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

[Soutnerner_09]

Tennessee
I was at a friends home when him and his wife had an argument, she then left and called the police telling them that there was underage drinking going on. When the police showed we were all on the way out the door, they stopped us and told us we couldn't leave and to go back inside. They took i.d. and those of us who were underage we taken into the kitchen and sobriety tesed, we all passed. My friend has bongs he keeps in his living room (we had taken the sliders and hid them) and the police keep staring at them so he asked them if they would like to look at them and if they liked to search the living room. Now we had smoked everything we had that night already so were all confident they wouldn't find anything. They searched for about 45min and then suddenly found a speck of marijuana and i mean a speck inside a candle. Now we would never put it there and knew thent hat his wife had planted it but of course we knew the cops wouldn't believe that. None of us were gonna snitch so the police charged us all with simple possesion. Now since it was his house, we were leaving, and I passed a sobriety test do I have a good chance of beating this in court?

[HighwayMan]

Unless someone takes ownership, you all were in the area so you all get charged. Period.

Why don't you post in one thread about your issue instead of cross posting in multiple threads. Thanks.

[dave33]

Yes, in my opinion you have a good chance. It is common for police to charge multiple people in these situations and let the court sort it out. I feel strongly that if you stick to your guns and refuse ownership you will prevail and not get a conviction. If the case is really weak, than the d.a. will offer a really good deal for a guilty plea. You need to make a decision to plead not guilty and stick with it no matterwhat. It is quite possible that you will get pressured from all sides to plead guilty,(maybe even your own lawyer) you must resist these offers and suggestions. goodluck.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

Yes, in my opinion you have a good chance. It is common for police to charge multiple people in these situations and let the court sort it out. I feel strongly that if you stick to your guns and refuse ownership you will prevail and not get a conviction. If the case is really weak, than the d.a. will offer a really good deal for a guilty plea. You need to make a decision to plead not guilty and stick with it no matterwhat. It is quite possible that you will get pressured from all sides to plead guilty,(maybe even your own lawyer) you must resist these offers and suggestions. goodluck.

Note, this opinion does not reflect reality. You were not charged with ownership, you were charged with possession and you are guilty of it.

[dave33]

Note- This does reflect reality. You often make ridiculous remarks. You must like to watch yourself type. The definition of owner from Websters Universal Dictionary.Owner n one who owns, a possessor. Also the fact that you said he was guilty with the facts that are presented makes every civil protection, motion, hearing, and court proceeding a complete waste of time. You have single handedly removed the court process from society and pronounced anybody even remotely suspect guilty. So allow me to re-phrase, instead of refusing ownership, refuse the fact that you ever possessed the marijuana. If this guy gets convicted of this than that is called "extremely poor legal representation".It could also mean he had a p.d.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

Note- This does reflect reality. You often make ridiculous remarks. You must like to watch yourself type. The definition of owner from Websters Universal Dictionary.Owner n one who owns, a possessor. Also the fact that you said he was guilty with the facts that are presented makes every civil protection, motion, hearing, and court proceeding a complete waste of time. You have single handedly removed the court process from society and pronounced anybody even remotely suspect guilty. So allow me to re-phrase, instead of refusing ownership, refuse the fact that you ever possessed the marijuana. If this guy gets convicted of this than that is called "extremely poor legal representation".It could also mean he had a p.d.

He admitted to possessing marijuana in his post, that is the LEGAL definition of guilt. He had obviously smoked all the marijuana except the amount the police found. His misplaced trust in his drug addicted friends have landed him in a heap of trouble. I know how to use a dictionary as well, unfortunately possession will be defined by the courts the same way I have. They will use the applicable statute to interpret this young drug users guilt.

If you are so adamant that you are correct, please justify why your opinion should hold any weight. What are your qualifications?

[dave33]

My opinion should hold weight because it is correct. You say he confessed. A confession is a statement of guilt made to a law enforcement officer. His statement on this forum cannot be used in a court of law as a legal confession. On this forum he admitted to poss.,which is the equivalent of nothing. If he is guilty than anyone in the same room as drugs or paraphernalia is also guilty. Although I did not look up op's poss. statute,I would expect that the requirements are a bit more stringent.Otherwise go to a populated meeting hall invite everyone you hate, throw a bag of grass in the middle of the room and lock em' all up. My resume is to long and involved to list here.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

My opinion should hold weight because it is correct. You say he confessed. A confession is a statement of guilt made to a law enforcement officer. His statement on this forum cannot be used in a court of law as a legal confession. On this forum he admitted to poss.,which is the equivalent of nothing. If he is guilty than anyone in the same room as drugs or paraphernalia is also guilty. Although I did not look up op's poss. statute,I would expect that the requirements are a bit more stringent.Otherwise go to a populated meeting hall invite everyone you hate, throw a bag of grass in the middle of the room and lock em' all up. My resume is to long and involved to list here.

Your self important rants have yet to actually address the legal issue that this drug user is facing. He is and will be found guilty.

[dave33]

Your statements are so broad I am not sure if you are serious or just having fun."Self important rants" I can't make heads or tails of that one.Seriously now, going with your logic, everyone in the room is guilty? They were not even in the residence when the police arrived, so now what? Any one whom visited the residence within the last 4 hours, 12 hours, or just the last few minutes or the last couple of weeks? Applying this logic I think taxes better go to the sky and we'll be needing some new prison foundations.Oops silly me, that must be what you mean by a "self important rant"?Anyway, we'll have to wait and see what happens. All kidding aside my original post stands.
O.P. goodluck.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

Your statements are so broad I am not sure if you are serious or just having fun."Self important rants" I can't make heads or tails of that one.Seriously now, going with your logic, everyone in the room is guilty? They were not even in the residence when the police arrived, so now what? Any one whom visited the residence within the last 4 hours, 12 hours, or just the last few minutes or the last couple of weeks? Applying this logic I think taxes better go to the sky and we'll be needing some new prison foundations.Oops silly me, that must be what you mean by a "self important rant"?Anyway, we'll have to wait and see what happens. All kidding aside my original post stands.
O.P. goodluck.

He actually said "we were all on the way out the door" meaning they were still on the premises. Then they were detained on the said premises for further questioning. You will notice he did not include a statement that the drug user that left and called the police had been charged as well. She was not in constructive possession of the illegal substance found in the common area of the residence by the police. You may want to explore the definition of constructive possession and learn a little about the law before you try to give advice on this site.

Your original post is still misinformed and not based in reality. OP, get off the drugs.

As a note, his statement on this forum could absolutely be used in a court of law under the right circumstances. Get a clue.

[Joshuaace2]

I find the particulars peculiar. Simple possession being merely a revenue producing venture, why were they not charged with the possession of paraphernalia as well? Surely if the bongs had been used, there would have clearly been evidence of use. Hide the sliders but not the bongs? Doesn't even sound remotely reasonable.

If the facts in the OP are close to being correct, just how many people could be in simultaneous possession of a "speck" of marijuana? 2, 4, 400? 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.

Clearly, all were charged in an attempt to get at least one to finger the actual owner. Should no one talk, the possessor is going to be the resident(s) of the establishment.

[dave33]

Being vague is an effective tool when trying to make sense of something that does not make sense.Constructive possession is just that,a vague theory. Also the unverified user not being charged is part of the problem and could very likely be the very foundation for the whole affair. Another theory could be that she left the drugs and than left the premises than called the police. That is the problem with theories(constructive possession) they cannot be verified. That leaves a weak case. I happen to know quite a bit about the law. I think anybody of sound mind would fight this case. In reality after a review from the d.a. a case may no longer exist. You say his comments here can be used against him in court. So, I guess I am dealing with one of those "anything is possible" types. What do you think the chances of that actually happening are? I find no misinformation in my posts. Although in theory anything is possible.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by dave33

Being vague is an effective tool when trying to make sense of something that does not make sense.Constructive possession is just that,a vague theory. Also the unverified user not being charged is part of the problem and could very likely be the very foundation for the whole affair. Another theory could be that she left the drugs and than left the premises than called the police. That is the problem with theories(constructive possession) they cannot be verified. That leaves a weak case. I happen to know quite a bit about the law. I think anybody of sound mind would fight this case. In reality after a review from the d.a. a case may no longer exist. You say his comments here can be used against him in court. So, I guess I am dealing with one of those "anything is possible" types. What do you think the chances of that actually happening are? I find no misinformation in my posts. Although in theory anything is possible.

Well pretentious dave, "I said that under the correct circumstances his statements could be used against him in court," which is a legally accurate statement. You stated that his statements could not be used in court against him which is an entirely inaccurate statement. You also claimed that my statement of his guilt circumvented the entire court system but his confession was not an actual confession because he did not make it to a law enforcement officer. More inaccurate statements.

Each time I presented a legal fact you and misinformed joshuaace2 have tried to "what if" it away. You have not even presented a logical reason that the OP would not have had constructive possession of marijuana. While you believe it is simply a theory, the charges brought against him tell a different story.

If you would like to present anything that is backed by sound legal references I would be more then happy to continue this pointless conversation with you. In fact, please do not respond until you can present something more concrete then your uneducated opinion. Please go play lawyer somewhere else

[dave33]

You have presented nothing resembling legal fact. How could his statements thus far be used? Reasonably, let's keep it realistic at least. If you want to say he had constructive possession,fine. That's why I said build more prisons because if that is guilt than we are all guilty. The only story charges being filed tells is that an innocent man is being accussed of a crime. You imply just the opposite. I have not "what if'd" any legal arguement away. We have no where near enough specific knowledge of this case to begin with case law and legal references. You have basically argued the equivalent of everybody who does one mile an hour over the speed limit guilty. Technically that is correct, but see how far that goes in court.Also, I did not pull the word theory out of mid-air when referring to cons. poss. The definition I found was "A legal theory used to extend poss. where there is no hands on custody". It has to be a theory, otherwise every minor could be charged with cons. poss. of alcohol every person in a room could be charged with cons poss.(which is what happened here). Florida vs. Robinson Police found drugs in cereamic dish,Robinson was arrested on the theory of cons. poss. The state also needs to establish he knew the drugs were there and could control them with independant evidence. It is not enough to just show the def. lived in the house or was just close to the drugs, especially when there was other people. Extra proof the state needed was a confession from the defendant or another witness linking Robinson to the drugs.There was no specific evidence he knew the drugs were there nothing concrete tying him to the drugs. His conviction was overturned.

[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.