texas cocaine possession?
337090
They are coming down hard in the War on Drugs. I would have to say it is a Fifth Degree Possession charge. Since they are a first time offender the punishment shouldn't be that stiff. Even an empty baggy with traces of an illegal drug is considered a small amount. Residue on a scale is also considered a small amount. My buddy had just gotten out of jail after 4 months and didn't realize there was a leftover empty baggy in her purse from months before. She got pulled over on a routine traffic stop. Since she was on probation that gave them a right to search. They found the empty baggy with traces on it. I write to her in prison now.
855488
call the police ask for the drug inforcement officer  its another department they are in about 9 to 4 they will take a report and start watching the house they are trying to see if it is a lab or just selling .. if you smell anything it could be a lab.. my neighbors had a meth lab they got caught and are still in jail 10 years so far
21602
The Presumption Clause under Section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) stipulates that anyone caught in the possession of a certain amount of a controlled drug is presumed to be trafficking in the drug and the onus is on him to prove that the drug found on him is not for the purpose of trafficking.\n\nUnder the MDA, a person is presumed to be trafficking in a controlled drug if he possesses more than:\n\n    * 2g of heroin;\n    * 3g of morphine;\n    * 100g of opium;\n    * 15g of cannabis;\n    * 10g of cannabis resin;\n    * 30g of cannabis mixture;\n    * 3g of cocaine;\n    * 25g of methamphetamine; or\n    * 10g of any or any combination of the following:\n          o N, a-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine;\n          o a-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine; or\n          o N-ethyl-a-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine \n\nFollow the link below for more details.
840530
It depends.  Under our present "war on drugs" a homeowner can be held responsible for drug activity taking place in his/her home.  Whether or not the INS decides to deport him is a different matter.
4254
AGUILAR v. TEXAS\n\nNo. 548\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n378 U.S. 108; 84 S. Ct. 1509; 12 L. Ed. 2d 723; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 994\n\n \nMarch 25-26, 1964, Argued  \nJune 15, 1964, Decided\n\nPRIOR HISTORY: \n\nCERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. Aguillar v. State, 172 Tex. Crim. 629, 362 S.W.2d 111, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1114 (Tex. Crim. App., 1962)\n\n\nDISPOSITION: 172 Tex. Cr. R. 629, 631, 362 S. W. 2d 111, 112, reversed and remanded.\n\nSUMMARY: A Texas justice of the peace issued a warrant to search for narcotics in defendant's home; the warrant was based on an affidavit filed by two municipal police officers and reciting that affiants received reliable information from a credible person, and that affiants believed, that narcotics were being kept at defendant's premises for illegal sale and use. Over defendant's objection, heroin seized under the warrant was introduced in evidence at his trial in a Texas state court. Defendant was convicted of illegal possession of heroin, and his conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (172 Tex Crim 629, 362 SW2d 111, affirmance upheld on rehearing, 172 Tex Crim 631, 362 SW2d 112.)\n\nOn certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion by Goldberg, J., expressing the views of six members of the Court, it was held that under the Fourteenth Amendment the heroin was not admissible in evidence because the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, the standard for obtaining a search warrant being the same under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.\n\nHarlan, J., concurred in the Court's opinion, stating that but for Ker v California, 374 US 23, 10 L ed 2d 726, 83 S Ct 1623, in which case he dissented, he would have affirmed the judgment of the Texas court.\n\nClark, J., joined by Black and Stewart, JJ., dissented, expressing the view that the majority substituted a rigid, academic formula for the unrigid standards of reasonableness and probable cause laid down by the Fourth Amendment.\n\nLAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES: \n \n [***HN1] \nSEARCH AND SEIZURE §27\nwarrants -- showing of probable cause -- judicial review --\n \nHeadnote: [1]\nIn passing on the validity of a search warrant, the reviewing court may consider only information brought to the magistrate's attention; hence, the fact that the police may have kept a suspect's house under surveillance is irrelevant where, in applying for the warrant, the police did not mention any surveillance.\n \n [***HN2] \nSEARCH AND SEIZURE §5\nrestrictions on states -- warrant -- standards --\n \nHeadnote: [2]\nThe standard for obtaining a search warrant is the same under the Fourth and under the Fourteenth Amendment, through which the Fourth Amendment's proscriptions of unreasonable searches and seizures are enforced against the states.\n \n [***HN3] \nSEARCH AND SEIZURE §26\nconstitutionality of search warrant --\n \nHeadnote: [3]\nIn evaluating the constitutionality of a search warrant, the rule is that the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants are to be preferred over the hurried action of police officers who may happen to make arrests.\n \n [***HN4] \nSEARCH AND SEIZURE §25\nwithout warrant -- justification --\n \nHeadnote: [4]\nThat facts known to police officers would constitute sufficient evidence to justify the issuance of a search warrant will not justify the officers in making a search without a warrant.\n \n [***HN5] \nSEARCH AND SEIZURE §27\nshowing probable cause -- judicial review --\n \nHeadnote: [5]\nWhere a search is based upon a magistrate's, rather than a police officer's, determination of probable cause, the reviewing court will accept evidence of a less judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant, and will sustain the judicial determination of probable cause so long as there was substa
267851
If the police saw the drug, then they will likely charge him with possession of a controlled substance. If it was a large amount, he may also face charges for intent to distribute.\n\nOf course, this begs the question. Why didn't he hide it under the seat or something?
1055085
Well it was illegal what YOU did if you are referring to putting dope in the brownies. You could get charged with a class B misdemeanor, thats a legal issue. \nI think you are asking about the moral issue of your so-called payback. I think she had it coming but just so long as you realize you only stooped to her level. \n\nOut of curiosity, did she realize she was high?
370355
It requires somewhat more than just taking care of the property. What you are referring to is called adverse possession, which by Texas law, must be "an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person." Further, the true owner of the land has a period of time from the commencement of that possession to file a claim, though the time period depends on the circumstances. I would contact a lawyer and see what your options are. If you built a fence around the land and kept it for long enough, it would be yours.
363586
Due to our constitution, basically no criminal charge is summary. All are subject to a trial and require an indictment of some sort. Some do not require a grand jury indictment, and this is likely one of them. The amount has everything to do with what you are charged with. The weight of the drug determines whether they charge you with simple possession or trafficking possession (if you intended to sell it) and what degree of possession.
846063
I live in Florida, but I believe this rule of law applies to all states. I'm sure someone out there will post otherwise if I am incorrect.\n\nHere, if you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE CAR, you cannot claim ignorance as a defense. The law assumes that, as the sole inhabitant of the vehicle, you are knowledgeable about the contents of said vehicle, and therefore, responsible for said contents. The only time you can claim ignorance of the contents is if there were other people in the car at the time of the stop, search, and seizure.\n\nMy ex-husband found this out when he was stopped while driving (alone) and the cops found drug paraphernalia in his vehicle. His "defense" that the stuff didn't belong to him was thrown out of court based on the law I stated above.\n\nIf you were alone in the vehicle, there ISN'T any "proving your innocence". The law already assumes you are culpable.
439945
Actually, these drugs aren't all "legal."  The definition of possession of a controlled substance is in some form or another the "unauthorized possession of a controlled substance," which generally means the person doesn't have a "prescription" for the substance.  So, since the FDA, VA, and USPS are all organizations which operate based on the authorization to possess controlled substances, it's alright for THEM to ship these substances through the mail.  It's not fair, believe me, I hate the fact that they can do it as much as you do, but they've got documentation and authorization on their side.  =(\n\nYou may, however, be fortunate enough to hook up with someone who is a recipient of the VA's services who might be willing to work something out with you.  I don't advise that,though, because usually if you get caught, your case will definitely go federal, and that conviction means you'll never be prescribed another narcotic as long as you live...
193693
go to court, but u'll have to prove the thing ur bf's mom is storing are urs. It's called "actio reivindicatio" \nThe owner comes to this action when it has lost the possession of a thing of his property and must demand precisely the one that possesses it in the moment of the litis contestatio and has the protection of the interdicts
1101042
With the amount that you were found with, you will not be nailed with intent to distribute, which is a VERY good thing.  You may have to do some community service and maybe serve some probation, but as far as jail time is concerned it is probably not going to happen.\n\nStay sober my good friend!!
413119
Sounds like Controlled Substance Act (drugs)  Manufacturing/ Delivery.\n\nJust a guess, but if you've got any left that you want to get rid of before trial...
517206
HI MJ- Unfortunately, the law states that he can be charged, regardless of his state at the time. The only defense would be temporary insanity, but that has not worked in the past for people who were unaware of their actions due to too much alcohol or illegal drugs, so it would not likely be usable in this case either.  What may happen is that he could plead to a lesser charge due to impaired judgment brought on by a combination of a small amount of alcohol in conjunction with a legal benzodiazepene (I assume here that he had this as a prescription, and was not taking it illegally)- However, even that is iffy, because all people given BZDs are strongly warned about taking it with alcohol, and on the bottle itself there are strong warnings.  If he were using the drug illegally, then that pretty much shoots down all defenses.  But, in the end, just because he did not remember, or even know what he was doing, does not mean he will not be held legally accountable-he definitely will...how strongly will depend on his past record, the reason he was using the BZD, and the severity of the crime.  Get a good lawyer and try to plead a lesser charge based on reduced judgment due to ignorance of the drug interaction effect.  I just hope the BZD was a prescription for him.  Good luck, MJ
200064
You must have already been arrested otherwise you wouldn't have taken a breathalizer to blow an 034 so that isn't the issue here. If the officer can articulate why he thought that you were driving under the influence, you can still be CONVICTED of driving under the influence of intoxicants AND/OR drugs. Get a good attorney. In cases like these, it is money well spent.
1181459
You've written an awful lot of stuff here just to ask if the cops can pull someone over for "no reason."\n\nDoubtful.  \n\nIf the state you're writing about has a law that allows police to stop vehicles to check for current insurance (and for no other reason), then I would have to say the police can do that.  \n\nIf there's no such law in your state that allows that, it's going to be every bit as impossible to give you a good answer as Van Winkle says (and his was generally a very good answer).  You don't have anywhere near all the facts, so there's no way you can present them to anyone to get a decent answer.  \n\nAs for all the other stuff you wrote, did you have a question about it?  I see plenty of answers, but you never asked any questions.\n\nDon't get overly excited when you read people's answers here talking about search and seizure issues because based on what you wrote here, I doubt there are any.  \n\nPost more if you want to know more.\n\nEDIT 6.11.06:\n\nWow!\n\nOkay, let's see what we can do here.\n\nNeed to know what state you're in.  Sorry I didn't mention that before, I should have.  States have different laws, and the very best answer will come to you from someone who knows that State's law on these issues.  However, these are mostly constitutional questions, so I can probably give you some decent answers (because the Constitution applies in all states).\n\n1.  Generally, yes.  If it's stolen, it's contraband, and nobody has the right to possess contraband.  It would be like trying to argue that the police couldn't take your heroin without a warrant or consent...they can, because it's contraband.  NOTE: this is only as to the seizure of the item, not the search.  \n\n2.  Almost impossible to answer.  Really, none of these questions are all that "answerable," without knowing exactly what the facts were.  There are times when the police can enter uninvited and without a warrant, and there are times they cannot.  I wish I could go into this more with you, but you're talking about hours and hours of search and seizure law here, to be able to cover all the possibilities.\n\n3.  Your family can always file a complaint with the officer's employer.  I have no idea what the outcome of that could be, of course.\n\n4.  I don't know how you know "for sure" some of the property wasn't stolen, so it's difficult to address this.  Assuming you really do know the status of the property you're referring to, you should contact the law enforcement agency that seized the property and give them a statement as to the status of the property.  Do not waste your time by telling them things like, "it's my brother's, and my brother would never steal anything" or, "the neighbor gave it to my brother last year and my neighbor wouldn't have stolen it" because you just don't know those things to be 100% factual.  Perfectly innocent people can sometimes trade or give away stolen property without knowing it, but it doesn't mean the property isn't every bit as stolen.\n\nYou've repeatedly said that you stay out of the drama (wise decision, by the way), so I'm guessing that you really don't have all the facts.  If you weren't there at the time all this happened, you really aren't in a good position to know all the intimate details for certain, and it's the details that can really make a difference.  \n\nI don't know for sure that it's working, but if you'd like you're welcome to click on my avatar-thingy up there and contact me for some more discussion on this issue.  It's probably about to be beaten to death here, and I admire the reasonable tone of your questions.