Found weed in the house charged us all can I beat it?

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

Also there are several such cases. Constructive possession must meet several specific criteria. One very specific is that the state would have to prove he knew of the drug and had control over it. No where does o.p. even insinuate this,therefore he was not in constructive possession of the drug. You would of had us believe just being within a certain proximity o.p. was guilty. That is not the case at all and o.p. meets none of the criteria for cons. poss. It is a theory in every sense of the word. So how about this, you go play lawyer somewhere else.

You are wrong again. The OP stated " we had smoked everything we had that night." Work on your reading comprehension pretentious dave. You can not reasonably argue that he did not have constructive possession either.

By the way, Robinson v. Florida, not Florida v. Robinson, was a case that reversed the convictions of several white and African American persons who were refused service at a restaurant based upon a prior Court decision, holding that a Florida regulation requiring a restaurant that employed or served persons of both races to have separate lavatory rooms resulted in the state becoming entangled in racial discriminatory activity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Just more proof that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Go play lawyer somewhere else pretentious dave.

[dave33]

The op stated that on this forum. That has no relevance to what he told the police (nothing). 2 seperate issues what was said here, what was said at the scene. He made no such statement to the police. Therefore legally he had no prior knowledge. Even if he did say he smoked everything, that would again mean he had no knowledge of anything else. Well than obviously there is more than 1 Robinson in Fl. Try and understand the op did not make any statement. You talk about my reading comprehension,yet you cannot comprehend that. Also as stated there are several cons. poss. cases. They have to meet strict criteria. That was and is the point. Just because op was present along with other people does not (as you would like to believe) make them guilty. I suspect the strict criteria is in place for people who would charge everybody. That is why we do not hear of it more often,because the state has to prove knowledge and control among other things. They have neither one. So nope sorry wrong again. Nice try, but still leaning towards the ridiculous.Go play lawyer somewhere else preposterous ERAUKIPE

[Joshuaace2]

Can OP be charged with a possessory crime in this case? Sure. Is he liable to be convicted? Not given the circumstances, unless of course, someone fingers him as the owner, and testifies too it.

[HighwayMan]

Originally Posted by Joshuaace2

If mj was found in a common area at a sporting event, and was unclaimed by anyone, would all in attendance be the possessors? I think not.

Two different situations. One is a public area, one is a private one with limited access.

[Joshuaace2]

living quarters of a single family residence where 80 illegals live?

Common area of a Fraternity?


Obviously OP had no knowledge of the contraband, if he did, he would have smoked it.

[Country Living]

Moving to the main board. I'll come back later and delete this.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

The op stated that on this forum. That has no relevance to what he told the police (nothing). 2 seperate issues what was said here, what was said at the scene. He made no such statement to the police. Therefore legally he had no prior knowledge. Even if he did say he smoked everything, that would again mean he had no knowledge of anything else. Well than obviously there is more than 1 Robinson in Fl. Try and understand the op did not make any statement. You talk about my reading comprehension,yet you cannot comprehend that. Also as stated there are several cons. poss. cases. They have to meet strict criteria. That was and is the point. Just because op was present along with other people does not (as you would like to believe) make them guilty. I suspect the strict criteria is in place for people who would charge everybody. That is why we do not hear of it more often,because the state has to prove knowledge and control among other things. They have neither one. So nope sorry wrong again. Nice try, but still leaning towards the ridiculous.Go play lawyer somewhere else preposterous ERAUKIPE

So pretentious dave you are advising the OP to perjure himself in court by saying that he had no prior knowledge of the marijuana being in the residence. For shame.

You should cite the specific statutes to back up your statements. Your opinion has shown that it is not rooted in reality thus far. Go play lawyer somewhere else pretentious dave.

[dave33]

I am advising no such thing, my advice would be to remain silent. You can't disagree with that, can you? Also he never said he had specific knowledge. Do you need a statute for that? preposterous ERAUPIKE.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

I am advising no such thing, my advice would be to remain silent. You can't disagree with that, can you? Also he never said he had specific knowledge. Do you need a statute for that? preposterous ERAUPIKE.

You are again incorrect. Read his confession, I mean statement, again. He admitted to using the drug that was found in the residence earlier in the night. Why don't you cite the specific reference for the "Florida v Robinson" case you referenced earlier?

You need to work on your reading comprehension pretentious and not very creative dave.

[dave33]

He admitted to this forum, How many times do I have to say this? He admitted nothing to the police. What he admitted to the police is what is relevant. Since he and his friends made no statement there is no relevance. I cannot believe you can't grasp this simple concept. They cannot prove he had knowledge of the presence of the drug w/out his cofession or another witness. Nobody made any such statement.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

He admitted to this forum, How many times do I have to say this? He admitted nothing to the police. What he admitted to the police is what is relevant. Since he and his friends made no statement there is no relevance. I cannot believe you can't grasp this simple concept. They cannot prove he had knowledge of the presence of the drug w/out his cofession or another witness. Nobody made any such statement.

You cannot argue that he did not have specific knowledge of the drug, he admitted that he did. I might add that the court will view the presence of drug paraphernalia in the open as an element of the OP's constructive possession. (United States v. Harris) Constructive possession is not simply a theory it is also sometimes called "possession in law." It exists where a person has knowledge of an object plus the ability to control the object, even if the person has no physical contact with it.

I noticed that you still have not provided the specific reference for "Florida v Robinson."

Historically, actual possession was required for a criminal possession conviction. Beginning in the 1920s, however, courts began expanding criminal possession to include constructive possession. The federal Prohibition of intoxicating liquors spawned several cases involving criminal possession. In one of the first criminal cases to use constructive possession, the court found a defendant guilty of possessing illegal liquor in trunks in the actual possession of another person (People v. Vander Heide, 211 Mich. 1, 178 N.W. 78 [1920]). Subsequent cases, especially narcotics cases, have continued to expand the law of criminal possession.

[dave33]

Still sounds pretty weak to me. You admit what I have said, knowledge and abiltity to control. I see no elements that fit that criteria in op's statement. But, in the spiriit of putting this to bed, whatever. I got the Fl.vs. Robinson case simply by googling constructive possession Fl.vs. Robin. it only includes a case summery. But, there are a lot of such cases in every state. It seems to be a notoriously hard thing to prove, and is rarely used. Maybe in a high profile case when there is nothing else to base a case on. Here, I doubt it. If op is charged with cons. poss. I would advise to fight that charge. It's that or confess to something he already said he had no knowledge of. I guess you feel differently,fine.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

Still sounds pretty weak to me. You admit what I have said, knowledge and abiltity to control. I see no elements that fit that criteria in op's statement. But, in the spiriit of putting this to bed, whatever. I got the Fl.vs. Robinson case simply by googling constructive possession Fl.vs. Robin. it only includes a case summery. But, there are a lot of such cases in every state. It seems to be a notoriously hard thing to prove, and is rarely used. Maybe in a high profile case when there is nothing else to base a case on. Here, I doubt it. If op is charged with cons. poss. I would advise to fight that charge. It's that or confess to something he already said he had no knowledge of. I guess you feel differently,fine.

Florida v. Robinson would not apply to this case. First the drugs in that case were not in plain sight and there was not a plethora of paraphernalia located in the same area as the drugs either. I already knew that you knew nothing of the subject beyond a simple Google search.

I do agree that the case against the OP is somewhat weak but it is not by any means a lost cause for the state. I would recommend the OP obtain legal council and professional help for his drug use.

[dave33]

Why would I go on a research rampage? Becauase of your request? Get real. If you want specifics get them yourself. In this situation google was all that was needed to prove the point of knowledge and control. We can go back all day and night about case law,but with no judge to rule,what's the point? Bottom line it's a weak case. That is all the op asked and that was my point all along. Sounds like a "simple google search" put you in your place.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

Why would I go on a research rampage? Becauase of your request? Get real. If you want specifics get them yourself. In this situation google was all that was needed to prove the point of knowledge and control. We can go back all day and night about case law,but with no judge to rule,what's the point? Bottom line it's a weak case. That is all the op asked and that was my point all along. Sounds like a "simple google search" put you in your place.

Florida v. Robinson would not apply to this case. First the drugs in that case were not in plain sight and there was not a plethora of paraphernalia located in the same area as the drugs either. I already knew that you knew nothing of the subject beyond a simple Google search.

Reading comprehension pretentious dave.