+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Kitsune is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    11

    What is needed for drug conviction?

    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.
  2. #2
    FlyingRon is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,602
    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.
  3. #3
    Kitsune is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    11
    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?
  4. #4
    seniorjudge is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    St. Odo of Cluny Parish
    Posts
    29,533
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsune View Post
    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.
    There are two rules for success:

    (1) Never tell everything you know.
  5. #5
    FlyingRon is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,602
    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.
  6. #6
    The Occultist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,408
    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 by The Occultist; 09-25-2007 at 03:06 PM. Reason: because I'm retarded
  7. #7
    moburkes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    South Cackalacky
    Posts
    15,365
    Quote Originally Posted by The Occultist View Post
    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 could be held accountable for the murder.
    Did you mean to say couldn't?
    My new signature:
    Originally Posted by arazi
    I'll take you on one-to-one in a volcabulary test anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
  8. #8
    The Occultist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by moburkes View Post
    Did you mean to say couldn't?
    Well duh!
  9. #9
    smutlydog is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    586
    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.
  10. #10
    Kitsune is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    11
    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 .
  11. #11
    Kitsune is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by The Occultist View Post
    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.
  12. #12
    Kitsune is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    11
    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.
  13. #13
    smutlydog is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsune View Post
    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
  14. #14
    Kitsune is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    11
    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?
  15. #15
    smutlydog is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    586
    Crazy people confess to crimes all the time. It doesn't mean they are guilty

Similar Threads

  1. Can a drug conviction ever get expunged?
    By rowhiteny in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 12:24 PM
  2. Sealing an old drug conviction
    By DQuin413 in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 09:49 AM
  3. drug conviction and deportation
    By Melissa T in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2008, 03:47 PM
  4. Drug Conviction
    By tmlee80 in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2006, 09:26 PM
  5. Teaching with drug conviction?
    By Natalie2 in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-08-2005, 07:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.