searched, private property need help

[justalayman]

well, you have just learned that the old myth about the cops having to tell you the truth when you ask them is just a myth.

why aren't lies by police officers illegal?

they are...sometimes. Just not when they are interrogating a suspect.

thou shalt not lie is one of the ten commandments, along with thou shalt not steal.

we don't really want to go there, do we? I am sure I can find something in the Bible about not breaking the law.

and $10k bond for 2 small plants, is that normal?

sounds a bit high to me especially since so many states are decriminalizing pot but it is what it is.

 

[carguy31]

I agree on all counts, except the bible one, I do think that we are first obligated to God then to the law? else were those that followed the law of their land and burned the Jews in ****-land germany abiding by Gods law?
I do feel that by the law of the bible I am allowed to have marijuana. I know many do not like the religious aspect of it, but I feel I must say what I truly believe....
Genesis 1:29 - PassageLookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

Genesis 1:29 (King James Version)

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

1 Timothy 4:1-4 - PassageLookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

1 Timothy 4

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Matthew 15:10-12 - PassageLookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

Matthew 15:10-12 (King James Version)

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20These are the things which defile a man

rightly or wrongly saying that I feel a weight lifted from me....

 

[justalayman]

=carguy31;2659134]I agree on all counts, except the bible one, I do think that we are first obligated to God then to the law? else were those that followed the law of their land and burned the Jews in ****-land germany abiding by Gods law?

Didn't Jesus say “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

so, your heart may be God's but your ass belongs to the judge that will preside over your trial.

I do feel that by the law of the bible I am allowed to have marijuana. I know many do not like the religious aspect of it, but I feel I must say what I truly believe....
Genesis 1:29 - PassageLookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

sorry. wrong interpretation. That specifically states it shall be for meat. That implies it is for sustenance.

1 Timothy 4:1-4 - PassageLookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

again, they speak of sustenance and why certain meats are not forbidden.

Matthew 15:10-12 - PassageLookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

you really need to read the Bible, especially these passages, so you understand the context they are written within.

Matthew 15:1-9

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[d]

what does that have to do with getting stoned?

continuing:

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'

 

[carguy31]

Didn't Jesus say “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

so, your heart may be God's but your ass belongs to the judge that will preside over your trial.



sorry. wrong interpretation. That specifically states it shall be for meat. That implies it is for sustenance.

again, they speak of sustenance and why certain meats are not forbidden.



you really need to read the Bible, especially these passages, so you understand the context they are written within.

Matthew 15:1-9



what does that have to do with getting stoned?

continuing:

so the Judge owns me? surely that's is not right? and yes, of course I've read the bible or I wouldn't be quoting it : ) and while it has little to do with being being stoned as society no longer stones people but it has a lot to do with being punished, and what one is being punished for.

It says it as plain as day, what a man consumes does not make him a bad person, rather their actions towards their fellow man, that is what makes a person bad or not.

But I do understand the law is not about what may or may not be allowed by God..... but it should be based on some sort of boundaries about morality, right?? seriously. but it seems like it must be about money b/c EVERYBODY I talked to said it's just a very small amount and nothing to be concerned about, even the cops that were here. a 10k bond does not me feel that way.

I think that I have a 1st amendment right to freedom of religion
(at least as far as my rights do not infringe upon others).

I think I have a 4th amendment right against unreasonable/warrantless search and seizure.
(I was searched and felt seized in that I was not free to do as I pleased at the time with 3 armed men telling me what to do, and 5 to back them up)

and an 8th amendment right against excessive bail and fines.
(I do think that a 10k bail is excessive and the paper said 2-life and a 50k fine)


I do not think any of this will help me in court and i will not bring it up, but on this forum where it is only chat with no consequences I think it is best (and proper) for me to say what I think. i might be wrong, I am certainly NOT a lawyer, but I have read the bible and the constitution neither of which are heavily loaded with legalese and I think i do have an understanding of what they are saying and meaning.
I am at least pretty sure in my heart that both Jesus and our Founding Fathers would think that I have done little wrong in this situation and probably do not deserve any of this, actually I think they might even be appalled.... of course this is just speculation on my part, so who knows.

 

[TigerD]

I think I have a 4th amendment right against unreasonable/warrantless search and seizure.
(I was searched and felt seized in that I was not free to do as I pleased at the time with 3 armed men telling me what to do, and 5 to back them up)

a. You did not have a right to do as your pleased -- in fact nobody has a right to simply do as they please.
b. As for feeling threatened by police officers with guns... you might have an argument there. It won't work, but it is an argument.

and an 8th amendment right against excessive bail and fines.
(I do think that a 10k bail is excessive and the paper said 2-life and a 50k fine)

In my county you would have gotten $15k cash only. For someone facing life, $10k isn't excessive.

DC

 

[justalayman]

=carguy31;2659197]so the Judge owns me? surely that's is not right?

in the figurative sense, yes and yes, it is right. We have given our judges the right to dispense punishment.

and yes, of course I've read the bible or I wouldn't be quoting it : ) and while it has little to do with being being stoned as society no longer stones people but it has a lot to do with being punished, and what one is being punished for.

sounds like you need to get off the drugs. I never said anything about a person being stoned (as in with rocks).

It says it as plain as day, what a man consumes does not make him a bad person, rather their actions towards their fellow man, that is what makes a person bad or not.

and of course, a typical stoner's interpretation and obviously ignoring the context.

a well written statement, with cited support, from another site.

To begin with, Christians are under a universal mandate to respect and obey the laws of the land (Deuteronomy 17:2; Ecclesiastes 8:2-5; Matthew 22:21; 23:2-3; Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 2 Peter 2:9-11). The ONLY instance in which we are allowed to disobey the laws of the land is when the laws violate any divine imperatives (Daniel 3 and 6; Acts 5:29). There are no other exceptions to this rule. Contrary to popular belief, simply disagreeing with a law does not constitute a license for breaking that law.

and then to the use of drugs themselves that would cause a person to not be sober.

All of the apostolic exhortations to remain sober-minded and alert (1 Corinthians 15:34; 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8; 2 Timothy 4:5; 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8) are designed to remind us that we must be vigilant against the wiles of the Devil (1 Peter 5:8), who seeks to ensnare us through deception. Sobriety is also important for prayer (1 Peter 4:7), as is obedience to God (Isaiah 1:10-17).

the Bible teaches us that “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Titus 2:12).

sober; that would be contrary to being under the influence of drugs.

I think that I have a 1st amendment right to freedom of religion
(at least as far as my rights do not infringe upon others).

and what does that have to do with your current situation?

I think I have a 4th amendment right against unreasonable/warrantless search and seizure.
(I was searched and felt seized in that I was not free to do as I pleased at the time with 3 armed men telling me what to do, and 5 to back them up)

then make that argument. Of all arguments you might have, based only on what you presented, this might be your best shot.

and an 8th amendment right against excessive bail and fines.
(I do think that a 10k bail is excessive and the paper said 2-life and a 50k fine)

if whatever crime you are being charged with (which you have not actually posted) has a possible penalty of 2- life, it concerns much more than a couple plants and a near empty baggy.

I am at least pretty sure in my heart that both Jesus and our Founding Fathers would think that I have done little wrong in this situation and probably do not deserve any of this, actually I think they might even be appalled.... of course this is just speculation on my part, so who knows.

first, have you read the citations I provided? and you still believe Jesus would support your drug use?

and the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. If they support you, then there is a valid defense in that Constitution.

 

[carguy31]

well hey, I'm not a lawyer. as far as being stoned in that sense I am not, and have not been for some time now. I told the cops that I could easily pas a drug test (which I can, NO problem).

as far as your Titus quote, remember, Jesus did make wine when there was none for the wedding party.

if whatever crime you are being charged with (which you have not actually posted) has a possible penalty of 2- life, it concerns much more than a couple plants and a near empty baggy.

The charge is "Cultivation of Marijuana", it was indeed two plants, certainly less than 1 ounce I can assure you that and that is the charge. I looked at oklahoma law and it is the case that if found guilty the minimum is 2 years-life up to a 20k fine.

I am in so much trouble here, I hardly ever smoke. I can easily say that I have smoked less than an ounce in the past 3 years combined. and less than one joint over the entire summer, maybe even the past 9 months. it is good for my stomach, much better than zantac (in times like these wow). it is what it is, deep doo-doo

 

[justalayman]

do you have a code or statute number?

 

[carguy31]

it says oklahoma 63 o.s. 2-509

 

[justalayman]

D. Knowingly violating the provisions of subsection B of this section is hereby declared, as to the owner, or person in possession of such lands, to be a felony and punishable as such by a fine not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for not less than two (2) years nor more than life. The fine provided for in this subsection shall be in addition to other punishments provided by law and shall not be in lieu of other punishment. Any person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of subsection B of this section is punishable by a term of imprisonment twice that otherwise authorized and by twice the fine otherwise authorized. Any sentence shall not be subject to statutory provisions for suspended sentences, deferred sentences, or probation, except when the conviction is for a first offense.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to cultivate or produce, or to knowingly permit the cultivation, production, or wild growing of any species of such plants, on any lands owned or controlled by such person, and it is hereby declared the duty of every such person to destroy all such plants found growing on lands owned or controlled by him.
C. 1. Whenever any peace officer of the state shall receive information that any species of any such plants has been found growing on any private lands in the State of Oklahoma, he shall notify the sheriff and county commissioners of the county wherein such plants are found growing. Within five (5) days of receipt of such notice, the county commissioners shall notify the owner or person in possession of such lands that such plants have been found growing on the said lands and that the same must be destroyed or eradicated within fifteen (15) days. When the fifteen (15) days have elapsed, the reporting peace officer shall cause an investigation to be made of the aforesaid lands, and if any such plants be found growing thereon, the commissioners shall cause the same to be destroyed or eradicated by either cutting and burning or by applications of herbicides approved for such purpose by the Department of Agriculture in accordance with Section 2-505 of this title.

so, first, to prove their case, they must prove you knowingly allowed the plants to grow. That doesn't mean cultivating them but merely knowing they were there and not eradicating them. Unless there is a witness against you or the plants were so obvious it is unreasonable to believe you could not have known about them, that is hard to prove.

then, due to the layout of your property (as suggested by you anyway), it would not be reasonable to believe the police knew of the plants without either a witness or they had visited your house for some reason and saw the plants (without an actual search).

so, there is what I see as your defense:

they must prove knowledge of the plants
they must provide support for the issuing of the search warrant

those are both something you or your lawyer will have to investigate.

 

[carguy31]

I have been reading on the law and from what I see there is what they call case law that sets a precedent and in similar cases it is to be followed, is this correct?

I found this:
KENNETH EARL DALE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.

KENNETH EARL DALE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.

Case No. F-2000-681

which sounds a lot like my case, except the locked gate deal but is in line with what you are saying. I think in another area I could show this to the judge but from what the three lawyers i talked to told me she will probably not care. BUT I will print off what you said and go talk to them.

-Thanks for your help

 

[justalayman]

from the citation

Police may obviously enter upon areas of residential property which are intended as public access points; they may, for example, walk up a driveway or walkway to the front porch of a typical urban home in order to contact the occupant, because that is what the area is intended for.

notice: to contact the occupant. They cannot come onto the property to effect a search, even if it falls within the public access point, without justification.

The problem is; you do not know what they are using as justification to enter your property commando style. Without that, everything is guesses.


I believe the case cited has some very strong supporting points for your situation, UNLESS the police can present evidence that would allow them to do what they did.

 

[justalayman]

=carguy31;2659454] I think in another area I could show this to the judge but from what the three lawyers i talked to told me she will probably not care. BUT I will print off what you said and go talk to them.
[/QUOTE]

you can't just "show it to the judge". You must present it in court, at the proper time, with why you are presenting it. You must relate the specific points in the citation to how and why they apply to you.

 

[xylene]

When I wake up there are about 8 cops at my house with 6 cars blocking my driveway

Does this mean that some of the cops rode together or that some of them parked elsewhere?

 

[carguy31]

from the citation

notice: to contact the occupant. They cannot come onto the property to effect a search, even if it falls within the public access point, without justification.

The problem is; you do not know what they are using as justification to enter your property commando style. Without that, everything is guesses.


I believe the case cited has some very strong supporting points for your situation, UNLESS the police can present evidence that would allow them to do what they did.

They told me they were looking for my old neighbor/friend. I told them that I hadn't talked to her in about a month and it had been 3 months or so since she was last here.

Does this mean that some of the cops rode together or that some of them parked elsewhere?

some of them rode together i think. there is nowhere to park for maybe 1/2 mile besides my driveway.