ecstasy residue possession charges?

[breakfst4dinner]

I live in Tennessee and tonight my boyfriend, who is 19, got pulled over by the cops when he was with his friend, who is 17.
they searched the 17 year old, he had weed on him. so he was charged for marijuana possession.
then they searched my boyfriend and found a straw and a bag with residue from a crushed up ecstasy pill. they charged him for ecstasy possession, being with a minor, and paraphenilia.
he has a court date set and I just wanted to know how much trouble he might be in.
and since there was only a small bit of residue how can they charge him for possession? and how long would that result in prison?

the cops also went through each of their phones and read their texts.
I didn't think they were allowed to do that.

so someone educate me, please?

 

[BIGGIE78]

Yes, your bf can be charged with possession of ecstasy. Ecstasy (or MDMA) is a schedule III drug, and carries a MAXIMUM prison sentence of 3 years. The straw IS drug paraphernalia. Once a person is placed under arrest, their car/personal belongings can legally be searched. Therefore, yes, it was legal for them to read their text's.

 

[FlyingRon]

MDMA is a schedule I drug actually.
It ought to be schedule III but the DEA administratively raised it.

 

[BIGGIE78]

MDMA is a schedule I drug actually.
It ought to be schedule III but the DEA administratively raised it.

i guess that's what i get for trusting wikipedia!

 

[CdwJava]

It used to be a Schedule III in CA (and I suspect some other states) but it was recently raised to Schedule I (in 2003 or so, as I recall), so you're not completely off base.

- Carl

 

[FlyingRon]

Carl, it has been a schedule I since the mid eighties when most people heard of it. It was one of the so-called designer drugs of the time that came out to skirt the fact that another drug MDA (was and probably should be) a schedule I. I remember all that going down, it was quite the scene in NYC at the time.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, it has been a schedule I since the mid eighties when most people heard of it. It was one of the so-called designer drugs of the time that came out to skirt the fact that another drug MDA (was and probably should be) a schedule I. I remember all that going down, it was quite the scene in NYC at the time.

It was a schedule III under CA state law until a bill was introduced to change it in 2002 or 2003 as I recall. It was quite the story in the drug warrior world out here. It may well have been Schedule I under federal law, but not here in CA. I believe it had more to do with how MDMA was classified as a result of its makeup (treated as an analog), and the law changed to clarify that issue placing it in line with federal recommendations.

- Carl

 

[FlyingRon]

I was speaking of the federal scheduling. I don't know what you dope heads in California are doing.

 

[CdwJava]

I was speaking of the federal scheduling. I don't know what you dope heads in California are doing.

Ah, but Biggie78 said he got his info from Wikipedia. He stated it was Schedule III and you said it was Schedule I. I consoled him by advising him that in CA it used to be Schedule III and noted that Wikipedia did, in fact, list CA as having it as Schedule III and the feds having it at Schedule I. So, all he did was read the wrong heading and one that was, up until a few short years ago, correct.

And, in each of my posts I DID mention that it was a Schedule III in CA and you DID tell me it has been a Schedule I since the 1980s ... which it wasn't.

- Carl

 

[skylerhouse]

A decent lawyer should be able to get the charge reduced to possession of paraphernalia, which is a misdemeanor in most if not all Jurisdictions. Slap on the wrist, and we move right along.

And a little help for BIGGIE78 - A recent US Supreme Court Ruling (don't have the text in front of me) has made it much more difficult for police officers to search personal property, especially automobiles, without obtaining a warrant. In MANY CASES where it was considered acceptable, it is now considered illegal search and seizure without a warrant. Although, I should mention, it's not possible to elaborate on this particular case, as there is not enough information.

 

[41tellthetruth]

Search

I would question the search of the text messages. I can see the police taking the phone and applying for a warrant to search it later. I know in my state (AK) if I seize a phone I have to get a warrant to extract the information on the phone i.e. contacts, text messages, pictures etc. But my state has a very restrictive state constitution when it comes to privacy

 

[Zigner]

The phone is a red herring - what "evidence" was obtained by the search that will affect the case if it's thrown out?