Oregon pot stop

[HappyWanderer]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR

I have a friend (really) who was arrested in Oregon for possession of marijuana. His wife has cancer and has the official card from the state. He is her primary caregiver, but doesn't have a card. She usually got her own pot, but has recently took a turn for the worse and couldn't drive. So, he went to purchase some.

On the way home there was a checkpoint on the highway by the State patrol. Rather then go through the checkpoint to his house just past, he got off before the roadblock. Once off, a police car with a K-9 pulled him over and asked him why he got off before the roadblock. He said it was because he didn't want the hassle of going through the check. The cop brought out his dog and it "alerted" on the pot. The cop gave my friend a citation for possession and not for any traffic or other offense.

Was the stop legal?

Can my friend plead in court he is the primary caregiver even though he doesn't have a card?

 

[FlyingRon]

He's only the primary caregiver as far as the law is concerned if he was identified on the application.

The stop may not be unreasonable. What do you mean he "got off" and how was he approached by the cops. If he was already stopped the cops don't need a reason to questioning him.

 

[HappyWanderer]

I don't know if he was on the wife's application. I will ask.

By "got off" I mean he took the offramp from the limited access highway he was on before the checkpoint/roadblock. They put up warning signs in a "prepare to stop" way. The K-9 car was on the offramp and as he passed the police turned on his lights and my friend pulled over.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR

I have a friend (really) who was arrested in Oregon for possession of marijuana. His wife has cancer and has the official card from the state. He is her primary caregiver, but doesn't have a card. She usually got her own pot, but has recently took a turn for the worse and couldn't drive. So, he went to purchase some.

On the way home there was a checkpoint on the highway by the State patrol. Rather then go through the checkpoint to his house just past, he got off before the roadblock. Once off, a police car with a K-9 pulled him over and asked him why he got off before the roadblock. He said it was because he didn't want the hassle of going through the check. The cop brought out his dog and it "alerted" on the pot. The cop gave my friend a citation for possession and not for any traffic or other offense.

Was the stop legal?


**A: yes.


##########
Can my friend plead in court he is the primary caregiver even though he doesn't have a card?

**A: yes, he can plead in court. He should also beg for mercy too.

 

[HappyWanderer]

When I found out about my friend, I tried to learn a little about the law using the magic internet. After looking some things up I wanted to check my understanding and came here. Even before I wrote, I saw another person write on something which was almost the same thing. At least it seemed to me. That story "failure to stop at the direction of a police officer" was closed. I don't think most of the writers were correct with the law and many of them were "senior members".

Same here. I could be wrong and I know the case I did find doesn't cover OR, but when you read the case it certainly seems to come out differently from how the members answered in the other thread and really, really seems to come out differently then the above answer in this thread.

Now it is different in that here we're talking about a couple of ounces of marijuana and not 100 kilograms. Other than that, the important things seem the same. U.S. v. Yousif 308 F.3d 820 decided:

We review the district court's conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Booker, 269 F.3d 930 (8th Cir.2001). In Edmond, a class action brought on behalf of all motorists stopped or subject to being stopped at the Indianapolis drug checkpoints, the Supreme Court held that the Indianapolis checkpoint program violated the Fourth Amendment because it operated for the purpose of uncovering evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing (drug trafficking) without individualized reasonable suspicion. The Sugar Tree Road checkpoint program, as it was operated in the present case, similarly violated the Fourth Amendment insofar as its primary purpose was the interdiction of drug trafficking (which the government concedes) and the officers operating the Sugar Tree Road checkpoint were under instructions to stop every vehicle that took the Sugar Tree Road exit. While the checkpoint at issue in the present case differs from the checkpoint at issue in Edmond in that the MHP used signs to suggest to drivers that taking the Sugar Tree Road exit was a way to avoid a police checkpoint, the mere fact that some vehicles took the exit under such circumstances does not, in our opinion, create individualized reasonable suspicion of illegal activity as to every one of them. Indeed, as the government's evidence indicated, while some drivers may have wanted to avoid being caught for drug trafficking, many more took the exit for wholly innocent reasons — such as wanting to avoid the inconvenience and delay of being stopped or because it was part of their intended route. See Mag. Rep. I at 2-3.3 General profiles that fit large numbers of innocent people do not establish reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Eustaquio, 198 F.3d 1068, 1071 (8th Cir.1999) (Eustaquio). Without first stopping the vehicles and questioning the drivers, the police had no way to determine why any particular vehicles were exiting at the Sugar Tree Road ramp. Finding a quantum of individualized suspicion only after a stop occurs cannot justify the stop itself. "That result would have the same essential vice as a proposition we have consistently rejected — that a search unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up." Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 484, 83 S.Ct. 407.

To me, detentions are illegal unless the police have an individualized suspicion. Here and when one is parked on the street.

In the TEN seconds I spent searching the internet, I just found 490 F.3d 765 U.S. v. Washington which is the law in Alaska (the other story I was talking about). It might be good for some senior members to read that one and learn the rules on when the police are legally able to detain a person.

 

[dave33]

It depends how much money you have and how much you are willing to risk. If the judge or d.a.does not dismiss because of the card than is he willing to spend thousands of dollars and god knows how many days in court.You have to keep in mind the case you quoted was an appeal. That means he already lost at trial. If he was charged in state court and ended up at the federal level it could mean several appeals. It is also a different state. Not that it matters because it looks as if he lost all state attempts. That means a lot of time and money. If you cannot afford an attorney one will not be appointed for an appeal. That case and that person was probably in alot more trouble and had no choice but to fight, not to mention a good deal of resources. Principal can be a very expensive stand to take. Than there are no guarantees.Goodluck.

 

[Joshuaace2]

The checkpoint was after the exit? that is unusual. If that is the case though, I agree the police would need to articulate a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

 

[FlyingRon]

The checkpoint was after the exit? that is unusual. If that is the case though, I agree the police would need to articulate a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

Reasonable suspicion is not there if they have a sign saying "DRUG CHECKPOINT AHEAD" and look for people bailing?

 

[Joshuaace2]

I didn't know making a lawful turn from one roadway to another was "bailing".

That is why I find it unusual the checkpoint was after an exit.

 

[HomeGuru]

I didn't know making a lawful turn from one roadway to another was "bailing".

That is why I find it unusual the checkpoint was after an exit.

**A: they set that location on purpose to allow drinkers and druggies to bail, so that the cops can nab them.

 

[Joshuaace2]

**A: they set that location on purpose to allow drinkers and druggies to bail, so that the cops can nab them.

Instead of placing the checkpoint before the exit, where everyone has to proceed through it? I fail to see any logic in that.

Again I will ask when making a lawful turn from one roadway to another became "bailing". It could just as easily be the case that exit was on your route to your destination.

 

[HappyWanderer]

I know looking up a case and reading it may be hard and take some time from your busy schedule of Wild Ass Guessing. That is why I supplied the decision. Let me refine further.

Indeed, as the government's evidence indicated, while some drivers may have wanted to avoid being caught for drug trafficking, many more took the exit for wholly innocent reasons — such as wanting to avoid the inconvenience and delay of being stopped or because it was part of their intended route. See Mag. Rep. I at 2-3.3 General profiles that fit large numbers of innocent people do not establish reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Eustaquio, 198 F.3d 1068, 1071 (8th Cir.1999) (Eustaquio). Without first stopping the vehicles and questioning the drivers, the police had no way to determine why any particular vehicles were exiting at the Sugar Tree Road ramp. Finding a quantum of individualized suspicion only after a stop occurs cannot justify the stop itself.

I think the stop was illegal. At least it would be if OR was covered by the case. I think I'll base my WAG on an appellate court decision over the WAGgers here.

It doesn't make a difference though. Friend didn't have a card. The card would have given him immunity per [475.309 Registry identification card; issuance; eligibility; duties of cardholder; immunity.] That does not make him guilty it just changes it to something called an affirmative defense. It will be cheaper and easier for him to get a card in the future and he will. By my layman's reading though, he's not guilty.

475.319 Affirmative defense to certain criminal laws involving marijuana; notice. (1) Except as provided in ORS 475.316 and 475.342, it is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge of possession or production of marijuana, or any other criminal offense in which possession or production of marijuana is an element, that the person charged with the offense is a person who:

(a) Has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition within 12 months prior to arrest and been advised by the person’s attending physician that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of that debilitating medical condition;

(b) Is engaged in the medical use of marijuana; and

(c) Possesses or produces marijuana only in amounts permitted under ORS 475.320.

(2) It is not necessary for a person asserting an affirmative defense pursuant to this section to have received a registry identification card in order to assert the affirmative defense established in this section.

(3) No person engaged in the medical use of marijuana who claims that marijuana provides medically necessary benefits and who is charged with a crime pertaining to such use of marijuana shall be precluded from presenting a defense of choice of evils, as set forth in ORS 161.200, or from presenting evidence supporting the necessity of marijuana for treatment of a specific disease or medical condition, provided that the amount of marijuana at issue is no greater than permitted under ORS 475.320 and the patient has taken a substantial step to comply with the provisions of ORS 475.300 to 475.346.

(4) Any defendant proposing to use the affirmative defense provided for by this section in a criminal action shall, not less than five days before the trial of the cause, file and serve upon the district attorney a written notice of the intention to offer such a defense that specifically states the reasons why the defendant is entitled to assert and the factual basis for such affirmative defense. If the defendant fails to file and serve such notice, the defendant is not permitted to assert the affirmative defense at the trial of the cause unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. [1999 c.4 §6; 1999 c.825 §4; 2005 c.22 §347; 2005 c.822 §12]

 

[HappyWanderer]

The attitude towards things which seem clear to me to be government overreaching, is astonishing. Let's play reality for a minute. A CHIEF JUSTICE of an appellate court feels YOU are guilty of a FELONY. Read the book. It's on Amazon, the justice is Kozinski. There are at least three others in the last year who claim the same thing. (But, they're not as "official".) A felony. You should all should be in prison.

Claim all you want how you are not a felon according to the current law, but he makes a strong case you are. Felon. Year(s) in prison. Yet, it is clear many here don't think they're bad guys and that cops should be given great latitude on things even though it seems clear they overreach. Educate yourselves, unless you think you have more education and experience than an appellate court justice who has risen to the level of chief.

The acceptance of a person's word who has personal benefit from arresting and convicting people as a general matter is bizarre to me. Cops want to convict people. They get professional, monetary and personal benefit from this. Many studies and books and articles describe this. Yet, there are people here who think the SOLE reason a person is stopped is because a cop thinks they shoud be is OK. OK, because a guy who gains benefit from it being true thinks so. Astonishing. What is the Constitution? What is freedom? Describe it to me because the great majority of this place has a very different idea than I.

I've come here for a very specific reason and the answers received were generally incompetent and didn't even address what I perceive to be current law by the courts, let alone what I think it SHOULD be according to the Social Contract theory of government.

You should be ashamed of yourselves. What do you think America is? What do you think freedom is?

Do any of you know the Constitution and what is says? I'm not so sure, even when the court interpretation is included. You are a felon. Only the good feelings of the prosecutor or cop, prevents you from having to defend yourselves. Sad when how polite you are to the government (or, it's representative) is the SOLE reason you are in the sausage grinder or not. I pity all the wimps who go along to get along. I'm glad some don't feel that way. I think the fighter's are America. I think the wimps are a Europe who will soon be subsumed by those who care about something--no matter how much the wimps disagree.

Look at the basic thing you all know. Giving legal advice over the internet is an unauthorized practice of law. Most states a misdemeanor. But, anyone who writes, unless they are an attorney who is a member of the bar in the state of the subject matter, is committing a crime. Attorneys who speak outside of their approved state also commit an ethical violation.

Go to sleep with the sure comfort you talked down a criminal. I bet most who did the talking down is also a CRIMINAL for that very posting. And, that's not even dealing with the many books describing your other felonies.

Judgmental dumbasses.

 

[Joshuaace2]

Reasonable suspicion is not there if they have a sign saying "DRUG CHECKPOINT AHEAD" and look for people bailing?

I believe he said the sign read "prepare to stop".

Doesn't it irritate you when a new poster leads you to believe his knowledge is acquired by watching 30 year old t.v. shows, and the next thing you know, he's posting case law and statutes. Geeesh, the nerve of this guy, he can actually read.

Now he probably went a little too far calling everybody felons, and he should go back and read the disclaimer where he registered. But his citing of case law was on point.

Why are some of the Seniors here offended when a new member has read some case law? I experienced this too, and I just don't understand it.