Would They Really Prosecute This!!!!!

What is the name of your state? TX

Here's in brief what happened. A bunch of kids were knocking a single Ibuprofen 800 tablet up and down the table in the cafeteria. (my son included) (this story is the same one related by all the students at the table)

My son realized they could get in trouble so he picked it up to dispose of it. He stood up and one other student asked to see it one more time. Just as my son handed this to the other boy, a teacher walked up and demanded the pill, which the boys gave up willingly. Because of the zero tolerance policy my son and the other boy were suspended and sent to alternative school.

The next day, I received a phone call from my local police telling me they were investigating an incident at school involving Zach and they told me they were considering filing charges against my son for "delivery of a controlled substance." and the other boy for "receiving a controlled substance." I and the other boy's mother refused to allow the boys to make a statement to the police because neither one of us can afford to hire an attorney to be present during the statement.

The Ibuprofen tablet in question was not my son's even though he has a legal perscription for it for a ganglion cyst he has in his wrist. (I know it wasn't his because the manufacturers of this pill use different coding methods and the ones on this particular pill don't match the ones on my son's.)

Would they really ruin these boy's lives over a single anti-inflamitory tablet that has no narcotic in it at all and the worst thing that could happen from taking it is an upset stomach?

Also, if the teacher who took the pill didn't sign a form transfering the evidence to the principal and when the principal transferred it to the school nurse if he didn't sign a chain of evidence form can they really persue this.

Could someone else give me their take on this??

It was a stupid kid mistake playing with a pill no one at the table had any intention of taking or selling it. And is there any way we an we stop this thing before it gets ridiculous and ends up in a court room??

Wow; This one is sad. The zero tolerance is pretty tough. Kind of like being suspended for a nail file.
As far as the chain of evidence issue, the teacher or any other school employee is exempt from this. They will be witnesses. There is no expectation that a person not involved in law enforcement or any type of law should maintain a chain of evidence log. It is up to law enforcement to obtain the statements of the persons involved in the handling of the pill.
I would adopt a wait and see attitude. Wait to see what happens with law enforcement involvement. You do not have to let your son be interviewed by law enforcement.

Writer,
the school has a zero tolerance rule and your son broke that rule period.
It does not matter if the drug was harmless or not or that your son was trying to get rid of it. Read the school policy again regarding drugs and if you see anything in the policy that proves me wrong, please post.
By the way, is this school a public shool or a private school. And what grade is your son in?

I have no problem with his being remanded to AEP. He knew the rules and he broke those rules. Tough luck. He serves his time in AEP.

My problem stems from the fact that now the police are involved and are investigating with the intention of charging my son with "delivery of a controlled substance." because he handed it to another student before handing it to a teacher.

He is in the public school system and is in the 9th grade.

This is my deal, there is absolutely no way for the police to prove that what they received from the school is what was taken from my son. It passed through the hands of 4 other people before it was presented to the police. So they can't say with absolute certainty that what they have is what was taken.

They can't prove that what they took from the other boy is what my son dropped in his hand.

I told Zach he should have swallowed it ASAP since he knew what it was and what it was for then there wouldn't be any issue for the police to investigate. If they held him in the office to see if there was any effect this would be a dead issue.

One of the ladies who staffs the AEP is a friend of mine and they all thought it was completely hysterical that Zach was being sent for possessing Ibuprofen. They were stunned that the police had been involved.

This is what happens when you live in the sticks with idiot redneck cops who don't have jack crap else to do.

Multimom said:

I have no problem with his being remanded to AEP. He knew the rules and he broke those rules. Tough luck. He serves his time in AEP.

My problem stems from the fact that now the police are involved and are investigating with the intention of charging my son with "delivery of a controlled substance." because he handed it to another student before handing it to a teacher.

He is in the public school system and is in the 9th grade.

This is my deal, there is absolutely no way for the police to prove that what they received from the school is what was taken from my son. It passed through the hands of 4 other people before it was presented to the police. So they can't say with absolute certainty that what they have is what was taken.

They can't prove that what they took from the other boy is what my son dropped in his hand.

I told Zach he should have swallowed it ASAP since he knew what it was and what it was for then there wouldn't be any issue for the police to investigate. If they held him in the office to see if there was any effect this would be a dead issue.

One of the ladies who staffs the AEP is a friend of mine and they all thought it was completely hysterical that Zach was being sent for possessing Ibuprofen. They were stunned that the police had been involved.

This is what happens when you live in the sticks with idiot redneck cops who don't have jack crap else to do.

Click to expand...

My response: whoa whoa whoa..... you told your kid to do WHAT?? No, lady -- you are the one who's a damned idiot. Unbelieveable that you would instruct your child to swallow a pill.
Get out of here.

hmmbrdzz

I instructed my son to swallow a pill which he clearly knew and could identify. It was and has been determined to be Ibuprofen.

Nothing more nothing less. Yes I told him to do it because he knew what it was. I'm not a damned idiot but you certainly are rude.

I've read alot of your posts and it seems you delight in making hateful and insulting statements to other posters to make yourself look intelligent.

Our school routeinly dispenses Ibuprofen to the students at our school and what you have to say about it is beside the point. I wanted legal advice regarding the charge of "delivery of a controlled substance" not an insult because I told my son to dispose of something that could have and did get him in serious trouble.

You sir/madame (and I use the terms loosely) should quietly butt out unless you are an attorney. I didn't ask for lame subjective and unsubstantiated opinions. I wanted real life information as to whether or not a District Attorney would waste my valuable tax dollars ruining the lives of 2 kids over a stupid Ibuprofen.

Even the AEP officer said, "I would have swallowed that pill so fast they couldn't have done anything."

I didn't ask you for an opinion of my parenting skills or ideals. If I had wanted that I would have gone to Parents.com at Evillage.

"Chain of custody" testimony:
Where no single witness can establish authenticity, it may be necessary to show a continuous "chain of custody" of the object. The burden is on the party offering the evidence to show that it is "reasonably certain" no alteration of the evidence occurred. [People v. Williams (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1112, 1132, 259 Cal.Rptr. 473, 485]

1) Example:
In narcotics cases, it is often necessary for several police officers to testify to a "chain of custody": e.g., the officer who seized the contraband initially; the officer who thereafter tested it; and the officer who thereafter had custody of it until the time of trial.

2) Business records may establish chain of custody:
A chain of custody may be established through business records if the procedures used ensure accuracy and proper identification. [County of Sonoma v. Grant W. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1448-1449, 232 Cal.Rptr. 471, 476-477--in paternity case, "chain of custody" for blood sample established through lab director's testimony as to lab's meticulous procedure and detailed record keeping]

Effect of break in chain of custody:
Where a vital link in the chain of possession is unaccounted for, the object is inadmissible "because it is as likely as not that the evidence analyzed was not the evidence originally received. Left to such speculation, the court must exclude such evidence." [People v. Williams, supra, 48 Cal.3d at 1134, 259 Cal.Rptr. at 486 (emphasis added)]

Stipulation:
Unless there is a bona fide dispute (e.g., chain of custody or claim of alteration), authentication of a physical object is commonly established by stipulation.

Indeed, the trial court may have little patience for a party who insists on formal authentication where there is no good faith basis for disputing an object's authenticity.

(a) "Chain of custody" testimony:
Where no single witness can establish authenticity, the proponent may authenticate the object by establishing a chain of custody tracing the continuous whereabouts of the item in question. [FRE Rule 901(b)(1), Adv. Comm. Notes (1972); In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. Litig. (D CO 1980) 533 F.Supp. 567, 577]

A missing link in the chain of custody does not prevent the admission of real evidence so long as there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be and "the likelihood of tampering is minimal." [Hoover v. Thompson (8th Cir. 1986) 787 F.2d 449, 450--blood sample admissible even though it arrived at Department of Health without its customary seal]

"[T]he ultimate question is whether the authentication testimony was sufficiently complete so as to convince the court that it is improbable that the original item had been exchanged with another or otherwise tampered with." [United States v. Howard-Arias (4th Cir. 1982) 679 F.2d 363, 366]

1) Affects weight, not admissibility:
So long as there is sufficient proof the evidence is what it purports to be, any missing links in the chain of custody affect the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Thus, if the court determines the proponent has met its burden, the evidence is admitted and the question of its authenticity is for the jury to decide. [Cooper v. Eagle River Mem. Hosp., Inc. (7th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 456, 463-464; see In re Exxon Valdez (9th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 1215, 1248-1249--despite "remarkable mishandlings," chain of custody evidence regarding sealed tubes with defendant's name and social security number sufficient for reasonable jurors to conclude tubes contained defendant's blood; United States v. Johnson (5th Cir. 1995) 68 F.3d 899, 903]

IAAL

Multimom said:

I instructed my son to swallow a pill which he clearly knew and could identify. It was and has been determined to be Ibuprofen.

Nothing more nothing less. Yes I told him to do it because he knew what it was. I'm not a damned idiot but you certainly are rude.

I've read alot of your posts and it seems you delight in making hateful and insulting statements to other posters to make yourself look intelligent.

Our school routeinly dispenses Ibuprofen to the students at our school and what you have to say about it is beside the point. I wanted legal advice regarding the charge of "delivery of a controlled substance" not an insult because I told my son to dispose of something that could have and did get him in serious trouble.

You sir/madame (and I use the terms loosely) should quietly butt out unless you are an attorney. I didn't ask for lame subjective and unsubstantiated opinions. I wanted real life information as to whether or not a District Attorney would waste my valuable tax dollars ruining the lives of 2 kids over a stupid Ibuprofen.

Even the AEP officer said, "I would have swallowed that pill so fast they couldn't have done anything."

I didn't ask you for an opinion of my parenting skills or ideals. If I had wanted that I would have gone to Parents.com at Evillage.

Click to expand...

My response: You asked for "any takes", and you got mine. Here's some more of my "take". You didn't instruct your son to "dispose" of the evidence; you instructed your son to swallow the evidence (a pill) in an attempt to impede the school's authoritys' right to enforce a zero tolerance policy of drugs. You are willing to do this? Hey, I don't care what you think of me.


hmmbrdzz

Hummingbird - -

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "spoliation of evidence" and "impeding a criminal investigation."

You see, our writer was told to "have your son swallow the pill" and she chided her son for not having done so.

However, what our writer doesn't appreciate is the fact that
"swallowing the pill" would not have relieved her son of the current criminal results.

Remember, the teacher was there and saw the pill being passed to the other student. The teacher would also testify that she/he saw a pill and saw our writer's son swallow it.

The kid would have, in that eventuality, been prosecuted for such "spoliation" and "impeding" anyway, which would have garnered him a juvenile conviction anyway.

So, in terms of the criminality of the situation, it wouldn't have made any difference. There would have a been a conviction for something, one way or the other.

IAAL

Oh yeah... I can understand your point totally, and I can imagine the outcome even had he swallowed it. (I think it would have been worse). I can appreciate that kids can really get themselves into a fix at school, but I don't see much of an out here. But I ain't no attorney -- Just an ole worn out gal in white with a huge crooked halo over her head and horns coming out from underneath that white cap! he he he.



hmmbrdzz

Your child broke the law. Ibuprofen is a drug, he gave the drug to someone else, he got 'busted.' Stupid? Yes. Excusable? No.

You know I don' t even know why I bother to post here. I have yet to be answered by anyone with legal knowledge. All I ever get is opinions. And for the previous post,

I hope you realize how much of your tax dollars are WASTED prosecuting something this stupid. The would have done less to an adult who is driving drunk (which is also against the law) but they let them walk away everyday. The kid responsible for killing a boy in a single car DUI never had a single charge brought against him and is walking the street today.

The pill my son had has no damaging properties at all. I've investigated the thing. NO RELATED DEATHS from Ibuprofen use. Poison control says a single tablet would be considered a 'BENIGN" contact and would not require medical treatment.

The local drug enforcement task force said there's NO STREET VALUE on this item so when its all said and done and the county has spent 10's of 1000's of dollars to prosecute this I doubt anyone will be happy with it.

Scrap this, I have yet to get any legal advice that I consider reliable so why is this site called "Free Legal Advice". Looks more to me like, "Free Public Opinion."

Multimom said:

You know I don' t even know why I bother to post here. I have yet to be answered by anyone with legal knowledge. All I ever get is opinions. And for the previous post,

I hope you realize how much of your tax dollars are WASTED prosecuting something this stupid. The would have done less to an adult who is driving drunk (which is also against the law) but they let them walk away everyday. The kid responsible for killing a boy in a single car DUI never had a single charge brought against him and is walking the street today.

The pill my son had has no damaging properties at all. I've investigated the thing. NO RELATED DEATHS from Ibuprofen use. Poison control says a single tablet would be considered a 'BENIGN" contact and would not require medical treatment.

The local drug enforcement task force said there's NO STREET VALUE on this item so when its all said and done and the county has spent 10's of 1000's of dollars to prosecute this I doubt anyone will be happy with it.

Scrap this, I have yet to get any legal advice that I consider reliable so why is this site called "Free Legal Advice". Looks more to me like, "Free Public Opinion."

Click to expand...

My response: Your statement about Ibuprofen having no bad properties is a totally uninformed, false, and dangerous statement. Have you had your head in the sand raising seven children, or your head in the sand regarding Ibuprofen dangers? For one thing -- kids and adults can and do get high off high doses of Ibuprofen Secondly, your child violated school policy -- period.

You can take your opinions and raise your own children, but don't forget that when your actions endanger other children, legal action can be taken action against YOU if injury is sustained on account of your actions. If you are so uninformed as to think Ibu cannot kill someone, then the "free advice" you can take from this board is to get your head out of that deep sand you've got it so firmly planted in and get smart.


http://www.crackerjap.com/newspro/talkback/985050111,70079,.shtml

http://hsc.virginia.edu/cmc/pedpharm/v6n4.htm#Mechanism of Injury


hmmbrdzz

Multimom said:

And for the previous post,

I hope you realize how much of your tax dollars are WASTED prosecuting something this stupid.

Click to expand...

It isn't a waste because it isn't stupid. There are reasons schools have zero tolerance rules. First of all many controlled substances and other non-medicinal narcotics look very similar to over the counter medicines. Without close inspection or testing, one may not be able to differentiate between the two. Without a zero tolerance policy, someone can be passing a pill of ecstasy that just happens to look like an Ibuprofen.

The bottom line is that your child broke the rules, and if it is a controlled substance the police can and will prosecute. So use common sense and look at all the "opinions" that are saying your son was in the wrong. These opinions are telling you that you should look into getting a lawyer.

I know my son was in the wrong, the pill however was not his own.

I doubt you would be so ready to convict or traumatize a kid whose never ever been in trouble in any way shape or form, who has never even been in the principal's office ever in his life.

He made a mistake and he's paying for it with his life. My 14 yo son who has never given me a moment's pause faces a jail term for trying to dispose of something.

You people need to wake up. I have no problem with ZERO tolerance, but I do know what I have researched. The only Ibuprofen related deaths come from long term extended usage years of maximum dosage of 3200 to 4800 mgs a day.

I SPOKE DIRECTLY TO POISON CONTROL. THEY WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ANYTHING FOR A KID WHO TOOK ONE SINGLE PILL EXCEPT FEED HIM SOMETHING TO KEEP IT FROM MAKING HIM NAUSIATED

Yes my son broke the rules and he will spend the rest of the year in alternative school for it with kids who are really in trouble, repeat drug offenders, kids charged with assault on school grounds, kids with known gang affiliation and weapons possession charges. This is nothing compared to him being remanded to Juvenile Detention. You people are heartless, cruel and unhelpful.


If it was your kid I doubt you would be so quick to throw him to the wolves.

But we let DUI'S drive all day long and slap them on the wrist. OH WELL DRINKING IS LEGAL, Driving while drunk isn't. But we don't stop them, we don't lock them up, we take away their driver's license, we spank their hands and they go right on killing our families.

Use some common sense people. One Ibuprofen isn't a 1 ounce rock of crack.

Nor is it a half ounce of pot. These boys are in serious trouble over something that they really had no intention of doing anything with but getting rid of it.

I came here for advice, not correction. I'm well able to correct my children and myself. If I need help in correction I go to my family not strangers.

I was looking for legal advice not a group of people who know nothing about me making judgements on me and how I raise my kids.