• 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.

Passenger of car charged with marijuana

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

N

Nate.held

Junior Member
Indiana..

I was recently pulled over while riding in the passenger seat of car.
The car was searched and a minuscule amount of marijuana was found(Possibly just residue in a bag, they wouldn't show me.)

The driver of the car was not asked if it belonged to her.

They charged me, saying that she cooperated better than I did, though they never asked if it was hers.
This is what I was first told.
I was then told that I was being charged because I smelled like marijuana.

The driver was not charged.
I was charged. How does this work?


Thanks!
 


E

ERAUPIKE

Senior Member
Nate.held said:
Indiana..

I was recently pulled over while riding in the passenger seat of car.
The car was searched and a minuscule amount of marijuana was found(Possibly just residue in a bag, they wouldn't show me.)

The driver of the car was not asked if it belonged to her.

They charged me, saying that she cooperated better than I did, though they never asked if it was hers.
This is what I was first told.
I was then told that I was being charged because I smelled like marijuana.

The driver was not charged.
I was charged. How does this work?


Thanks!
Click to expand...
Where in the car was the bag of marijuana found?
 
T

The Occultist

Senior Member
I find it very odd that this is the third thread of such a specifically similar topic in such a small amount of time. Wondering if the OP is creating multiple accounts in hopes of finding a different answer with each thread. :confused:
 
N

Nate.held

Junior Member
The Occultist said:
I find it very odd that this is the third thread of such a specifically similar topic in such a small amount of time. Wondering if the OP is creating multiple accounts in hopes of finding a different answer with each thread. :confused:
Click to expand...
Please refer me to those topics.

I assure you this is the first time I have asked.

Just looking for help.
 
N

Nate.held

Junior Member
AdivceGiver said:
What statue covered the non-cooperation ? Sounds like the cop wants everyone to confess to the Kennedy shooting.
Click to expand...

No statutes were cited.

It is not routine for cops here to explain themselves.

I was handcuffed and detained. Not arrested, but they refused to un-cuff me.
Since there were five cars on the scene, I don't think it was to keep me from running.

I was told that "I had the right to remain silent" in a joking way, but never read my full rights.
 
E

ERAUPIKE

Senior Member
He was being facetious.

It sounds to me lie the officer thought that you were in constructive possession of the marijuana. You were uncooperative or not as cooperative as the other suspects. Plus, you had the odor of the substance found on your person. I think the officer likely felt he had enough proof to fully articulate his case to the DA showing you were the only person capable of possessing the marijuana found. It is a common misconception that every arrest requires a Miranda Act recitation. In fact, you stated you were only detained and not arrested. Believe it or not, police officers are not required to remove handcuffs simply because you don't want to be in them. Many officers would agree that a belligerent young man that is not being cooperative and being found in the possession of a controlled substance needs to be handcuffed for officer safety. The right to remain silent comment was likely a nice way of telling you to shut your mouth before it got you in more trouble. The tone of your posts here reek of young person that thinks the episodes of Law and Order he watched made him some sort of expert.

Sorry buddy, the police were operating within the boundaries of the law as far as I can tell. You aren't going to get the answer you werehoping for in this forum. At least, not from anyone that knows what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
N

Nate.held

Junior Member
ERAUPIKE said:
He was being facetious.

It sounds to me lie the officer thought that you were in constructive possession of the marijuana. You were uncooperative or not as cooperative as the other suspects. Plus, you had the odor of the substance found on your person. I think the officer likely felt he had enough proof to fully articulate his case to the DA showing you were the only person capable of possessing the marijuana found. It is a common misconception that every arrest requires a Miranda Act recitation. In fact, you stated you were only detained and not arrested. Believe it or not, police officers are not required to remove handcuffs simply because you don't want to be in them. Many officers would agree that a belligerent young man that is not being cooperative and being found in the possession of a controlled substance needs to be handcuffed for officer safety. The right to remain silent comment was likely a nice way of telling you to shut your mouth before it got you in more trouble. The tone of your posts here reek of young person that thinks the episodes of Law and Order he watched made him some sort of expert.

Sorry buddy, the police were operating within the boundaries of the law as far as I can tell. You aren't going to get the answer you werehoping for in this forum. At least, not from anyone that knows what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to write that.

A couple things:

"Many officers would agree that a belligerent young man that is not being cooperative and being found in the possession of a controlled substance needs to be handcuffed for officer safety."

I was hand cuffed when there was one officer present.
Once there were six officers present I would think there was little risk for
their safety.

I never said that I was not being cooperative.
Your assumptions of "belligerent" and "young" have no real basis.
 
E

ERAUPIKE

Senior Member
Nate.held said:
Thank you for taking the time to write that.

A couple things:

"Many officers would agree that a belligerent young man that is not being cooperative and being found in the possession of a controlled substance needs to be handcuffed for officer safety."

I was hand cuffed when there was one officer present.
Once there were six officers present I would think there was little risk for
their safety.

I never said that I was not being cooperative.
Your assumptions of "belligerent" and "young" have no real basis.
Click to expand...
You thought wrong. If one officer believes that it was necessary to place you in cuffs then the rest of the officers on scene will likely agree that it is in their best interest to leave you restrained.

I qualified that statement by saying, "or not as cooperative as the other suspects." My assumptions that you are young and belligerent are based on the details of your story and your writing style. They do have a basis and are most likely, correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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