This is another case of police tyrannical behavior.

[RebelOne]

My son has a job with a company that sends him all over the U.S. He was working in Detroit a couple of weeks ago and was pulled over by the police for a traffic violation. He was charged with possession of a controlled substance. He had a couple of pain pills that were given to him by a neighbor to help with his arthritis. He forgot that he even had them. He also had a gun in his glove compartment, but he was not charged for that. The cops searched his car and even search his hotel room and found nothing. He was thrown in jail for the few pills because he did not have a prescription for them. He begged the police to give him a drug test, but no, he had to go to court and then hire a lawyer.

He had to pay a lawyer $3,500 to represent him in court. He is back in Georgia now, but will have to travel to Michigan in the next couple of weeks to appear in court. I cannot believe the justice system is so unfair. What is strange is that when he went to court the first time, the person before him was charged with possession of a gun, even though my son was not charged for his gun and only a few pills.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Taitertots]

1. Tyrannical Behavior =/= Getting busted with illegal drugs

The drug laws are stupid, but so is being so careless that you just drive around with illegal drugs in your car.

I'm not a lawyer, but if he didn't have a CPL than he could have gotten in a lot of trouble for the gun in the glove compartment.

[RebelOne]

2. He forgot that he had the pills.

It seems that the gun was not a problem. And he did not have a concealed license permit.

[Taitertots]

6. Two things: Forgetting your drugs are in the car doesn't mean it is legal to drive around with them

And you should be kissing their asses because he isn't facing criminal charges for driving around with a gun in the glove compartment. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of Michigan law is that you can't carry a gun in your glove box without a CPL.

What kind of person finds out their son gets busted with drugs and a gun, and thinks HE did nothing wrong and the police are tyrants for stopping him?

You were quite generic with the description of the pain pills. Was he cruising around Detroit with oxycontin that "a friend gave him.... He forgot was in his car..."? Your position would at least make a little sense if he had tylenol 3 or something similarly benign.

[lumpy]

8. It is OK to have prescription drugs in the car. His problem he had drugs that were not prescribed

for him,prescribed for his neighbor. It is illegal for people to share prescriptions.

[Taitertots]

11. I ran out of space for "illegal" in the title

It seemed like it was implied because I was responding to the original poster, who mentioned that the drugs were illegally obtained.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. If I may offer -- Is this an arrestable offense?

[Taitertots]

49. Those appear to be vitamins...

Assuming they are prescription medicine... They wouldn't be illegal if they were prescribed to you.

Carrying around narcotics without the prescription bottle is legal (to my limited legal knowledge) but not a good idea. I'm willing to bet a prosecutor would drop any drug charges if you showed them that you did have a prescription.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. If they're not illegal they're not arrestable

A free society doesn't arrest people and compel them to spend their time and money to prove to the state they committed no offense.

[bunnies]

61. My meds are legal for me to carry around like that.

I can prove I have prescriptions for all of them if needed. My meds would be illegal for you to carry around like that or any other way for that matter. Legal or illegal all depends on whose possession they're in. He had drugs that were not prescribed to him and were therefore illegal. Its simple really. No easy way out of that one.

[Taitertots]

64. From my understanding of the OP, he said he didn't have a prescription

[pipoman]

54. I suspect when they

find unmarked prescription drugs in someones possession..especially pills known to be abused..the first thing they ask is if you have a prescription for the pills..if you say yes they ask who your doctor or pharmacy and verify the prescription..just guessing..

[cleanhippie]

68. What kind of person finds out their son gets busted with drugs and a gun, and thinks HE did nothing

Exactly.

[loli phabay]

71. this got me too, there is no doubt he is guilty of possession

[msanthrope]

18. Who has the gun, now? Was it booked into evidence? Because if the cops have it,

your son could be facing gun charges that haven't been filed yet.

[loli phabay]

19. could be this, with the enhancments for firearm and drugs

[msanthrope]

22. Well, it wouldn't be the first time in America charges were amended pending

investigation/testing, etc.

[loli phabay]

23. question is who has the gun, if cops they are probably checking its status

Wonder what the back story is in the gun, is the driver chl, or not. There is not enough info and only one side to the story so far. Bad enough to be caught in possession of a controlled substance. No idea why he tried to get tested unless it was duid, as the charge was possession.

[RebelOne]

30. No, he still has the gun. The police did not take it. n/t

[msanthrope]

38. Excellent. Since there is no warrant or subpeona for the

gun, he would have no problem selling it, eh?

[pipoman]

3. This is what most people have a hard time understanding..

our laws and legal system ensnares all sorts of people and scenarios. There is almost no 'cut and dried' criminal cases..they all have their story..they all have their mitigating factors..they all have evidence or lack of..If our legal system was written/conducted in a manner which insured conviction of all guilty people, there would be many innocent people who would necessarily be convicted...there are absolutely innocent people prosecuted.

If you are accused of a crime you have a right to the best defense you can afford...guilty or not...don't scrimp on your criminal defense, you don't get a 'do over'. Hire the best criminal lawyer you can afford and participate fully in your own defense.

[RebelOne]

4. He did hire that best lawyer possible.

This lawyer was at one time a prosecuting attorney at the same court where he has to appear.

[pipoman]

13. Just be sure he is known as a criminal defense lawyer..

certainly some prosecutors change to defense...it is a very philosophically different personality who is a defense lawyer v. prosecutor. Just another mistake people make...determining a fantastic civil litigator for instance is also a great defense lawyer...to be a great defense lawyer one must be capable of defending the indefensible, not everyone can do that...

[Fumesucker]

5. Interesting that you blame the cops for enforcing stupid laws

Rather than blaming the politicians for passing stupid laws in the first place.

Hope things turn out as well as possible for your son, some of us with children and grandchildren worry about them getting in trouble just like this, some stupid minor error that turns into a life destroying criminal record.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. The cops seem to enforce those stupid laws rather enthusiastically.

The OP provides limited information, but does say he was pulled over for a traffic violation. I don't think Congress or the state legislature ordered cops to turn traffic stops into full-blown searches.

These days, I feel like lots of "traffic stops" are more like fishing expeditions.

[lumpy]

9. That certainly appears to be the case.

n

[Fumesucker]

10. Politicians have been screaming about the dangers of recreational drugs for over a century now

You can hardly blame the cops for taking them seriously, it's all they've ever known, taught since grammar school at least.

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. You're letting law enforcement off the hook too easily. They play an active role...

...in promoting tougher drugs laws and opposing drug law reform. They hype the menace, and they hype their busts. They have a vested institutional interest in maintaining or even exacerbating the drug war status quo. They've demonstrated it time after time.

[Fumesucker]

37. And you let the politicians off the hook too easily

Which is basically what I said in my first post, the post in reply to the OP which never mentioned those who make the laws.

Of course the cops have a vested interest but cops don't write the laws, if you want real change the laws have to be changed and the politicians have little to no interest in doing that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

52. I don't let any of them off the hook. There are two levels here:

Passing the laws.

And eagerly enforcing the laws.

There needs to be pressure on both levels.

[RebelOne]

56. They sure were enthusiastic.

My son said they swarmed all over him and his truck like he was a full-blown criminal. It could have been because of the Georgia license plate. Maybe they thought he was running drugs. He was only there because his job sends him everywhere.

[nomorenomore08]

72. Plenty of blame to go around, you could say... Our legal and political systems are fucking stupid...

[liberalhistorian]

12. I'm sorry, I'm certainly no knee-jerk defender

of police no matter what, but I fail to see how doing their job in this case equals "tyrannical behavior." It is illegal to share prescription drugs and to possess prescription drugs without a prescription, it doesn't matter if you've somehow "forgotten" that you have them. It is illegal to have possession of a gun if you do not have a permit. The police were within their rights and discretion to charge him. He is lucky that they did not charge him for the gun possession in addition to the drug charge, or he would really be in even more of a world of hurt than he is now. I don't know why they didn't charge him with that also, but it is within their discretion to decide.

I'm not saying I agree with the stupid drug laws now in place that resulted in the charge against him in the first place. But, until they are repealed, it is not illegal for the police to enforce them. Perhaps working to change the damned draconian drug laws might be something to consider.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

24. This goes well beyond "doing their job"

I have been pulled over for minor traffic violations on several occasions but in no case was my car ever searched. Even when I was in Oklahoma and made an overly wide turn at a intersection because I realized midway that I had to turn right instead of going straight, the cop just wanted to see what was in my ice chest (soda pop). And forcing someone to hire a $3500 lawyer and to represent him for possession of two unauthorized arthritis pills and make a special trip across the country to appear in court for that is just downright ridiculous.

[loli phabay]

27. doubt its arthritis pills, said they were for pain could be oxy etc

Still illegal without a prescription.

[Art_from_Ark]

28. I agree with the other poster

This is extreme overkill for a couple of "illegal" prescription drugs. FTS.

[bunnies]

63. Dont forget about the gun in the car.

I'd bet it probably would have gone differently without that little addition.

[Art_from_Ark]

74. Yeah, the gun in the car was not a smart move

I'm assuming the guy had heard horror stories about Detroit and thought he needed it for protection.
At any rate, it sounds like a real mess.

[tblue37]

51. But unless he agreed to a search, how

would the cops know he had those two pills on him? And if he did not agree to be searched, then they had no right to search him or his car without a warrant--right?

[bunnies]

62. he consented to the search.

Per the OP downthread. That was his mistake.

[tblue37]

75. THAT, for sure! I am always amazed that people consent to such searches.

I understand that with cops deliberately intimidating a person, it feels as though you don't dare say no to anything they demand, but I would at least say no and register a protest, just to get that evidence on their dashboard camera, even though I would have no way to prevent them if they wanted to ignore my protest, and even though that might make them annoyed enough to want to abuse my rights even more.

As a 63-year-old middle class white woman, I am obviously in much less danger from the police than many other people, but considering whom the cops have been abusing the last several years, I don't think anyone is safe from police brutality or abuse of rights any more.

I wonder why he consented to a search. I have to read the rest of the posts that have been added since I last visited the thread.

[pipoman]

14. Oh, and

criminal cases = cash to states, counties and municipalities. Criminal cases against nonresidents are cash cows in some places...especially bankrupt cities..

This means they don't want your son in jail necessarily, they want his money..

[RebelOne]

31. That is what my son figured.

They didn't charge him for the gun because he would have had two charges against him and they would have to put him in jail.

[pipoman]

53. It also makes me wonder if Detroit has a

diversion program. Diversion programs are used by cities and counties to exceed the maximum monetary penalty allowed for a given offense. For instance my state has a diversion program for first time DUI. IIRC the maximum fine under the statute for DUI is $2k. Under a diversion agreement you pay the maximum penalty ($2k) plus diversion fees and class fees which will double the 2k. If the person doesn't re-offend in 2 years, the prosecutor throws the case in the trash with no record. If the person does offend again during the 2 years, the diversion is revoked and the person is tried for both offenses. It can be a good alternative for people who are likely to be convicted.

[ohheckyeah]

15. How did a traffic violation

turn into a search situation?

[loli phabay]

20. consent probuably or there is more to the story.

[RebelOne]

32. He consented to the search

and there is no more to the story than what I have stated.

[Fumesucker]

39. If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear

There are plenty of DUers who are tap dancing all around that statement but that's their basic position stated bluntly, the Snowwald/NSA arguments have flushed them out in droves.

I wonder how many of them realize how easy it is to get dragged into this sort of situation without ever doing anything most of us would consider actually morally wrong?

[Orrex]

40. There's morally wrong, and then there's legally wrong

And not always the twain shall meet.

The only facts that have been revealed so far is that the man was out of state, carrying illegal prescription drugs and a concealed pistol, apparently without a permit.

Whether or not these are "morally wrong" actions, it seems clear that they are legally wrong.

[Fumesucker]

41. That's why I used the term "morally wrong"

Because I understand the difference.

I think it's quite revealing what the cops evidently thought was the more serious offense.

[Orrex]

44. Okay, but here's what I was addressing

I wonder how many of them realize how easy it is to get dragged into this sort of situation without ever doing anything most of us would consider actually morally wrong?

I would submit that this isn't the fault of the police but rather of the individual who, unlike you, doesn't understand the difference.

It is indeed interesting that the cops chose to pursue the drug possession angle. He should consider himself lucky that they haven't (yet) gone after him for both issues.

[Fumesucker]

46. And still you don't put the blame on the politicians who don't know the difference either

Or at least that seems to be the commonly accepted excuse anyway.

The politicians are the ones who set the impetus for the search in the first place, it was obvious what the cops were looking for just from what they chose to charge the person with, without that legal framework they would be as interested in what pills he had in his car as what station he had playing on the radio.

[Orrex]

47. One thing at a time

How can you declare anything to be "obvious" in this case, when we have only a partial second-hand account of it? Sounds like an assumption based on preconception.


Also, for any particular case of illegal possession of a controlled substance, it's difficult to mount a defense based on a complaint about politicians. Yes, it seems clear that drug arrests are given disproportionate priority, but that doesn't change the fact that the man in this case was admittedly in possession of an as yet unrevealed quantity of as yet unnamed prescription drugs, which as of this date is still a crime.


You're arguing that the man shouldn't be charged because you disagree with the law that he broke.


Until the law is changed, it remains the law. Based on the limited information available, it seems reasonable that he should be charged with a crime based on existing law, regardless of the overarching politics.

[RebelOne]

57. As far as he knew he had not done anything illegal, so he wasn't worried.

But the cops found those few pills and figured he was a drug dealer. They even searched his hotel room, but found nothing.

[Dash87]

42. That's the issue at hand.

Never consent to searches or inquiries when you don't have to. The police are not there to protect you or be your friend (despite their slogan). They're there to build criminal cases.

Police perform searches because they want to get justification for criminal charges.

[cleanhippie]

69. And THAT is the reason one should NEVER consent to a search. Make 'em get a warrant.

Period.

[loli phabay]

26. could also be he was arrested for the traffic violatiom and searched incident to arrest

There is a lot missing from the story.

[RebelOne]

58. Nothing missing from the story other than what I have posted. n/t

[gopiscrap]

16. fucking asshole cops!!!

[msanthrope]

17. Has his lawyer advised him that the gun charges could still be pending? Who has the gun, currently?

Do the cops have it?

[RebelOne]

33. No, the cops do not have the gun. They did not confiscate it. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

25. I'm sorry for your son's problems.

I think you've also pretty clearly demonstrated another, and much larger, problem. Too many people discount the bad-and-getting-worse-every-day totalitarianism that grips this nation until it effects them directly.

Some Pastor wrote a statement about this 70 years ago.

[Orrex]

29. A few questions, for the sake of clarification

1. What was the nature of the traffic violation? That is, did he change lanes without signaling, or did he run over a pedestrian? The details are important.

2. Exactly what kind of pain pills was he carrying without a prescription?

3. How many is "a couple of pain pills?" Two? A dozen? A bottle full?

4. Why was he concealing a gun in his glove compartment?

[RebelOne]

34. I don't know what the traffic violation was, but my son said it was minor.

I think they stopped him mainly because he had a Georgia license tag.

The pill were for arthritis. They were his neighbor's prescription and he gave my son a couple because he has arthritis pain.

He keeps a gun for safety when he has to travel across country. And his job takes him all over the U.S.

[Orrex]

36. Well, for further clarification...

The pill were for arthritis. They were his neighbor's prescription and he gave my son a couple because he has arthritis pain.

Ok, but what kind of pills for arthritis are they? And how many? You indicated "a couple of pills," but is that two pills or a full bottle? And is it high-end Oxy or generic Tylennol-3?

He keeps a gun for safety when he has to travel across country. And his job takes him all over the U.S.

Is he licensed to carry a gun in his glove compartment all over the US?

These aren't meant as nagging or trivial questions; they're fairly central to your son's case.


Best of luck to him at any rate--I hope that he comes through it without too much difficulty.

[bunnies]

35. Searched his car AND his hotel room?

How did that go down? Did your son make them get a warrant? Did they follow him to his hotel?

If he had a gun and pain pills not prescribed to him, Im sorry, but thats kinda asking for it. You cant "forget" you have a controlled substance in your car. As someone who has pain meds prescribed, I NEVER leave the house with pills not in my prescription bottle for exactly that reason.

And in this case, a drug test would have proved nothing. One can sell pills and not take them. If he'd had a larger amount, he may even be looking at intent to distribute. He's lucky he didnt. Unfortunately, your son earned that possession charge, as dumb as it may seem. A roach on the floor could have resulted the same way.

Narcotics + gun = no joke.

adding: my pills are for arthritis too. I have several scripts, none of which would be good for anyone other than me to be caught with.

[RebelOne]

59. He begged them to give him a drug test so he could prove he was not a druggie.

He is from Georgia where we both live, and just about every redneck has a gun. He also has five guns at home because he collects them. He does not hunt or shoot anything other than targets.

[loli phabay]

73. drug test makes no difference in a possession bust

If it was duid then they would have taken blood to test, but as its possession then it does not matter if he was on them or not

[Dash87]

43. Please don't take this the wrong way, but -

are you certain your son is not struggling with pain pill addiction? Why has he not talked to his doctor about his arthritis? Why would he need pills from his neighbor that fall under the category of controlled drugs, but not OTC pain killers for the moment until he talks to his doctor?

Taking drugs like that without a prescription is also not wise, as he could hurt himself. Many are also addictive, and I wouldn't recommend using someone else's pills. It's a recipe for disaster. He should talk to a doctor if he wants arthritis medicine.

Hope you don't take this the wrong way. I'm just trying to help.

[RebelOne]

60. No, he is not struggling with pain pill addiction.

He was complaining about his arthritis pain to a neighbor and the neighbor gave him a few of his. My son is not a druggie.

[COLGATE4]

48. Arresting someone for possession of a controlled substance

without a prescription is hardly an example of 'police tyranny'.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. Did he unlawfully have possession of a controlled subtance? What is unfair?

Everything indicates that he illegally had possession of a controlled substance.

But what is unfair?

That he was arrested when the police discovered that he had possession of a controlled substance? That's what police do. That's their job.

That he was charged with having possession of a controlled substance without the police giving him a drug test?

That he was charged with having possession of a controlled substance without the police having any proof that he was using the controlled substance?

That he was charged with having possession of a controlled substance without the police also charging him for having a gun in his glove compartment?

That he had to go to court? What were the police supposed to do? Say it's OK and let him go because his neighbor gave him the controlled substance? Say it's OK and let him go because he forgot that he had the controlled substance?

That he had to pay an attorney $3,500 to represent him in court? Attorneys, except for public defenders, charge a fee when representing a client who has been charged with having possession of a controlled substance.

That he was allowed to be on bail and even go back to Georgia? That he has asked for a trial, instead of pleading guilty, and now has to go back to court for the trial?

That he was only charged with having possession of a controlled substance but was not charged with illegally having a gun in his possession?

That he didn't benefit from having "only a few pills" in his possession? Or that the anticipated benefit was greatly outweighed by the cost and inconvenience to him?

[RebelOne]

65. You know what is strange. I order prescription bills without a prescription

from Canadian pharmacies. I don't want to be bothered with going to the doctor. I get my prescription blood pressure pills from them. They also have prescription pain pills and tranquilizers such as Tramadol (which my vet prescribed for my dog's arthritis) and Soma with no need for a prescription. So if I were stopped with one of those pills even though they were obtained legally, would I be charged with possession of a controlled substance?

[Mariana]

70. It depends on whether that particular medicine

is classified as a controlled substance. You'd have to look it up. Most prescription meds aren't classified as controlled substances, and you may obtain, possess, and use them without a prescription.

[Sivafae]

66. Of course, the basic question everyone seems to fail to ask...

so if he was pulled over for a traffic violation, why was he searched? Did they have probable cause to search? Did he agree to the search? If so, why?

I know the 4th Amendment has been taking a beating lately, but, it does still exist, no matter what any current SCOTUS says. Remember people, we have "inalienable" rights.

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəbəl/
Adjective
Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

These rights are for us to steward, not for the government to give.

[cleanhippie]

67. So he was in possession of prescription drugs not prescribed to him that he planned to use?

And when caught with said prescription drugs that were not prescribed to him he gets arrested?


And now you are upset about that? Really?

I am not anti-drug. As a cannabis user, I was very careful about having it on me before it was legalized here in WA and was prepared to face the consequences of breaking the law.