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.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

I've struggled with this for a while now, but immediately after the investigation was initiated I experienced some situations that made me believe that I might be under vehicular surveillance.

---

it's possible or your paranoia may have gotten the better of you. If they were investigating you for the manufacture and sale of drugs they may have been tailing you to attempt to catch you in the act.

Quote:

---

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.

---

whether it is difficult or not depends on the circumstances and yes, they may have had you under surveillance if they believed it would lead to evidence that would be probable cause to seek a search warrant or even an arrest warrant.

Quote:

---

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.

---

there is no way to really answer this. Once they suspect some illicit activity they may question people. If they receive credible information that there is illegal activity ongoing in the lab that may have been adequate to obtain a search warrant. There is simply no way to guess what their PC was or how they obtained it.

Thanks JK,

through the nature of your responses, it is sounding like these sorts of warrants are privileged documents, so I'll never know? One other thing, I've been really frustrated is this. When checking my workspace they found a scint vial containing some powder, and placed in an awkward location so they analyzed it with one of those larger purple-fluid filled baggie tests specific to methamphetamine. Well it tested positive for meth, but since protocol in MI is to always follow those tests up with a gas-chromatography mass spec test at the state lab which is the most accurate way to determine the exact identity of a chemical substance, it failed and showed up as some other random amine. I worked with tons of amines in my projects, so that didn't surprise me. It also explains why the field test came positive because its similar enough in structure to produce a false positive. What's killing me is they kept referencing the positive test throughout the Discovery and essentially manipulated it a evidence of meth production because they never mentioned the follow test that is even more accurate and failed. Then they referenced this as evidence in the courtroom. What was going on here, they were primarily domestic violence detectives conducting a drug investigation, did they just not understand it didn't confer any evidence whatsoever, or can they feign ignorance and use the results in and of themselves in any test that indicates positive? They really had a party with this one.

They are not privileged if you are being prosecuted but since the you said the charges were dropped I am not certain the evidence used to show probable cause is available. You would have no basis to challenge the warrants so they would have no reason to disclose the information to you.

Quote:

---

It also explains why the field test came positive because its similar enough in structure to produce a false positive. What's killing me is they kept referencing the positive test throughout the Discovery and essentially manipulated it a evidence of meth production because they never mentioned the follow test that is even more accurate and failed. Then they referenced this as evidence in the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

What was going on here, they were primarily domestic violence detectives conducting a drug investigation, did they just not understand it didn't confer any evidence whatsoever, or can they feign ignorance and use the results in and of themselves in any test that indicates positive? They really had a party with this one.

---

there was no trial so the mention was simply to show there was probable cause to go to the next step

but where was your attorney in all of this to argue that subsequent tests did not support the meth theory?

and what is the point in all of this? If the charges were dropped, there is nothing more to do. Continuing to dissect the situation will result in you going crazy. The pieces very often do not seem to fit together until they are brought together at a trial. Since that didn't happen, it will likely never make real sense to you.

Honestly, mostly just appeasing curiosity here. Nothing about this case seemed at all obvious of drug manufacturing that warranted them committing the resources they did to it. I was curious what they had, and why, that suggested otherwise. Thats it.

those are things you will likely never know but if you did work in a lab where you would have been able to make meth, I would take a wild guess and say somebody made a report they believed you were in fact making meth. The police ran with that and you are where you are.

On the other hand, through some extremely crazy experiences that completely broadsided one summer, I gained a completely different respect for law enforcement and judicial workings through all this. I don't intend to come off as a baby or play the victim card, nor claim I hadn't broken a law in any of this, but I've gained a pervasive distrust towards law enforcement and subsequent prosecutor workings. Delusional or not, I felt that the criminal justice system is extremely opportunistic and predatory; it hunts for people in vulnerable positions that have somehow landed their through fate, and completely disregards the distinct and not so farfetched plausibility that the suspect may be completely innocent, or at least absent of criminal culpability. And through all my experiences, and all the legal processes, and legal powers I interfaced with I was able to observe first hand how the evidence obtained in compromising situations is manipulated to fall in place in fabricated stories by CJS powers to pin blame. I can appreciate why this sort of vigilance might be a necessary cost to protect the greater benefit of ensuring safety in society. But I wish there was more of an awareness, for anyone who has ever been through these sort of situations, perhaps without merit, and ultimately found not guilty, or for those who have been through them and got trapped by those manipulated stories and evidence into guilty convictions, thus wrongfully completely destroying the livelihoods of themselves and their families, the lasting damages sustained by innocent people are one of the greatest evils in this country. A person found not guilty in a court proceeding is never acknowledged for their hardship or even apologized to by accusing powers. They just walk off and claim that you got lucky or they didn't have enough evidence to prove that you actually committed a crime you are still actually guilty of. And it cast a lingering question mark over the defendants life that he gets defend forever. Most European countries destroy records from criminal proceedings that did not result in an criminal conviction, some seal those records from public and eliminate them after a certain amount of years, but in the US your arrest, charge, and conviction record is available to any person who ever wants to make a value judgement on you. And lets be honest, when that sort of information is available, how can you possibly be treated as innocent until proven guilty. I dunno, maybe just part of growing up but all this was a shock for me. And I will continue to be vigilant, hyper paranoid, and distrustful of my government for the rest of my life as a result.

- - - Updated - - -

If you need any sort of confirming evidence of where I'm coming from here, just take a look at some of my other posts on this website. You'll see I constant slip in and out of coherence and rationality. Some days my brain works like a charm, and I'm back where I was at when I was interning in medical school, when life was full of ambition, promise, and the support of loved ones and family. Other days, I'm a complete neurotic and delusional mess, where my actions are so bizarre that I'm perceived as a drug user and a threat to others. That's lasting SPMI that I inherited from all that legal shit resulting in 8 felonies carrying suggested sentences of a life term in total, completely ostracizing me from every relationship and connection I ever had, and ultimately complete isolation from society. Aren't those damages sustained the same sorts of damages that LE attacks perpetrators so aggressively for bringing onto society. How is that any different from crime?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

those are things you will likely never know but if you did work in a lab where you would have been able to make meth, I would take a wild guess and say somebody made a report they believed you were in fact making meth. The police ran with that and you are where you are.

---

I think it's more simple than that. The statute is not only for manufacture -- it's manufacture/delivery. I think the girlfriend (perhaps after getting arrested herself) accused him of sharing his drugs with her -- that's delivery.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I think it's more simple than that. The statute is not only for manufacture -- it's manufacture/delivery. I think the girlfriend (perhaps after getting arrested herself) accused him of sharing his drugs with her -- that's delivery.

---

I suppose I should have read all of Jache's threads:

Quote:

---

I'll be short and to the point. 2 years ago jilted GF files false allegations of drug manufacturing at my university lab against me. Investigation is initiated because small amount of drug (20 mg) is found in my desk at workplace.

---

so you WERE guilty of possession of meth and you did have the ability and knowledge to manufacture the drug in the lab you were using.

for Pete's sake guy, it doesn't sound like much of anything was amiss here. When you actually use and possess drugs, that allows for a lot of investigation by the cops.

I can confirm those were not the circumstances. However this is really getting me interested about something. In order for the evidence that is used to obtain a search warrant to be valid, does it have to be in physical custody of the police? Or can police come across something illegal during a search that they are not allowed to confiscate due to the confines of the search warrant, perhaps take a picture of it, and still use that as PC evidence for securing a search warrant?

[QUOTE=Jache;903534]I can confirm those were not the circumstances. However this is really getting me interested about something.

Quote:

---

In order for the evidence that is used to obtain a search warrant to be valid, does it have to be in physical custody of the police?

---

a verbal communication to the police can be adequate to obtain a search warrant. Each situation requires independent study to determine the validity of the issuing of a warrant.

Quote:

---

Or can police come across something illegal during a search that they are not allowed to confiscate due to the confines of the search warrant, perhaps take a picture of it, and still use that as PC evidence for securing a search warrant?

---

so you think if the police come across something they know to be illegal during the execution of a search warrant for some other unrelated issue have to simply walk away and ignore it?

I can see it now:


trooper to sergeant:

sarge, there's a dead body over here

sarge to trooper; trooper, the warrant is for drugs and drug paraphernalia

troooper; ya,, but there's a big knife laying next the body and the head has been removed from the body. I think it's a murder victim

sarge; but the warrant is for drugs and drug paraphernalia. We cannot investigate the possibility of a murder. In fact, when we leave you have to forget you ever saw it because it was not within the scope of our warrant. Got it?

trooper; but there is a crime....

sarge; NO. We have to ignore it like we never saw it; that's the law.

Well, it wasn't meth, but yes it was a small amount of a hard drug, it was actually a drug called n-benzyl piperzine and it was acquired in Canada 3 years ago when it was legal there. It was advertised as herbal ecstacy, so I actually thought it was a supplement. It was initially released as a powerful anti-depressent in the 60's, but scheduled due to its potential for addiction. I mistakenly brought it into the US thinking the laws were the same here, when in fact it is a schedule 1 drug here. It falsely tested positive for meth because it is an amine that is a cross between amphetamine and ecstacy. This was eventually all disclosed to the court.

So yes, I was a pharmacology student with a fascination in mind altering substances for their ability to heal traumatic stress disorders. I acknowledge this by no means mitigates wrong done nor culpability. But yes, I certainly possessed the skills and knowhow to manufacture any organic compound I want. That doesn't mean I could do that without the assistance of a synthesis protocol, in fact, no chemist could do that, though I think this was a presumption used by LE.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, do you think I'd be on this web site asking clarifying details if i knew the answers to these questions? Call it ignorance, but my background is in medicine not law. I dunno, are there laws that state police can't charge you for things that weren't in the original search warrant? Isn't that why the wording of a search warrant has to be so explicit? If police confiscate a computer and they are searching it for evidence of money laundering and financial fraud, and they come across a file in the deep dark confines of a registry that contains child porn, are they allowed to use this discovery to do anything about it?

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

So yes, I was a pharmacology student with a fascination in mind altering substances for their ability to heal traumatic stress disorders. I acknowledge this by no means mitigates wrong done nor culpability. But yes, I certainly possessed the skills and knowhow to manufacture any organic compound I want. That doesn't mean I could do that without the assistance of a synthesis protocol, in fact, no chemist could do that, though I think this was a presumption used by LE.

---

but if you are a pharm student, aren't you supposed to be discovering new synthesis protocols?

but a quick look on the net resulted in some sites that are apparently a given companies databases to their IP regarding synthesis protocol.


(hint: if you want to make meth, check out the internet. You can find how to do it there)

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

I dunno, are there laws that state police can't charge you for things that weren't in the original search warrant? Isn't that why the wording of a search warrant has to be so explicit? If police confiscate a computer and they are searching it for evidence of money laundering and financial fraud, and they come across a file in the deep dark confines of a registry that contains child porn, are they allowed to use this discovery to do anything about it?

---

they do not have to turn a blind eye to illegal items as long as they are where the warrant allows them to be.

I appreciate your humor, but not all judicial protocol makes logical sense. Ex. Josh Dunn recently admitted to molesting his little sisters as toddlers while they slept, on multiple occasions, as a 15 yo. Evidence of these details were presented along the way, and a police report was even eventually filed. Alas at age 28 he admitted to committing these acts, a terrible child sex crime. Can police do anything about it? Does this sex predator now have child those same ages himself? Can anything be done about it? No, screwy judicial protocol.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

but if you are a pharm student, aren't you supposed to be discovering new synthesis protocols?

but a quick look on the net resulted in some sites that are apparently a given companies databases to their IP regarding synthesis protocol.


(hint: if you want to make meth, check out the internet. You can find how to do it there)

- - - Updated - - -

they do not have to turn a blind eye to illegal items as long as they are where the warrant allows them to be.

---

Perfect logic to me... hence why my laptop was confiscated, shipped to the national forensics lab on the East Coast, forensically analyzed the hard drive with a microscope in a $200,000 analysis so they could elucidate every single internet search I had ever made on that computer in the last 5 years I owned it, and search for any and files bearing any resemblance to illicit drugs. Findings, no search had ever been made on the manufacturing of illicit drugs. Only half-way related evidence to anything having to do with drugs was the fact that I had in the past made internet search queries containing the terms 'meth' 'adderal' 'amphetamine' 'adhd' 'walter white' 'breaking bad' 'meth' ....

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

but if you are a pharm student, aren't you supposed to be discovering new synthesis protocols?

but a quick look on the net resulted in some sites that are apparently a given companies databases to their IP regarding synthesis protocol.


(hint: if you want to make meth, check out the internet. You can find how to do it there)

- - - Updated - - -



they do not have to turn a blind eye to illegal items as long as they are where the warrant allows them to be.

---

Bet 99.9% of lay people did NOT know that. Yet "ignorance of the law is no excuse at all"

Quote:

---

Jache;903540]I appreciate your humor, but not all judicial protocol makes logical sense. Ex. Josh Dunn recently admitted to molesting his little sisters as toddlers while they slept, on multiple occasions, as a 15 yo. Evidence of these details were presented along the way, and a police report was even eventually filed. Alas at age 28 he admitted to committing these acts, a terrible child sex crime. Can police do anything about it? Does this sex predator now have child those same ages himself? Can anything be done about it? No, screwy judicial protocol.

---

huh? I would have to research the specific crime, the applicable statutes of limitations but most importantly, is there proof of a crime or simply some statements by a person that may be attempting to gain attention for other purposes claiming to have committed a crime?

but do you mean Josh Duggar possibly?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Perfect logic to me... hence why my laptop was confiscated, shipped to the national forensics lab on the East Coast, forensically analyzed the hard drive with a microscope in a $200,000 analysis so they could elucidate every single internet search I had ever made on that computer in the last 5 years I owned it, and search for any and files bearing any resemblance to illicit drugs. Findings, no search had ever been made on the manufacturing of illicit drugs. Only half-way related evidence to anything having to do with drugs was the fact that I had in the past made internet search queries containing the terms 'meth' 'adderal' 'amphetamine' 'adhd' 'walter white' 'breaking bad' 'meth' ...

---

so there was suggestive evidence you had sought the necessary information to produce meth. Not sure of your point here though.

but if you have a 5 year history on your computer, you need to get with some of the students over at the computer labs and have them clean your machine once in awhile.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

Bet 99.9% of lay people did NOT know that. Yet "ignorance of the law is no excuse at all"

---

what difference does it make? That is not an ignorance of the law argument. Ignorance of the law arguments are where a person commits a crime not realizing it is a crime. Not realizing the police do not have to ignore evidence of a crime discovered while executing a search warrant for some other issue is simply bad luck.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

huh? I would have to research the specific crime, the applicable statutes of limitations but most importantly, is there proof of a crime or simply some statements by a person that may be attempting to gain attention for other purposes claiming to have committed a crime?

but do you mean Josh Duggar possibly?

---

Yes, I meant Josh Duggar. If you read a few articles, you'll find multiple evidence was found on several occasions even during the time the crimes were being committed. What I was getting at with that examples it statute of limitations don't making any logical sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

so there was suggestive evidence you had sought the necessary information to produce meth. Not sure of your point here though.

but if you have a 5 year history on your computer, you need to get with some of the students over at the computer labs and have them clean your machine once in awhile.

---

So your telling me that it isn't extrapolating just a little bit to say that just because an individual had once typed the word 'meth' along with the terms 'breaking bad', that was suggestive evidence i sought the necessary evidence to produce meth? Again, no pages were found that actually explained anything about making illicit drugs. It doesn't take 4 yo to figure out that is a pretty ridiculous presumption.

The 5 year history had nothing to do with my cache. It had to due with analyzing every single piece of data that had ever been deleted on that computer to perhaps hide evidence of inquiries of drug manufacturing. Honestly, if no one can see they LE was going wayyyyyy out of there way to make some connections here, that I might also have had an interest of public health consequences of meth use, thus researching the term, may have had interest in a very popular TV show, breaking bad, the researching the term... If no one can acknowledge that, I'm at a complete loss

A search warrant must describe the place to be search in sufficient enough detail to know what place is subject to the search and must state what items are sought in the search. If law enforcement comes across other evidence of criminal activity while doing a lawful search it may seize that too and that evidence may be used in a criminal prosecution later. For example, if the police get a search warrant to look for illegal drugs in a home and they find a dead body of a person who was murdered in the closet the police don’t have to ignore the dead body simply because it was not mentioned in the warrant.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

Yes, I meant Josh Duggar. If you read a few articles, you'll find multiple evidence was found on several occasions even during the time the crimes were being committed. What I was getting at with that examples it statute of limitations don't making any logical sense.

---

the statutes of limitations are to protect people from witch hunts. Do you remember what was going on 15-20 years ago on any given night so well that you would be able to provide an alibi to an allegation of a crime? On top of that memories of humans change over time. I have met people that claim something happened based on a tidbit of recalling an incident but with me full well knowing what they claim to have happened simply did not. Memories are not static recordings of events, feelings, or experiences. This is one reason the "suppressed memories" epiphanies are suspect. Many people are susceptible to a handler/doctor/investigator planting memories and then claiming the patient having actually experienced the activity.

as to Josh Duggar; have not read anything regarding the issue. If he is guilty, I hope he is prosecuted but realistically, I have enough on my plate with my own interests and issues that I do not have time to worry about him and his issues.

a very quick look into the Duggar situation suggests the prosecutor's office may have been derelict in their duties in prosecuting a possible crime.

given the police officer reported to be the investigator is in prison, I suspect one of the reasons Josh Duggar was not prosecuted may have been some showing of sympathy by the investigating officer. Then upon further reading it appears once somebody actually did decide to do anything, the statutes of limitations precluded a prosecution of the alleged crimes.

Quote:

---

(The trooper, Hutchens, is currently serving 56 years in Arkansas prison on child pornography charges.)

---

Quote:

---

Quoting For example, if the police get a search warrant to look for illegal drugs in a home and they find a dead body of a person who was murdered in the closet the police don’t have to ignore the dead body simply because it was not mentioned in the warrant.[/SIZE

---

[/FONT]

---

I love the supercilious humor in these threads...

[QUOTE=Jache;903543]Yes, I meant Josh Duggar. If you read a few articles, you'll find multiple evidence was found on several occasions even during the time the crimes were being committed. What I was getting at with that examples it statute of limitations don't making any logical sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

So your telling me that it isn't extrapolating just a little bit to say that just because an individual had once typed the word 'meth' along with the terms 'breaking bad', that was suggestive evidence i sought the necessary evidence to produce meth? Again, no pages were found that actually explained anything about making illicit drugs. It doesn't take 4 yo to figure out that is a pretty ridiculous presumption.

---

I do not believe I have every typed those terms into a search engine and strangely enough, I have absolutely nothing to do with illicit drugs. You make whatever conclusion you wish from that.

When the investigator DID find search topics such as that and you were under investigation for drug issues, well, they can use that to further their investigation. I believe any reasonable person may put those things together and think there may be more so let's keep looking.

Quote:

---

The 5 year history had nothing to do with my cache. It had to due with analyzing every single piece of data that had ever been deleted on that computer to perhaps hide evidence of inquiries of drug manufacturing.

---

again, you need to make friends at the computer sciences departments. Erasing is a possibility.

Quote:

---

Honestly, if no one can see they LE was going wayyyyyy out of there way to make some connections here, that I might also have had an interest of public health consequences of meth use, thus researching the term, may have had interest in a very popular TV show, breaking bad, the researching the term... If no one can acknowledge that, I'm at a complete loss

---

but you were under investigation for the possession of illegal drugs (already a known) and claimed production and distribution due to the issues with your former girlfriend. Again, add 2 and 2 and you get 4.

Honestly, you want know what the real issue was in all this? It was ego. The police didn't want to lose something they had invested so many resources into, humiliated so many institutions in their own jurisdiction over. They didn't want to get outsmarted by some punk kid they didn't like.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

Honestly, you want know what the real issue was in all this? It was ego. The police didn't want to lose something they had invested so many resources into, humiliated so many institutions in their own jurisdiction over. They didn't want to get outsmarted by some punk kid they didn't like.

---

ok, so when this all started, what was the reason? Before they had anything invested in this, there were no ego issues. Maybe the fact is you got ratted out by somebody for committing a crime which you admit to and was proven. I have no way of knowing what anybody said that would suggest you were manufacturing or distributing drugs but generally the police or prosecutor is not going to investigate a crime without something to suggest there is reason to investigate it.

[QUOTE
again, you need to make friends at the computer sciences departments. Erasing is a possibility.
[/QUOTE]

Wow you love to play devils advocate here. Are you familiar with why an electronic device is sent to a national lab and $200,000 is spent to use forensic microscopes to analyze harddrives? Its because they can be used to detect DELETED data. There is nothing my little excursions to the computer science departments and the library could have done to subvert that.

- - - Updated - - -

I sense there may be some ego in these threads as well. Is this a requirement to pursue a successful career in the judicial sciences?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

ok, so when this all started, what was the reason? Before they had anything invested in this, there were no ego issues. Maybe the fact is you got ratted out by somebody for committing a crime which you admit to and was proven. I have no way of knowing what anybody said that would suggest you were manufacturing or distributing drugs but generally the police or prosecutor is not going to investigate a crime without something to suggest there is reason to investigate it.

---

The reason is I had just been accused of domestic violence against a girl whose ENTIRE family was LE. Half of it was high powers in NYPD, the other half was high powers in ChiPD. Someone said some stuff to someone, and really pissed some police off because of it, and they were going to take care of things for them. Its called solidarity. And its a hallmark attribute of LE. Hence why domestic violence detectives were somehow in charge of a drug investigation.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

ok, so when this all started, what was the reason? Before they had anything invested in this, there were no ego issues. Maybe the fact is you got ratted out by somebody for committing a crime which you admit to and was proven. I have no way of knowing what anybody said that would suggest you were manufacturing or distributing drugs but generally the police or prosecutor is not going to investigate a crime without something to suggest there is reason to investigate it.

---

jk - You don't have anything better to do on a lovely summer weekend than to indulge a troll?

How am I trolling? Is that all you got? You want a go?

Quote:

---

Wow you love to play devils advocate here. Are you familiar with why an electronic device is sent to a national lab and $200,000 is spent to use forensic microscopes to analyze harddrives? Its because they can be used to detect DELETED data. There is nothing my little excursions to the computer science departments and the library could have done to subvert that.

---

dude, apparently you are not familiar with why information can be extracted from a storage device long after the user "deletes" it. Yes, you can make computer storage clean if you know how to do it.

Quote:

---

I sense there may be some ego in these threads as well. Is this a requirement to pursue a successful career in the judicial sciences?

---

I don't know as I am nearing my retirement and my career was not in the legal field at all.

Quote:

---

The reason is I had just been accused of domestic violence against a girl whose ENTIRE family was LE. Half of it was high powers in NYPD, the other half was high powers in ChiPD. Someone said some stuff to someone, and really pissed some police off because of it, and they were going to take care of things for them. Its called solidarity. And its a hallmark attribute of LE. Hence why domestic violence detectives were somehow in charge of a drug investigation

---

yet you were convicted of possession of drugs. Do you want to argue she planted them and then ratted you out?

How do you get from DV to drugs?

Seriously, the budget of any police department is not going to allow for a wild goose chase to the tune of over a quarter million bucks if there is nothing to support the investigation.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jache

---

You want a go?

---

What's a "go?" I'd rather have a mint julep.

Quote:

---

Quoting harrylime

---

jk - You don't have anything better to do on a lovely summer weekend than to indulge a troll?

---

I probably do but...well, you've been around for quite awhile and know me pretty well by now. When have I walked away from a stupid argument?

maybe it's the dad in me but somewhere along the line I keep thinking the kids I address will actually learn something so I keep at it.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

dude, apparently you are not familiar with why information can be extracted from a storage device long after the user "deletes" it. Yes, you can make computer storage clean if you know how to do it.

---

Well I can safely say I never knew that, nor did I know anyone who could do it. And honestly, if I were that calculating and cunning to ever think of doing something like that in a manufacturing operation... I deserved to get away with it. That's on the level of Breaking Bad.

Yes, I was convicted of possessing drugs. A pretty serious offense, and I deserve blame for it. Have I learned from my lessons and no longer experiment with stimulants? Absolutely. I'm not here to argue any lies or anything that didn't happen, and just want to know how it was allowed to happen. That was tax payer money, it didn't belong to the detectives, it didn't belong to my ex GF, and it didn't belong to the police department. This whole investigation was completely hidden from media, that's not right, the public deserves to know how its resources are spent.

Went from DV to drugs because domestic violence detective interviewing ex-GF was told that I was making drugs in my lab. Lab was entered by police and a drug was found in my workplace desk. Very stupid for me to leave a drug in a desk, but that's how it all started.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting harrylime

---

What's a "go?" I'd rather have a mint julep.

---

I tend to make dull jokes when I drink too...

Quote:

---

Jache;903562]Well I can safely say I never knew that, nor did I know anyone who could do it. And honestly, if I were that calculating and cunning to ever think of doing something like that in a manufacturing operation... I deserved to get away with it. That's on the level of Breaking Bad.

---

wow, just wow.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...d+drive+eraser

Quote:

---

Yes, I was convicted of possessing drugs. A pretty serious offense, and I deserve blame for it. Have I learned from my lessons and no longer experiment with stimulants? Absolutely. I'm not here to argue any lies or anything that didn't happen, and just want to know how it was allowed to happen. That was tax payer money, it didn't belong to the detectives, it didn't belong to my ex GF, and it didn't belong to the police department. This whole investigation was completely hidden from media, that's not right, the public deserves to know how its resources are spent.

---

you are upset because an investigation, that is legally allowed to be kept from the public eye since disclosure could jeopardize the investigation, was kept from the public? An investigation is allowed to be kept confidential since disclosure of the investigation could allow a suspect to destroy evidence before the police discover it. It could also tip off a suspect that may flee before enough evidence is gained to be able to detain them.

are you even from the US? I don't know anybody that is this naive

Quote:

---

Went from DV to drugs because domestic violence detective interviewing ex-GF was told that I was making drugs in my lab. Lab was entered by police and a drug was found in my workplace desk. Very stupid for me to leave a drug in a desk, but that's how it all started.

---

so there we go. You got ratted out by your ex. Upon initial investigation evidence was found that supported some sort of illegal drug activity. I am not seeing where you are having such problems with how this all a happened.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I probably do but...well, you've been around for quite awhile and know me pretty well by now. When have I walked away from a stupid argument?

maybe it's the dad in me but somewhere along the line I keep thinking the kids I address will actually learn something so I keep at it.

---

Obviously you don't recognize a kid who is trying to something about something here. Maybe if people were better educated they wouldn't do things a stupid as wasting a quarter million dollars on a pimple-face kid fresh out of college working a minimum wage job. If you think justifying why that money was wasted is stupid, then I understand how this situation was allowed to happen.