DORM RAID! PLEASE HELP urgent

[ElvinMelvin]

There is no way any university public or private would unequivocably force students to submit to warrentless searches by the police of their dorm rooms. This is as laughable as saying an apartment complex could force such a requirement on their tenants, or a motel room on their guests. The OP could have said no and if the police forced their way in anything they found would be inadmissable.

From Loyola University's website, for example:

Section 11 - Room Entry + Room Search
I. Room Entry

Per the Residence Hall Contract (Section 13), residence hall rooms can and may be entered by authorized University personnel, including Residential Life staff, for the following reasons, which are to be made known to the occupants:

a. Inspection for public health reasons and for compliance with policy, fire, life, and safety guidelines.

b. Repair, maintenance, and/or cleaning of the facility and furnishings.

c. Response to any reported or perceived emergency medical or facility situation.

d. Enforcing University policy and investigating suspected infractions thereof.

e. Inspecting rooms to ensure that the hall is vacated during fire alarms or other emergency situations, and during vacation/holiday periods.

f. Upon request of an identified room occupant.

If the police were working in conjunction with University personnel (and since this was dorm-wide and not a single resident it seems most likely that the University requested the police)there is no problem with the search. Even less if the police were university police.

 

[swalsh411]

That doesn't mean the police wouldn't need a warrant for anything found to be admissible if the resident did not give consent. It's one thing if the administration finds something and wants to kick you out of school for it; something else entirely if it's going to be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. If the police in the OP's case didn't need permission they wouldn't have asked.

 

[xylene]

First of all, it was a box of ziploc bags, not three.

Better still. Now it is only one item.

That is the point of a student loan, it is a loan. If you are no longer enrolled in a school then you have to repay the loan. If the OP remains in school, applies for FASFA again and is then convicted that semester he will be required to immediately pay back any monies received after that conviction.

"According to the United States Department
of Education, if a student is convicted of a
drug offense after receiving Federal aid
money, he or she must notify the Financial
Aid department immediately and that
student will become ineligible for further
aid and also be required to pay back any
and all aid received after the conviction.."

In the real world possession of narcotics is possession of narcotics.

You are clarifying what you meant, which is fine, but your previous post went far beyond implying that fafsa grants issued before a conviction would be required to be repaid.

In the spirit of your post, please cite a source that will show that possession of a scale, money, and baggies along with possession of narcotics will not result in an intent to sell charge.

He was not arrested. The police may charge him, but they didn't. Hardly a bang up, lock em up slam dunk.

How about a source that will show that police officers will not extract data from a phone because it is very expensive?

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~tmoore/weis06-moore.pdf

I could go on, but its a simple reality that the police don't have an endless budget to process evidence, especially on a drug case where only a trace amount of drugs were found...

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Better still. Now it is only one item.



You are clarifying what you meant, which is fine, but your previous post went far beyond implying that fafsa grants issued before a conviction would be required to be repaid.



He was not arrested. The police may charge him, but they didn't. Hardly a bang up, lock em up slam dunk.



http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~tmoore/weis06-moore.pdf

I could go on, but its a simple reality that the police don't have an endless budget to process evidence, especially on a drug case where only a trace amount of drugs were found...

A box of ziploc bags in a sock drawer is next to a scale and money equals pretty damning evidence in any court of law. Add the possession of marijuana to that and any extracted text messages..... things are looking pretty bleak for the OP.

Your post implied that the OP would not have to repay his student loans, a markedly false response. You failed to provide a source for my first request. I'm guessing you are just too stubborn to admit you are obviously wrong.

In the quickly evolving technological market, do you really think a 6 year old study from the UK would even be considered relevant to the current discussion. Consider the fact that the most commonly used cell phone operating system now was not even created at that point. It was a nice try but you fell flat. Feel free to try to provide a source to back up your own hyperboles or you could just bow out gracefully.

Finaly, answer this question for me.

If the police did not have the money or technology to extract the data from the phone, why were they going to return with a warrant for the data?

 

[xylene]

A box of ziploc bags in a sock drawer is next to a scale and money equals pretty damning evidence in any court of law. Add the possession of marijuana to that and any extracted text messages..... things are looking pretty bleak for the OP.

See this is the point of disagreement. I don't think things are so bleak for the OP. I think overstating the police's case does no one a service.

Your post implied that the OP would not have to repay his student loans, a markedly false response. You failed to provide a source for my first request. I'm guessing you are just too stubborn to admit you are obviously wrong.

You, alone, have raised the issue of loans. I never mentioned loans. You originally mentioned FAFSA. FAFSA is need based aid.

Your own quote illustrates quite nicely that the OP would not have to repay any FAFSA aid issued before conviction.

In the quickly evolving technological market, do you really think a 6 year old study from the UK would even be considered relevant to the current discussion. Consider the fact that the most commonly used cell phone operating system now was not even created at that point. It was a nice try but you fell flat. Feel free to try to provide a source to back up your own hyperboles or you could just bow out gracefully.

A position paper from a world leading institution in economics and criminal science illustrates the principle well. The costs involved are not simply about hooking a phone up to a USB port and sucking out the memory... The police can't just do some two bit hack. They have to have experts and resolve issues of chain of custody. The things you claim make it easier also make it easier for an even moderately competent defense attorney to attack.

Those are all costs.

Finaly, answer this question for me.

If the police did not have the money or technology to extract the data from the phone, why were they going to return with a warrant for the data?

They may have been using the threat of one as an interrogation technique.

They may truly intend to get a warrant, and the poster should use this time to secure defense consul.

They may want to get a warrant to use the information in furtherance of other investigations of either clients, affiliates or suppliers.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

See this is the point of disagreement. I don't think things are so bleak for the OP. I think overstating the police's case does no one a service.




You, alone, have raised the issue of loans. I never mentioned loans. You originally mentioned FAFSA. FAFSA is need based aid.

Your own quote illustrates quite nicely that the OP would not have to repay any FAFSA aid issued before conviction.



A position paper from a world leading institution in economics and criminal science illustrates the principle well. The costs involved are not simply about hooking a phone up to a USB port and sucking out the memory... The police can't just do some two bit hack. They have to have experts and resolve issues of chain of custody. The things you claim make it easier also make it easier for an even moderately competent defense attorney to attack.

Those are all costs.



They may have been using the threat of one as an interrogation technique.

They may truly intend to get a warrant, and the poster should use this time to secure defense consul.

They may want to get a warrant to use the information in furtherance of other investigations of either clients, affiliates or suppliers.

You are obviously not familiar with FASFA or the products it provides to young people. I did mention student loans along with CJane, so no I wasn't alone in my insinuation that the OP may be receiving aid in the form of loans.

I did not question the validity of the institution, just the validity of the paper since it was written before the emergence of many new technologies, including the most widely used smart phone operating system in the world or the second most popular system. I am still waiting for a valid source. Do you have one?

Anyone could make up some stories about what the police "may" be up to but the facts in this story only lead to one conclusion, you are wrong.

 

[Ohiogal]

A box of ziploc bags in a sock drawer is next to a scale and money equals pretty damning evidence in any court of law. Add the possession of marijuana to that and any extracted text messages..... things are looking pretty bleak for the OP.

Your post implied that the OP would not have to repay his student loans, a markedly false response. You failed to provide a source for my first request. I'm guessing you are just too stubborn to admit you are obviously wrong.

In the quickly evolving technological market, do you really think a 6 year old study from the UK would even be considered relevant to the current discussion. Consider the fact that the most commonly used cell phone operating system now was not even created at that point. It was a nice try but you fell flat. Feel free to try to provide a source to back up your own hyperboles or you could just bow out gracefully.

Finaly, answer this question for me.

If the police did not have the money or technology to extract the data from the phone, why were they going to return with a warrant for the data?

So was ANY drug residue found on the scale? Scales can be used for may things.

 

[dave33]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Pennsylvania

The cops randomly showed up at my dorm room and I (stupidly) let them in. They did a light search and found; a pocket scale in my drawer with a box of ziplock bags next to it, a plastic bag with 3 twenty dollar bills in it in my sock drawer (across the room), and a cigar tube/case with two miniscule weed crumbs at the bottom (less than .1 grams). They also took a bag that had the box to the scale and an empty box of cigars. Then they took my phone and said they were going to get a warrant to look at my phone history/records. My friend told me they were able to bring up texts from 2 years ago on his phone. Assuming they search my history to 2 years back, they will find numerous texts about drug deals (none within a week or two of the dorm raid). I also have a clean record as of right now. Is this enough evidence to convict me of intent to sell? How about conspiracy to sell? What do you think I will get charged with? Please help, I really need it considering I am already in a very bad circumstance

No way to tell what stategy they will use. Seems a little unusual they didn't charge you w/something.

Maybe they will try to use you as a confidential informant. It is possible to
keep this off the record in support of their interests.

The really bad part is that you never know if you have a warrant. At this
point they could issue one and surprise you wherever you are. Now is the
time to live a squeeky clean lifestyle.

Also, no way to know what will happen to the phone. Just have to wait and
see. But seriously.... Saving texts of past drug deals. Time to find a new
career. Mistakes like that will get you a life sentence.

 

[CdwJava]

That doesn't mean the police wouldn't need a warrant for anything found to be admissible if the resident did not give consent. It's one thing if the administration finds something and wants to kick you out of school for it; something else entirely if it's going to be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. If the police in the OP's case didn't need permission they wouldn't have asked.

The OP gave them consent. This is an exception to the warrant requirement.

With consent to search, and no active revocation of that consent, the evidence of the drug dealing is in. The search of the phone may require a warrant, but I am not aware of the status of PA law on that issue. In any case, it would not be tough to get such a warrant, and depending on the phone or the provider, extracting that info may not be any more difficult than plugging it into the correct machine. The cost can be negligible and really won't enter into the equation. I can do it for zero cost (well, I suppose driving a half a mile to the appropriate cell phone outlet, or, the driving time for someone from the drug task force can be a small cost). Or, I can send it off to the state crime lab and have them pull it out for me, but that takes a lot longer than if I go directly to the provider or call in the Narco guys.