• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What is needed for drug conviction?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Kitsune

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Washington

question was concerning drug busts, and drug deal busts.

Is it:

1.)The person has to be in current possetion or someone has to have a photograph proving so, to bust them?

2.) In order to bust a drug dealer he "MUST" be caught in the act or there cant be a bust?

3.) both of the above, after the hapening, even with the criminals confession cant lead to a bust so long as the person wasn't currently in the act, or possetion of the substance?

or can evidence compile up, to bust someone, even years after such a thing occurs, and what kind of evidence is required?

I guess that kinda simplifies what i'm geting at. Really i'm confused on behalf of most of this, would like to know from a "would be" criminals point of view as to what to worry about 1-2 years later, if nothing came of the crime commited. Can such a person converse openly about this kind of thing later on in life after quiting drug dealing without worries? and specificly lesser drugs like Marijuana and mushrooms.
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
1. The law talks about posession, the word current doesn't appear in it. If there is evidence that the unlawful possession occurred (photographic, youtube videos, trace evidence) then that's good for conviction. Of course photographic evidence can be challenged...

2. An actual sale isn't necessary. The statute covers POSSESSION with intent to deliver. You don't even have to sell it. If you give it away to friends you are as guilty as if you stood on the corner selling it for $100 a hit. This is a felony and not to be taken lightly.

3. In a word, NO.
 

Kitsune

Junior Member
So to #3 are you saying that this is a false sentance and could still lead to conviction, or no it cant, and more solid evidence is needed?
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
3.) both of the above, after the hapening, even with the criminals confession cant lead to a bust so long as the person wasn't currently in the act, or possetion of the substance?

So to #3 are you saying that this is a false sentance and could still lead to conviction, or no it cant, and more solid evidence is needed?
Your question is not clear.

But, if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there will be a conviction.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
The NO is that it doesn't matter if he was "currently" in the act. What makes you think that you can't be held accountable for your past actions. All it takes is evidence that the crime has occurred.
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
OP, using your logic, if I kill somebody, but make sure it doesn't happen in front of anybody, then despite any unquestionable evidence that may exist, I couldn't be held accountable for the murder.
 
Last edited:

smutlydog

Member
There something called conspiracy but on a small time state level drug crime it's not likely. They can go back 7 years. I don't believe an overt act is even necessary on a federal drug conspiracy.
 

Kitsune

Junior Member
Sorry for any confusion. what i was mainly geting at, is If a drug dealer, or basicly anyone who had commited a crime was to walk up and admit to a Police officer, or any other legal enforcment officer, and admit/confess to a crime, without any further evidence with the exeption of a witness. Basicly the only evidence being one to three peoples word and nothing more. If that would be enough for conviction.

Hope that clears it up. I've had this discussion befor within a fiew threads, and the usual conclusion is that there would have to be more evidecne than just that directly linking the person confessing to the crime, but it mite lead to a search warrent, for the person and/or their home. Even so.. no one has really been for sure.

Your advice is geatly apriciated. I tend to try and analize things like this compulsively untill i can find a solid answer, lol.

p.s. I dont plan to be breaking any laws, anytime in the near to distant future, just to let you know for comfort sake :).
 

Kitsune

Junior Member
OP, using your logic, if I kill somebody, but make sure it doesn't happen in front of anybody, then despite any unquestionable evidence that may exist, I couldn't be held accountable for the murder.
I'm prety sure there would be a difference in the situation of Murder, compaired to what other evidence there could, or could not be on behalf of peddeling drugs... Whos to say the person confessing isn't just looking for free room and board for a bit? Who's to say their even sane?.. if someone does go so far as to confess such a thing, it could easily be viewed as an admirable act or insanely foolish.
 

Kitsune

Junior Member
The whole idea of "I'm guity cus i (or we) said so... but i cant prove it otherwise" doesn't seem to be a veary sensible form of evidence to me. Thogh someone did jokingly say that if someone were to try this and it lead to a search warrent for further evidence, the person would probably be fined or charged for wasting police time. but thats an entirely different matter.
 

smutlydog

Member
Sorry for any confusion. what i was mainly geting at, is If a drug dealer, or basicly anyone who had commited a crime was to walk up and admit to a Police officer, or any other legal enforcment officer, and admit/confess to a crime, without any further evidence with the exeption of a witness. Basicly the only evidence being one to three peoples word and nothing more. If that would be enough for conviction.

Hope that clears it up. I've had this discussion befor within a fiew threads, and the usual conclusion is that there would have to be more evidecne than just that directly linking the person confessing to the crime, but it mite lead to a search warrent, for the person and/or their home. Even so.. no one has really been for sure.

Your advice is geatly apriciated. I tend to try and analize things like this compulsively untill i can find a solid answer, lol.

p.s. I dont plan to be breaking any laws, anytime in the near to distant future, just to let you know for comfort sake :).
Basicly the only evidence being one to three peoples word and nothing more. If that would be enough for conviction.
The short answer is yes and they would only need 2 witnesses. It happens all the time
 

Kitsune

Junior Member
All i can say is... dang.. thats lame on behalf of how deviant some people are toward one another this day and age.

Last Q! lol: 3 is the minimum? so to say that the persons confession alone wouldn't stand without the other 2 witnesses?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top