick out which one actually had the drugs. They don't have to. It's actually impossible to determine if the drugs were in a common area of the car and not, say, in someone's pocket or purse. Nobody would admit it's their drugs and all would blame the other. So what happens then? Police sends them home and waves bye bye? It's enough that there were drugs in the car and it doesn't matter "who" they actually belonged to.
1. It doesn't say what the OTHER 2 were arrested or NOT ARRESTED for.
2. It doesn't say if the car was in fact the same one used in the armed robbery the previous night (if so, we can assume that the other 2 were arrested and charged with robbery - seems logical considering the person you're referring to WAS ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY AND POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.)
3. If drugs are found in the common area of the car there are ways to determine who they belong to and who to charge. They involve tactics I'm not going to mention on a public forum. If that doesn't work, the drugs are impounded as found property. Just because there are drugs, doesn't mean you have to arrest someone for them- especially if you can't prove who had them. You need to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that suspect A had them. Well, any decent lawyer is going to throw up the flag and say "no no no, suspect B had them" It creates doubt, and the case will be dropped. AS AN OFFICER, I know not to even MAKE the arrest because A. the DA won't file charges, and B. Even if they do, it will get dropped in court.
good job but be very careful. a few severe beatings or killlings can stop a neighborhood attempt to get rid of the dealers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cynthia Clark of Florida: Prisoner of the Drug Wars
