Can I be charged w/ possession for pills found in my property when released from jail

[cyrus_2112]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana
Can I be charged with possession of a controlled substance if pills were found in my personal property when being processed for release from jail. I was arrested for driving on a suspended license and when being processed for release, an officer noted that there was "medicine" listed in my property inventory. He got all barney fife on me and pulled them out, looked them up on line, and found out they were diazepam (valium). They were not found on my person when searched but somehow ended up in my property. I did sign an acknowledgment form as does everyone, without even reading it, but it only said medicine on it. The cop said i would need to provide proof of a prescription or would be charged. When I went to court for my initial hearing, the prosecutor said I would have to provide a script when I came back or would be charged with a class D felony. My question is: Can those charges stick if contested? I have yet to hire an attorney, and do plan on it, but don't have the funds yet. The facts are, they weren't logged in with a name and/or as evidence, and how they got in my property has yet to be answered. Are there custody issues here? Since they weren't found on me, and I never was found in possession on my body, are these charges valid? Please help with some constructive advice as I am willing to take this to a jury trial if necessary, but would like to avoid it if these charges are weak? Thanks

[HighwayMan]

What do you mean when you say he "got all Barney Fife on me"?

Drugs or weapons do not have to be on your person in order for you to be charged with possession.

So you're saying that the pills weren't yours? Or just not on your person when arrested? If they were in your car when you were locked up that's constructive possession and they might as well have been in your pocket.

You signed the property inventory acknowledging that the list was correct. Shame on you for not reading it more carefully. Your property was inventoried and you were asked to sign it for a reason. But of course, that issue doesn't mean much if the pills were in your car.

If you plan on fighting this there is no doubt that you should get an attorney.

[cyrus_2112]

What I meant by that is it was as if he had made an arrest and he got all excited, like yeah, look what I found. He was a corrections office and not a police officer. He wanted to know who my doctor was and I gave him his name. He then proceeded to call the doctors office, explain who he was, that i had been arrested, and was requesting personal medical information. That was humiliating. The doctor wasn't in. You can say shame on me for signing it, and that may end up being the case in the end, but, when you are in a situation of arrest you under extreme duress. Your mind is on your job, your future, wanting to get home, etc. they put all kinds of forms in front of you to sign. Your property has long been taken away, its not as if its in front of you and you are asked to check each thing off. There were probably a dozen or more things listed. Anyway, that's what I meant

[HighwayMan]

So what about your possession? Or are you going to ignore the question?

[cyrus_2112]

No I am not ignoring it, I just don't know what to do. These are serious charges. I just know that I didn't possess valium.

[HighwayMan]

So the pills were not in your car somewhere?

[cyrus_2112]

no they had to have been on me, yet, they emptied my pockets out and searched me thoroughly and I never saw them. They were never shown to me or pointed out to me.

[HighwayMan]

So they WERE yours?

[cyrus_2112]

whatever, you're a cop and you have the same barney fife mentality. You just want to say, "gotcha"! There is a thing called procedure, and we should be protected in instances when protocal isn't followed. There are plenty of crooked co's and cops out there that lie as a part of their job. They act above the law and when they catch you doing something you shouldn't be, the fact that they didn't follow procedure is irrelevant, its the old, if you have nothing to hide, then let me look through you purse, or your car, or your house, or whatever. Well, that's what got me into this situation and I intend on fighting it, because you shouldn't be able to break the law in order to enforce it.

[HighwayMan]

Originally Posted by cyrus_2112

no they had to have been on me, yet, they emptied my pockets out and searched me thoroughly and I never saw them. They were never shown to me or pointed out to me.

They had to have been on you? Why? You seem to be implying that they were planted on you by the authorities, yet you won't come out and deny that they were yours. When I asked you to confirm that they were yours you started on a tirade and name calling.

They were pointed out to you - they were listed on the inventory which you signed.

There was no requirement that anyone notify you immediately that you were in trouble for possession.

Nothing that you described indicates wrong doing. You were arrested. Search incident to lawful arrest (an exception to the search warrant requirement) resulted in all of your property being taken from you and inventoried. Lo and behold, something illegal was found in your possession and now you are looking for an easy way out. You are trying to say the authorities broke the law. How?

[CdwJava]

You say you acknowledged some "medicine" on your property. Was there any other "medicine" besides these pills? Have you ever denied that these pills were yours? Did you make any statements to the officers at the time that the pills were yours?

Your attorney is free to raise any issue he wishes. He won't be able to argue they were planted without any proof, but he might be able to argue a lack of a clear connection to you and the possibility that the pills may have come from another source during the property inventory process. However, if the booking officer that searched you testifies that he did, indeed, pull those pills from your pocket, you are likely in deep doo-doo.