Can the LAPD Charge Me for This Crime ?
Question by Sergio: Can the LAPD charge me for this crime ?
I was in a parked car w 2 other friends (i was in the backseat), drinking 40’s (finished them) when the cops rolled up on us. We were all aware that there were some random pills (2) in the back but we didnt know what they were so we didnt pay much attention to them. When the cops searched the car they found 2 half-pills so they couldnt read what they were. His partner had a pill advisory app on his phone and said they were Motsosilins (idk how to spell it) which is a felony.
He assumed they were mine cuz they were in the backseat but not ON me, and it wasnt my car, before he found out what the pills were (which i think he made up just to book us) he gave us 2 options; We all get tickets for public intoxication for beers we had already finished, OR we ALL go to jail because nobody took the fall for the pills, or course we didnt want either so we tried to argue our way out of it (he kept asking his partner what he should do w us). Anyways, we failed so my friend said “just book me, i’ll take the charge for them” the cop then said “no, that wasnt one of the options” thats when he started searching what the pills were. They spent literally about 7-10 mins searching what they couldve been until i really believe he made the pills name up just to take us all in (he was being a dick). But, once he found out what they were he raised his voice and said “Motsosilins, dude they Motsosilins” he told his partner, then he said “thats a fukn felony, you guys had more than enough time to think about it, lets go” so he took all 3 of us in.
My question is can he charge all of us for something i didnt have in my possession or in my property of a car ? i got court Thursday and I’m contemplating about getting a lawyer . Should I ? WHat can i do ???
Best answer:
Answer by Brian
Drinking in public in a ‘registered vehicle’ is drinking in public. Guilty! as you have just informed anyone who reads this you were drinking in a “vehicle” in public.
Arguing with law enforcers is not smart, if you don’t know your stuff best thing to do is be compliant. If you know your stuff you can communicate with them honourably and give them no grounds for searching the vehicle.
As for the pills- if not your pills and not your ‘vehicle’ then not your problem!
Deny knowledge of the pills as you have already and then there is no ‘intent’! No intent no victim no crime. Maxim of ‘Law’. Innocent!
Wish you well and learn from mistakes that is what life is about more often then not.
Do not get a lawyer but seek ‘wise council’
Cheers
Brian
IN REFERENCE and rebuttal TO THE COMMENTS BELOW in answer 2.
I rebut the following claims:-
Claim 1.This is completely and totally false. There doesn’t have to be malicious intent for there to be a crime. This is what is known as a “general intent” crime. Imagine a pedestrian being hit by a car in a crosswalk. Although the driver did not in any way mean to commit a crime, a crime was nonetheless committed, and they will be prosecuted (Aggravated Assault with a Vehicle, or Vehicular Assault).
Rebuttal 1. NO ‘VICTIM’ NO CRIME maxim of ‘law’ I hope you are not representing the lad and you should learn to read the detail. PERIOD!!!
Claim 2. Yes In this case, there was the presence of an illegal narcotic within your general vicinity, and, if it went to trial, a reasonable person could conclude that the pills were in fact yours, and that you may have tried to discard them when law enforcement arrived. A pill outside of of its original container is viewed in the same light as weed, heroin, or meth. If they found meth in the back seat, next to you, the results would have been the same.
Rebuttal 2. Yes the cops lay charges but the burden is on the claimant the cops and presumption is not proof. Maxim .i.e. the cops have to prove the pills belong to the lad. PERIOD!!!!
Claim 3. Um, no… Everything they did was to build a case against you. Had they “made up the pills name just to take you in”, the evidence wouldn’t have stood up in court. As it stands, the pills have specific markings, making them easy to identify. Once identified as a narcotic, they are secured as evidence, and may be used against the occupants of the vehicle. They didn’t make up a name.
Rebuttal 3. Correct they had to build a case against the lad. That is entrapment a felony criminal offence. PERIOD!!!!!!
Claim 4. If this is your initial appearance, and charges were filed, all you have to do is say “not guilty”. You will then have the option of retaining counsel, or having counsel appointed by the court to represent you. From that point, all advice should come from them, not us…
Rebuttal 4. Absolutely terrible ad-vice “that is to squeeze the life out of the lad”
Do not plead in relation to the charge of narcotics but state I had no knowledge of what they were until the officer stated what they were. If you plea on this charge you subvert yourself to the authority of the court in this matter, if the judge insists on a plea then say ‘not guilty’ as you would then have already entered on the court record you had no idea what they were which would be a perfect ground for appeal. Seek wise council has nothing to do with lawyers. PERIOD!!!!
Hope this helps you young fella.
Wish you well over the issue
Answer by whisper9191
“Deny knowledge of the pills as you have already and then there is no ‘intent’! No intent no victim no crime. Maxim of ‘Law’. Innocent!”
This is completely and totally false. There doesn’t have to be malicious intent for there to be a crime. This is what is known as a “general intent” crime. Imagine a pedestrian being hit by a car in a crosswalk. Although the driver did not in any way mean to commit a crime, a crime was nonetheless committed, and they will be prosecuted (Aggravated Assault with a Vehicle, or Vehicular Assault).
“can he charge all of us for something i didnt have in my possession or in my property of a car ?”
Yes. In this case, there was the presence of an illegal narcotic within your general vicinity, and, if it went to trial, a reasonable person could conclude that the pills were in fact yours, and that you may have tried to discard them when law enforcement arrived. A pill outside of of its original container is viewed in the same light as weed, heroin, or meth. If they found meth in the back seat, next to you, the results would have been the same.
“i really believe he made the pills name up just to take us all in”
Um, no… Everything they did was to build a case against you. Had they “made up the pills name just to take you in”, the evidence wouldn’t have stood up in court. As it stands, the pills have specific markings, making them easy to identify. Once identified as a narcotic, they are secured as evidence, and may be used against the occupants of the vehicle. They didn’t make up a name.
“i got court Thursday and I’m contemplating about getting a lawyer . Should I ? WHat can i do ???”
If this is your initial appearance, and charges were filed, all you have to do is say “not guilty”. You will then have the option of retaining counsel, or having counsel appointed by the court to represent you. From that point, all advice should come from them, not us…
Hope this helps.
Edit: Spoken like a true inmate lawyer…
Response to rebuttal #1: Many users, some dealers and most juveniles consider possession to be a “victimless crime”. This is a favorite argument among many users for most drug possession offenses, not limited to marijuana. However, it is still prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Moving on…
Response to rebuttal #2: By your logic, all ANYONE has to do is throw their drugs on the floor, feign ignorance, and be found innocent of all charges. Not the way the law works. Historically, actual possession was required for a criminal possession conviction. Beginning in the 1920s, however, courts began expanding criminal possession to include constructive possession. The federal Prohibition of intoxicating liquors spawned several cases involving criminal possession. In one of the first criminal cases to use constructive possession, the court found a defendant guilty of possessing illegal liquor in trunks in the actual possession of another person (People v. Vander Heide, 211 Mich. 1, 178 N.W. 78 [1920]). Subsequent cases, especially narcotics cases, have continued to expand the law of criminal possession.
Rebuttal #3 makes NO sense…
Response to rebuttal #4: Refusing to enter a plea results in *gasp* a not guilty plea…