Going to Trial on Marijuana Charges

[helloihatecops]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Connecticut

On 10/23/08 I was driving with my boyfriend as he was going to drop me off at my school. We had pulled out behind a university police car on a road, and the cop quickly veered off into an enclave, obviously trying to hide there and wait to pull back out behind us which he did, at a stop sign. After the stop sign we pulled onto the main road and he immediately began to flash his lights; when we pulled over he said we had waited at the stop sign for too long so he thought we were drunk. First thing is we may have been there two seconds too long, and weren't drunk. When he looked at my boyfriends name on his license he remembered that he had encountered him a few weeks prior- when he had found him with paraphanelia but no pot, and made him break the piece but didn't charge him with anything. Because of this incident the officer said that he had reason to believe that he had marijuana on him, and called the unit with the dogs. He told us to get out of the car and without permission had the dog search the vehicle. The dog found paraphanelia and about a gram of marijuana in his possession, and kept searching through the car at which point the cop searched through my purse without permission to find a half gram and paraphanelia. They read us our rights after all of this, and then arrested us. We are both being charged tomorrow with possession of less than four ounces and drug paraphanelia, and he is also being charged with obstruction of view for having a bandanna hanging from his mirror. My main questions are as follows: If he was pulling us over because he thought we were drunk, did he have any right to come to the conclusion that we had pot...he didn't even conduct any tests to see if we were drunk. Does the bandanna really constitute as obstruction of view if its not actually blocking the drivers view? Were they fully justified in searching the car on the grounds that were stated, as we were not under the influence at the time, there was nothing in view and there was no smell. Particularly, since I have never been in trouble with the cop before how did he have the right to search my things? Is there any way to argue that we should have been informed of our right to remain silent before they questioned us about our things? Are there ways to prove the cops were biased in following us or that the dog was either incompetent or didn't have the right to enter the vehicle? I was also wondering, my boyfriend has offered to tell the court that what was found in my purse was put there by him, will this work or is it a bad idea? I would also appreciate it if you could tell em what you think might happen tomorrow in court. We cant afford lawyers so were representing ourselves. Sorry for so many questions...I just found this site today and I'm freaking out, but if anyone could help it would be amazing...thanks.

[cyjeff]

Unfortunately for you, most of the most helpful members of this site are police officers.

Since you hate them, I guess you will do without their advice.

[helloihatecops]

im sorry i dont mean that...im frustrated right now and thats the first thing that came to mind when thinking of a name. i really need help...if anyone can answer any part of this it would really be appreciated

[aaron]

You're representing yourselves at trial? Are you taking your toothbrush with you to court?

The issues you're trying to raise are the proper subject of pretrial motions. It's going to be really difficult for you to properly raise, argue, and preserve those issues at trial, particularly given that you have no legal training.

[helloihatecops]

I know it will be very difficult, and believe me, if I had the fiscal means of attaining legal assistance I most certainly would. Being that I know I will have fines to pay, in addition to the likely chance that I will have to pay for drug testing at my college, I simply couldnt afford it. Do you know what my sentencing will probably be though, or have any advice for tomorrow?

[OhMy]

I know it will be very difficult, and believe me, if I had the fiscal means of attaining legal assistance I most certainly would. Being that I know I will have fines to pay, in addition to the likely chance that I will have to pay for drug testing at my college, I simply couldnt afford it. Do you know what my sentencing will probably be though, or have any advice for tomorrow?

DO NOT try to handle this on your own. Ask the judge tomorrow for some time to find a lawyer.

If you try to handle this on your own and you mess it up (very good chance) you will regret this your entire life.

If you can not afford a lawyer ask the judge to appoint one for you. DO NOT take a dispostion tomorrow on this case without a lawyer.

[helloihatecops]

you think its worth it to get a public defender for that amount of marijuana?

[THEAMAZINGCHAN]

I am interested in the part about since the police saw him with paraphernalia some time prior if that really does constitute probable cause?

[THEAMAZINGCHAN]

you think its worth it to get a public defender for that amount of marijuana?

if it was worth them charging you then its worth you defending yourself isnt it?

[BOR]

I am interested in the part about since the police saw him with paraphernalia some time prior if that really does constitute probable cause?

No, it does not establish PC.

Points of order here though:

1. Was the initial stop a pretext, the poster claims they did not wait at the light any more than normal.

2. Was the extended detention permissable under that state's constitution to secure a K-9 to the scene?

If the stop was legal but the extended detention was made without a reasonable belief contraband may be inside the vehicle, then it is more than likely a suppression motion will be effective.

His prior act weeks before of being caught with a pipe can not form the basis of a continued detention at a later given time.

Here is the most recent SC case concerning dog sniffs, although NOT considered a search, there is certainly dicta (my bold) to argue a 4th AM violation of an UNreasonable seizure IF there was a prolonged detention to bring a K-9 to the scene, even if no state constitutional provision exists for such.

An officer simply can not order a driver to stay on the scene a prolonged amount of time to get a K-9 there without cause.

------------------
Here, the initial seizure of respondent when he was stopped on the highway was based on probable cause, and was concededly lawful. It is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124 (1984). A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002). We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff had been conducted while respondent was being unlawfully detained.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-923.ZO.html