Establishment of Probable Cause for a Drug Offense

My question involves criminal law for the state of:

Can a detective ask special favors of a particular prosecutor to bend his standards of probable cause in order to press a particular charge that the detective has firm conviction was committed, but is having a very difficult time proving with results of the investigation? Is the discovery document sometimes edited or consulted by the prosecutor then revised by the detective until it can be used to establish probable cause? Are any special favors ever paid in the relationship between detective and prosecutor to prosecute a weak case that would not otherwise have breached standards of probable cause?

No one here can judge the motivations and actions of people we do not know. A particular prosecutor or detective can take whatever actions they wish - lawful or unlawful - for whatever reasons they choose. What they CAN do, and what they can LEGALLY do, are different issues.

perhaps you can provide some more specifics?

Thanks again sir,

Specifics of the case in question involve legitimacy of ecstasy and amphetamine manufacturing charges filed in case where a chemistry student working in a University pharmacology lab containing nearly every compound necessary to make any drug exists legally, is charged with crime on basis of a single roommate witness statement (hearsay that suspect admitted to them to making AMPHETAMINE in lab, and observation of drug use at home using some unknown white powder); findings of 20 mg of ECSTACY (so inconsistent with drug in witness statement) in powder form inside the desk of that student, which is located across the hallway from the chemistry lab. And stored in a scintillation vial that could be sourced from the lab and used as either a reaction vessel for the end processes of manufacturing that drug OR a very handy storage container for drugs sourced outside the lab and carried around by the student and used for study purposes while sitting at the desk; a field test of the chemistr work space that initially tests positive for amphetamines but later is determined via GCMS analysis as one of the amines that the student uses in his assigned chemical synthesis and cannot be used to make any known drugs;a a descriptive book on mind-altering substances found on his desk and written by the American Chemical Society containing purely written literature and no instructions or diagrams on manufacturing whatsover; a description of working late hours by himself in his lab space all the time; and all the equipment and facilities necessary to manufacture any chemical compound possible.

So only one drug was found, it was a tiny amount of a different drug than what the witness described, it wasn't found in the chemistry lab itself but in the students personal space in the adjacent study workspace area of the building, no mention was made as to whether lab actually did have the regents to make the drug that was found, but it did contain materials (scattered about lab for various unrelated uses, not grouped together) necessary to make the drug the witness described. And that's all the evidence they needed to charge for manufacturing of BOTH amphetamine (never found in physical form anywhere) and Ecstasy.

Additional exhaustive tests like forensic analysis of his laptop to search every single internet search he had ever made and every file on his computer for evidence of manufacturing instructions did not exist, but he had conducted a couple of searches pertaining to terms 'meth' 'adderal' and 'amphetamine'. Otherwise instructions for making drugs were never found. And drug dogs did not alert to presence of any drugs when brought through lab. And nothing was amiss or out of place in his laboratory workspace nor the regents he stored in the cabinet beneath.

Basically it just seems like an extremely tiny amount of physical evidence of one drug with debatable origins (manufactured or bought elsewhere) and mostly just circumstantial evidence, to be able to use to establish probable cause to charge for manufacturing both drugs, and not just possession of one drug alone.

Cases can be made on circumstantial evidence. Whether a prosecutor might pursue it or not is up to the prosecutor and the strength of the evidence (and how it was obtained). Consider that a similar search of probably 20 other students' computers would not come up with data or inquiries on the manufacturing of illicit substances, it seems that the circumstantial case may be pretty compelling to a jury.

The defendant may find that he can plead down to a lesser offense. Or, he may choose to fight it. Maybe the state will drop the charges if they feel they will have to go to trial, or, maybe they feel the case is strong enough NOT to offer a plea. We don't know. The defendant should speak only to his or her legal counsel.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of:

Can a detective ask special favors of a particular prosecutor to bend his standards of probable cause in order to press a particular charge that the detective has firm conviction was committed, but is having a very difficult time proving with results of the investigation? Is the discovery document sometimes edited or consulted by the prosecutor then revised by the detective until it can be used to establish probable cause? Are any special favors ever paid in the relationship between detective and prosecutor to prosecute a weak case that would not otherwise have breached standards of probable cause?

---

I don't know if it has been addressed but given the length of the thread I would suspect not so:

the prosecutor has nothing to do with probable cause. PC is determined by a court based on the facts at hand. PC is always able to be challenged by the defendant as a line of defenses if they believe PC for any particular issue had not been met.

Not even sure what you are talking about here since if a cop does not have probable cause, he cannot obtain search warrants from the court or an arrest that was made is suppressed if there was not PC to make an arrest. The prosecutor has nothing to do with PC actually since they neither create it nor determine if PC is present in order to take some action.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of:

Can a detective ask special favors of a particular prosecutor to bend his standards of probable cause in order to press a particular charge that the detective has firm conviction was committed, but is having a very difficult time proving with results of the investigation?

---

Probable cause is a legal standard. It is set by the courts, not the prosecutor. A prosecutor may have his own standards that might require the police to provide more than the minimum needed for probable cause to proceed with a case, and of course in that situation the prosecutor is free to bend his owns standards so long as the reason for doing so is not illegal, e.g. illegal discrimination based on race, etc.

It is not at all unusual for a prosecutor to tell the investigating agency that the case is not strong enough and suggest to the investigators what additional information or evidence should be obtained to strengthen the case.

Thank you sir,

Okay, thanks for clarifying, things are beginning to make more sense to me. So basically probable cause is at the discretion of someone like a Magistrate? In reading your second paragraph, do you mean that the evidence require to show probable cause for a search warrant at the beginning of an investigation guarantees that an arrest too can be made at that same point? Even though the arrest usually happens much later at the very end of the investigation? By no merit at all, I always automatically assumed that standard of evidence that a crime had been committed that is necessary to make an arrest was greater than the standard of evidence to obtain a search warrant, and thus it was possible in this investigation to get as far as raiding an academic lab, but not being able to build sufficient evidence beyond that point to obtain an arrest. Thus, in this way it would be possible for a cop to lack probable cause for an arrest and still have obtained a search warrant earlier in the investigation. Please correct me if I'm confused here. But beyond that, I need to clarify that this investigation occurred at a public university within the jurisdiction of its own police force. I believe that someone once told me that University police do not need search warrants to search their own University buildings. Thus in this way, you could never achieve probable cause.

So I need to explain the rest of the story here. This whole thing already happened, 2 years ago. And my confusion now, is that there was a 25 day delay between the detective filing with the prosecutors office and them accepting the case, and them finally approving the charges. Furthermore, this person wasn't summoned to fly back across the country to the charging state until his lawyer had copies of the charging documents signed by the prosecutors. Since he was both arrested and charged in the same proceeding, it made it appear that prosecutor was conducting the arrest themselves, and thus was responsible for setting the standard of probable cause in that case. The 25 day delay made it seems as if there may have been a period of deliberations between the detective and prosecutor to improve Discovery or to convince the prosecutor to reduce his evidential threshold. But, even more confusing, is immediately after his arraignment, his lawyer explained that he was going to contact the prosecutors office as soon as soon as possible so they had time to review the case because they hadn't seen anything like this before. How could he have already been formally charged for the crimes, if the prosecutor still hadn't even seen and reviewed the case? Are there two different prosecutor entities here? Furthermore, when this team reviewed the charges, they immediately dropped them on basis of complete lack of factual evidence one week later, prior to first procedural hearing. Are there also differing burdens of proof between the prosecuting team and the charging team? And if there are, why wasn't the higher burden of proof used initially to sign the charging documents. ,Furthermore, why wasn't this determination made earlier on by prosecution when they were approving the charges, so that he never would have had to get formally charged to begin, and thus may have never even been extradited to begin? And finally, may have never even been arrested since the arrest warrant was coupled with the charging document. Was it because there was some negotiating going on between the detective and prosecution earlier on? This is all quite confusing for me, and I feel like I'm missing something important here. I appreciate any clarification.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

Okay, thanks for clarifying, things are beginning to make more sense to me. So basically probable cause is at the discretion of someone like a Magistrate?

---

not really. The judge can rule there is probable cause but it is always subject to challenge. The judge is merely one person. Probable cause has been determined by centuries of case law.

Quote:

---

In reading your second paragraph, do you mean that the evidence require to show probable cause for a search warrant at the beginning of an investigation guarantees that an arrest too can be made at that same point?

---

No. Probable cause to issue a search warrant allows for a search. Probable cause for an arrest allows for an arrest. They are separate matters and the requirements of PC must be met in each of them individually.

Quote:

---

Even though the arrest usually happens much later at the very end of the investigation?

---

actually a prosecution can start with an arrest just as well. It is going to depend on when the police are made aware of the crime and the circumstances in whole.

Quote:

---

By no merit at all, I always automatically assumed that standard of evidence that a crime had been committed

---

whether a crime has been committed is a fact. It is not based on probable cause.

Quote:

---

that is necessary to make an arrest was greater than the standard of evidence to obtain a search warrant, and thus it was possible in this investigation to get as far as raiding an academic lab, but not being able to build sufficient evidence beyond that point to obtain an arrest.

---

a search warrant allows for a search to take place. Not until probable cause against an individual that suggests that person is the perpetrator can a warrant for their arrest be issued.

Quote:

---

Thus, in this way it would be possible for a cop to lack probable cause for an arrest and still have obtained a search warrant earlier in the investigation. Please correct me if I'm confused here. But beyond that, I need to clarify that this investigation occurred at a public university within the jurisdiction of its own police force. I believe that someone once told me that University police do not need search warrants to search their own University buildings. Thus in this way, you could never achieve probable cause.

---

the same rules for PC apply.

Quote:

---

And my confusion now, is that there was a 25 day delay between the detective filing with the prosecutors office and them accepting the case, and them finally approving the charges.

---

why is that confusing? Do you think this crime was the only crime the prosecutors office was dealing with? On top of that, sometimes a prosecutor must investigate further before deciding whether they believe there is adequate evidence to support the prosecution of any particular person.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, this person wasn't summoned to fly back across the country to the charging state until his lawyer had copies of the charging documents signed by the prosecutors.

---

that may be because they could do nothing but ask him to return before that time. Only upon issuance of an arrest warrant can they demand he return to Michigan.

Quote:

---

Since he was both arrested and charged in the same proceeding, it made it appear that prosecutor was conducting the arrest themselves, and thus was responsible for setting the standard of probable cause in that case.

---

was he ever actually arrested? or was he arraigned and taken into custody after which he could post bond?

Quote:

---

The 25 day delay made it seems as if there may have been a period of deliberations between the detective and prosecutor to improve Discovery or to convince the prosecutor to reduce his evidential threshold.

---

sounds like you are a bit paranoid. Things don't happen overnight and just because the police forward a case to the prosecutor, there is no guarantee there will every be an arrest.

Quote:

---

But, even more confusing, is immediately after his arraignment, his lawyer explained that he was going to contact the prosecutors office as soon as soon as possible so they had time to review the case because they hadn't seen anything like this before

---

. hadn't seen anything like what? So far nothing you have described is even remotely out of the ordinary.

Quote:

---

How could he have already been formally charged for the crimes, if the prosecutor still hadn't even seen and reviewed the case?

---

the prosecutor has or there would be no charges.

Quote:

---

Are there two different prosecutor entities here? Furthermore, when this team reviewed the charges, they immediately dropped them on basis of complete lack of factual evidence one week later, prior to first procedural hearing. Are there also differing burdens of proof between the prosecuting team and the charging team?

---

since this was a felony, there is a probable cause hearing where after the arrest and arraignment there is a hearing in front of a judge to determine if the court believes there is enough evidence to move forward. Was this where the prosecution was dropped?

Quote:

---

And if there are, why wasn't the higher burden of proof used initially to sign the charging documents. ,Furthermore, why wasn't this determination made earlier on by prosecution when they were approving the charges, so that he never would have had to get formally charged to begin, and thus may have never even been extradited to begin?

---

Id he was extradited he had already been arrested. Why would you say he was arrested and charged in the same action?

Quote:

---

And finally, may have never even been arrested since the arrest warrant was coupled with the charging document.

---

the arrest warrant is only issued once the court issues it. The charging document must be preseneted to to the court who reviews it and if satisfied there is PC to issue an arrest warrant, it is issued.

Quote:

---

Was it because there was some negotiating going on between the detective and prosecution earlier on?

---

they are both on the same side. Why do you think there would ever be any negotiation here?

It sounds like your lawyer worked out a plea bargain with the prosecutor prior to the preliminary exam, such that you would voluntarily return to the state and enter a guilty plea to the possession charge in exchange for their dismissing the manufacture/distribution charge.

I've struggled with this for awhile now, but immediately after the investigation was initiated I experienced some situations that made me believe that I might be under vehicular surveillance. Is this a delusion, or perhaps plausible? Furthermore, someone told me the PC necessary to initiated a drug investigation and enter a dwelling was extremely high and difficult to obtain, that undercover cars sometimes wait for months outside of homes they suspect of drug activity before they are able to obtain PC. Does anyone have a speculation on what sort of evidence they may have needed to get a search warrant for that academic lab? Could it be a little as someone's statement, or do they need evidence of drugs or something else before they could ever do that? I always imagined it took a hell of a lot of something very convincing to put a professor in such a humiliating situation.