HELP pound of marajuana

[Just Blue]

My point was that you were not asked if you find his conduct morally redeeming. This is a legal advice board, not a morals advice board. I don't think a 20-year-old should be driving a 16-year-old to a drug deal either, but I get annoyed when people on this board gratuitously offer their moral condemnation when the person asking the question is already miserable, scared, and knows he made a mistake and just wants to know what is going to happen to him. It is very unprofessional too -- none of us would have clients if we offered our unsolicited opinion about the client's conduct, nor is that our job or area of expertise. Let the person's pastor, or parents, or counselor discuss the morality of his conduct with him.

But the fact of the OP (adult) knowingly assisting a legal CHILD in procuring drugs is relevant. The condemnation is free. OP should perhaps get used to it.

 

[cyjeff]

My point was that you were not asked if you find his conduct morally redeeming. This is a legal advice board, not a morals advice board. I don't think a 20-year-old should be driving a 16-year-old to a drug deal either, but I get annoyed when people on this board gratuitously offer their moral condemnation when the person asking the question is already miserable, scared, and knows he made a mistake and just wants to know what is going to happen to him. It is very unprofessional too -- none of us would have clients if we offered our unsolicited opinion about the client's conduct, nor is that our job or area of expertise. Let the person's pastor, or parents, or counselor discuss the morality of his conduct with him.

Thank God you are here to act as our unwelcome and unbidden voice of reason.

Do you look like a cricket in a victorian opera cloak?

Translation: I don't give a crap if you are annoyed.... and speaking to us as if you are our moral compass doesn't endear you to me.

This man drove a child to buy pot.... a LOT of pot. A POUND of pot.

You seem to think ANYONE will believe he didn't know about the 454 grams of pot that the child was dragging into the car. Heck, he almost needed a bungie cord to strap it to the top.

 

[calatty]

Cyjeff, your comment reveals that you are not an attorney, or at least not an ethical one if you are. We are taught in ethics class in law school not to offer advice that is not within our area of expertise. People on this board relish condemning and mocking people who come here for advice. Maybe that is why fewer and fewer people are willing to ask questions. BJR got 10 responses, but not a single one of them answered the legal question he asked in an informative unbiased manner. Maybe they are just wannabe lawyers who use condemnation as a substitute for their lack of legal knowledge.

 

[stealth2]

It is very unprofessional too -- none of us would have clients if we offered our unsolicited opinion about the client's conduct, nor is that our job or area of expertise. Let the person's pastor, or parents, or counselor discuss the morality of his conduct with him.

I don't have clients, so I don't worry about that. Did you know one does not need to be an attorney to post here? Guess not. Silly calatty.

Frankly, it would not surprise me at all to find out that OP was actually the driving force behind the buy - but figured that sending the minor would result in a lesser offense if caught.

 

[calatty]

No, silly stealth2 for pretending to be an attorney who has the knowledge to offer legal advice. Like I said, the board is full of wannabe lawyers who use mockery and ridicule as a substitute for legal knowledge which they don't have. Too bad for the people who come here looking for actual legal advice.

 

[Just Blue]

No, silly stealth2 for pretending to be an attorney who has the knowledge to offer legal advice.

Stealth had never pretended to be an attorney. She follows the TOS.

 

[stealth2]

No, silly stealth2 for pretending to be an attorney who has the knowledge to offer legal advice. Like I said, the board is full of wannabe lawyers who use mockery and ridicule as a substitute for legal knowledge which they don't have. Too bad for the people who come here looking for actual legal advice.

When have I EVER pretended to be an attorney? Have you read the ToS, dude? Where it states that:

The FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues.

Do you understand what a *consumer* is? Do you realize that a consumer is not the same as an attorney? Did Goofy shake your hand when he handed your law degree to you?

 

[CdwJava]

My point was that you were not asked if you find his conduct morally redeeming.

Which does not mean that the commentary cannot be injected.

This is a legal advice board, not a morals advice board.

I tend to agree. But, something or so objectionable that they must be commented upon. And, frankly, sometimes condemnation and shame can go a long way to altering future behavior. Many of us are about prevention, not simply reaction.

I don't think a 20-year-old should be driving a 16-year-old to a drug deal either, but I get annoyed when people on this board gratuitously offer their moral condemnation when the person asking the question is already miserable, scared, and knows he made a mistake and just wants to know what is going to happen to him.

Funny, I do not see anything akin to remorse in his post only concern that he got caught and now wants to know how to mitigate any potential consequences.

It is very unprofessional too -- none of us would have clients if we offered our unsolicited opinion about the client's conduct, nor is that our job or area of expertise.

Not all of us are attorneys nor are we under any obligation to keep our opinions to ourselves. Even the attorneys on these boards are free to offer opinions as to the morality of conduct. I have been told by some that it can be cathartic for them as they cannot do so to their clients. Fortunately, in my line of work I CAN render an opinion to a subject I have contacted.

Let the person's pastor, or parents, or counselor discuss the morality of his conduct with him.

When the teaching moment appears, you take it.

Before you mentioned it, the concept of dominion and control had also already been mentioned as had potential charges that could be filed besides the possession charge. Certainly, only you brought up the possibility that the state may not have much of a case for the dominion and control and that is a valid point. Though, I tend to believe they probably have sufficient evidence to file and to at least go to a prelim on the matter (or whatever the process entails in the OP's state).

I will agree that when responses are solely in the realm of critical they probably have no place in a response. That is not MY M.O. and certainly not the M.O. of a great many regular posters here. But, sometimes, a particular offense prods us in the ohmygod! bone that we feel that some sort of commentary beyond the legal is necessary.

I refer back to one of my original responses and paraphrase: BJR1991, consult local counsel.

 

[calatty]

Why should he express remorse when he came to ask for legal advice? If his future behavior will be altered, it is not by the responders' comments but as a result of his arrest and eventual conviction. It may be cathartic for the responder to kick a guy when he is down, but it is morally reprehensible too. I am glad you agree that purely critical comments have no place here, and you are one of the people who offers real and accurate legal advice.

 

[quincy]

"I am glad you agree that purely critical comments have no place here," says calatty after composing several purely critical posts.

There are attorneys who post to this site, and many of these attorneys will (unethically?) offer advice in a thread even if they have no particular expertise in that area of the law, if they believe they can add to the thread something of substance or value (or if they feel like adding something just for the heck of it).

But the fact of the matter is that the majority of the members on this forum are not attorneys. These members, however, often know some areas of the law far better than the attorneys who do post here, because of their education, their work and work experiences, and/or their personal experiences. Cdw is an excellent example.

As a note, moral judgments can often play a role in a court's decision, especially when it comes to sentencing.

 

[cyjeff]

"I am glad you agree that purely critical comments have no place here," says calatty after composing several purely critical posts.

Kinda noticed that myself.

Anyway... we are not auditioning for a job or trying to score a new client.

You see, getting a client from a message board would be, by most professional standards, slimy in the extreme.

If you want a purely legal opinion, pay for it in 6 minute increments. If you want free, you get the commercials, too.

If you look carefully, most of the outside comments made are EXACTLY what a judge will ask.

Now, I am curious, how does the OP plan on convincing a judge that a one pound brick of weed carried into his car by the 16 year old he drove to a known drug house got into his car without his knowledge?

Will he say that he didn't know his friend was going to buy pot?

Can't use that. He told the officer that there was pot in the car.

Will he say that he didn't know his friend was smoking pot (not smart since this whole thing started with the smell on the OP)?

Probably not. If HE was smoking earlier, there is a problem there. If he wasn't smoking earlier but his lil buddy reeked of it, there is a problem there.

Telling him that corruption of a minor (at the very least) is on the table isn't being mean... it is being completely factual.

 

[calatty]

And when would the judge be asking those questions? Not at the time he enters a plea, which he is likely to do as over 90% of cases are disposed of by plea. Not at trial either at which the prosecutor and the defense attorney ask the questions.

That is the trouble with non-attorneys answering legal questions. They think they know the law better than attorneys, but in actual fact they make basic legal errors like assuming the judge will be asking questions, or that to get excellent representation they need to hire a private attorney. CdwJava is a police officer. Police officers by profession are charged with knowing the law.

 

[john39]

Police officers by profession are charged with knowing the law.

Aren't we all presumed to know and understand the law?Ignorantia juris neminem excusat

Who here knows and understands all the laws A capite ad calcem.... raise hand ....also who never made mistake in their life...raise hand....how about...immoral act.... how about a crime....common now,remember that time when no one was looking

I can't do it, (except for the crime question...oh no..no never done crime,in my life,I swear)...but please don't tell anybody I said that....

 

[quincy]

calatty, BJR was given an accurate picture of what he faces given the facts he presented, and he was given competent advice by non-attorney forum members based on these facts, this before you stepped in to reiterate in your post all that had previously been said by these non-attorney forum members. You merely added in your post some "what-ifs" and guesses as to what could happen based on these what-ifs.

It was wisely advised by each forum member that BJR should get a good attorney.

Hiring a private attorney, when possible, will almost always be better for a person than having a public defender - and this would not be because public defenders are not good attorneys or qualified to handle a particular case. It is because public defenders in almost all areas of this country have caseloads that far exceed recommended standards. Public defenders often have very little time to review the facts of any one case or devote much time to any one client.

 

[tranquility]

I have to agree with the other posters, I didn't see some huge moral outrage over the OP's acts. (Even though most of us feel that a person who drives a child so the child can purchase a quantity of drugs far beyond needed for personal use deserves some grief. It takes a village and all that. Where is my big "D" for doofus we can sew on the OP's shirt?)

I also must opine the law follows morality. It is supposed to be a codified model of what society believes is bad behavior. One of the great values of the usually correct advice of the forum (sometimes you have to dig it out from the thread) here is that is often DOES include some judgment. It's easy to say a person can sue or that a person should get an attorney. Both (and others) are almost always correct. But, it is the general feeling of the responses which can give the OP the most benefit. He has some sense of how a jury will look at the facts he gave.

As to some specifics:

The crime of possession requires that the defendant have dominion and control over the drugs, not merely knowledge that the drugs are there.

True enough. Thanks for the rule portion of the IRAC. Now, when you apply the facts against the rule (You know, the lawyer thing.) we might look to the Supreme Court to guide. While the first case has to do with Probable Cause and not proof, once there is probable cause a jury will have to determine if the OP possessed the drugs.

From Maryland v. Pringle, 540 US 366 (2003) the lower court held:

The Court of Appeals of Maryland, by divided vote, reversed, holding that, absent specific facts tending to show Pringle's knowledge and dominion or control over the drugs, "the mere finding of cocaine in the back armrest when [Pringle] was a front seat passenger in a car being driven by its owner is insufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest for possession." 370 Md. 525, 545, 805 A. 2d 1016, 1027 (2002). We granted certiorari, 538 U. S. 921 (2003), and now reverse.

To which the supremes said:

In this case, Pringle was one of three men riding in a Nissan Maxima at 3:16 a.m. There was $763 of rolled-up cash in the glove compartment directly in front of Pringle.[2] Five plastic glassine baggies of cocaine were behind the back-seat armrest and accessible to all three men. Upon questioning, the three men failed to offer any information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or the money.

We think it an entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Thus, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly.

While we can imagine facts which would take the item beyond the OP's dominion and control, the argument:

BJR does not say that he knew the house was a marijuana dealer's house when he drove his friend there. His friend may have gone in and picked up the marijuana and then told BJR when he came out that he bought some weed inside. BJR doesn't say he ever saw the marijuana, and he told the police he did not know how much marijuana was in the car. He also did not say where the marijuana was found - if it was under his friend's seat, for example, that would further indicate that he did not have dominion and control over it. Depending on the facts, there may not be strong evidence that BJR had dominion and control.

is unconvincing as the OP KNEW the CHILD brought MARIJUANA into the vehicle. He admitted it and signed a confession. While knowledge is not dominion and control, the driver has the ability to kick a child out of his car when he knew he had drugs. By not doing so, with the facts we have here, it will take a golden-tongued devil to convince any reasonable person he was not as involved in this as the person who purchased the drugs. (Not in trying to get the drugs to later sell, but in exercising dominion and control over them.) Ownership does not equal dominion and control. A deal? Sure, any issue helps with a deal. I don't think these facts indicate the OP didn't intend to possess the drugs, but I'm not on the jury. All the DA has to consider is if he can convince all 12 of the jurors. There's always a risk, it's just I don't think this "chit" is worth too much.