Can You be Prosecuted if Surveillance Video Shows You Using Drugs

The state has the burden of proving that the substance being smoked was marijuana. The fact that the OP "looked" like they were smoking pot, or there was an odor in the air similar to that of marijuana is insufficient. Someone is going to have to produce the substance being smoked, establish how they came into it's possession, testify as to chain of possession, and of course the police will need to have it tested by a lab to confirm it is marijuana and not a similar appearing substance.

Possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor in TN. Does anyone really think the police will go to that much trouble for a complaint of someone having smoked a joint sometime in the past?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

While i can see a video leading to a warrant that might ultimately lead to an arrest and conviction, I would like to see actual case law where a person was convicted of possession based exclusively on a picture or video of being in possession of it. I can think of too may cases where a person was believed to be in possession of pot or even paraphernalia being charged but walking because the lab tests ultimately proved it wasn't.

---

You are perhaps not thinking of all the possibilities that a video might reveal. Suppose, for one example, there is audio and the defendant is heard to say while puffing on it “Man, that’s some good marijuana.” His own statement of what the substance was may welll be enough to convict him. Again, the details of the video matter. In many cases it may not be sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. But there are some instances in which it could be.

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

Someone is going to have to produce the substance being smoked, establish how they came into it's possession, testify as to chain of possession, and of course the police will need to have it tested by a lab to confirm it is marijuana and not a similar appearing substance.

---

Perhaps in your state all that might be required for every conviction on a possession charge. Each state, however, has its own laws and less might be required elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

You are perhaps not thinking of all the possibilities that a video might reveal. Suppose, for one example, there is audio and the defendant is heard to say while puffing on it “Man, that’s some good marijuana.” His own statement of what the substance was may welll be enough to convict him.

---

I don't think a prosecutor would run with it given the lack of forensic evidence and the easy defense, "I was play-acting because I knew my boss was recording the room", but yes, a recorded confession backed up by video that corroborated the confession could constitute a prima facie case.

OK, let’s think this through.

I’m Peter Patrolman. I get a radio call advising me to meet an individual at a given location regarding narcotics usage.

Upon arrival I am contacted by Mr. Manager. He relates that an employee who just resigned was smoking marijuana on the premises and he would like to see them prosecuted. When asked how he knows this to be true, Mr. Manager stated that he has employee surveillance cameras hidden around the building. When reviewing video from X date and time, from a camera hidden in a restroom, he saw OP, the employee who resigned, smoking what looked like a hand rolled cigarette. Listening to audio from the recording, Mr. Manager heard OP exclaim, “Damn, that’s good pot.”

Mr. Manager admitted he did not personally witness the event nor does he know what was really inside the hand rolled cigarette. Instead, he only inferred that it was marijuana by OP’s statement and the fact that the cigarette was hand rolled as seen on the video tape.

Inspection of the video confirmed that it depicted what Mr. Manager described. Inspection of the bathroom confirmed that the event in question occurred at that location.

OK, as Peter Patrolman I am faced with a dilemma. While it’s a good guess that there was dope being smoked, do I really have enough to make a case against OP? In court I can’t prove what was actually in the joint. No doubt you will remind me that I have the video with Op’s admission. But, Tennessee is a one party recording state and it also prohibits putting cameras in bathrooms. I doubt OP consented to being recorded, so I also have to apply for a warrant against Mr. Manager. If I do that, I’m going to have difficulty paying a foundation for introducing the tape in court against OP, because Mr. Manager is going to take the Fifth.

As you can see, this has developed into a cluster f**k that is spiraling into nowhere. With this in mind, do you really think the DA is going to give me a misdemeanor warrant for OP because she smoked a joint in the bathroom?

If the boss's office is in a bathroom, the OP is probably glad to be gone. ;)

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

You are perhaps not thinking of all the possibilities that a video might reveal. Suppose, for one example, there is audio and the defendant is heard to say while puffing on it “Man, that’s some good marijuana.” His own statement of what the substance was may welll be enough to convict him. Again, the details of the video matter. In many cases it may not be sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. But there are some instances in which it could be.



Perhaps in your state all that might be required for every conviction on a possession charge. Each state, however, has its own laws and less might be required elsewhere.

---

Well, a video recording is a video recording. An audio recording is an audio recording. An audio/visual recording is both auditory and visual recording.

As well, especially since the op was alone i don't think we have to worry about who she/he may have been talking to while in the restroom. Marijuana isn't a halucinigenic. But even if they did hold up a pound of marijaina in front of a camera that also records sound and said; hey boss, want some pot?

it still would not be adequate to convict a person that later stated: man, that was just oregano. I wanted my boss think it was pot unless some real pot was actually found in the constructive possession of the op.


In every state I know it takes actual evidence to convict somebody. Something looking like or similar to pot is not actual evidence. It's a guess and if you could not get a person off that is faced with only that "evidence" well, i like your user name.

OP bit on his boss' bluff, hook line and sinker. There is not a camera in the bathroom.

Sounds like justice has been served to me.

Regards,
Jim

May I ask a quick question here on this thread?

Quote:

---

Quoting kamakazikharazi

---

May I ask a quick question here on this thread?

---

If you have a question about a different situation, even if it might be similar to this one, it's usually best to start a new thread. Avoids people getting the two situations confused.