The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant Exception

In Urbana, Illinois

I was pulled over leaving a bar one night, Officer asked me to perform some pre-exit tests- I did. Officer then asks me to step out for field sobriety testing- again I did.

As soon as I exit the vehicle the officer says he will first "pat me down for weapons". Officer then felt "what appeared to be a film cannister" in my front pocket and retrieved it. Inside that cannister was about two tenths of a gram of marijuana. I say "Your'e not going to arrest me for that are you". He responds " No, i'm more concerned with your ability to drive". He then continues with field sobriety tests. Which I'm sure I passed( I'm a non drinker, and I wasn't "high").

After field sobriety I was arrested for D.U.I. Because I am non drinker, I gladly submitted to chemical testing (ignorant, ignorant, ignorant). Low and behold my blood and urine tested positive for T.H.C. (did I mention ignorant)

Here's where it gets kind of crazy. Filed motion to supress the cannabis seized in violation of Terry v. Ohio. During the supression hearing, when asked why he searched the defendant the officer stated, "Because I search everyone I come in contact with". The Judge interjects at that point and say's " You mean when your'e on a dark lonely street and the defendant is making furtive gesture's and you genuinely have a concern for your safety or the safety of others". That is when you "pat them down".

The officer responds " No, I search everyone I come into contact with". (Cha Ching--Wrong answer, I'm outta here-- Um not so fast). The Judge then admonishes the officer about his policy, then informs the State's attorney what a valid Terry frisk is (I'm so outta here). Then the Judge with no prompting from the State's Attorney say's " So that brings us to the business of inevitable discovery".

Wihout another word from the State's attorney the Judge argues that the Marijuana would have been dicovered inevitably when the police arrested me. I argued that it was not the discovery of the marijuana that was inevitable upon a lawful arrest. It was the arrest upon the unlawful discovery of the marijuana that was inevitable.

To make a long story as short as I can, (I could literally write a book about this). The marijuana stayed, The fruit of that poisonous tree(the blood test) was in. Then a jury of my peers rather quickly convicted me. And oh yeah, I saw it coming.

Is it just me, or did I get shafted here?

p.s. Forgot to mention that even though there were motions to supress on file, and a motion to dismiss on file weeks before the trial date we never had a hearing on those motions untill after we impanelled a jury. Since the motions would have been case dispositive if I prevailed I took that as a very bad sign.

Inevitable Discovery, Are you kidding me?

sorrry for the long post, feedback appreciated

Why are you sure you passed the sobriety tests? What does the police report say about your performance on those tests? Because that's where things presently hang.

Did you elicit any testimony in relation to inevitable discovery or the sobriety tests during your hearing?

Three tests performed.

1. (HGN) Horizontal gaze nystagmus? Officer testified I failed this one- He also stated on the citation that my eyes are brown. I assure you my eyes are the absolute brightest blue there is. With a flashlight in my eyes you'd think this would be pretty easy to ascertain.

2. Stand on one foot, other foot 6 inches off the ground and count 1001, 1002, 1003. Performed this test from 1001 to 1010, then put my foot down. Officer asked me to perform this test again. Again I counted to 1010 and put my foot down. Officer failed me on this test because he said he never told me to put my foot down. I wasn't going to count to 1999.

3. Take nine steps heel to toe turn 180 degrees and take the same nine heel to toe steps back. He asks if I can perform this test, I say no! He asks why not ? I say " because about step five I'm going to walk right into your car"
He then backs his car up 10 feet. I perform the test and he fails me for turning 180 degrees the wrong direction.

I probably did not mention in first post I moved to discover the videotape of the stop. His police report clearly states that there is a videotape. Was never provided a copy. In fact, The morning of my trial my public defender asked for a continuance in order to review the video.

At that time the States Attorney informs the Court there is no video. My P.D. then asks for a continuance because she has been prejudiced by not having the video, or being informed of it's non-existence. She states "your Honor I am unprepared for Trial and I need a continuance". Motion denied , Judge then say's that there was nothing on the video that could have helped me anyway.

To answer your Questions. Yes testimony was received about the field sobriety. And Yes there was an argument made for inevitable discovery. It was made by the Judge himself. No argument from the States Attorney though.

Certainly no argument was made to suggest there was "an ongoing independent investigation that would have produced the same evidence". Once the Defense has made a prima facie case the search was illegal the burden is on the prosecution to prove inevitable discovery, Not the Judge.

Thanks again, feedback appreciated

Mr. Knowitall, After thinking about this a little more, I have a couple questions for you.

1. Why do you even ask about the police report?
At the point he searched me illegally he no longer had any credibility as a competent witness, and he obviously searched me illegally or the inevitable discovery exception would not even be in this discussion.

2. Once the defense makes a prima facie case that the search was illegal, Isn't the burden of the prosecution to prove inevitable discovery,- In a seperate hearing so as to allow the defense time to prepare to argue against that exception being applied?

3. Is it not clearly stated in "Nix v. Williams" that in order to use the illegally obtained evidence the prosecution must: Prove the evidence would have been discovered inevitably through an ongoing independent investigation so as to remove the taint of the original illegality that first produced the evidence?

4. does "Wong Sun v. U.S." clearly set out that evidence derived from unlawfully obtained evidence (i.e. bloodtest) also be excluded? If so, exclude marijuana, exclude blood test = No evidence left to support a conviction.

5. Am I missing something here?
Other than my Constitional protection against unreasonable Government intrusion guaranteed by the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and my right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Please respond your feedback is appreciated.

Thanks, Roger

You've had your hearing and you've had your trial. That's the evidence you have to work with for your appeal, assuming you haven't delayed past the deadline for filing an appeal. No, they do not have to offer a separate hearing on inevitable discovery - that can be raised at the same hearing. And by all appearances the officer has insisted from the start that you were publicly intoxicated and unable to perform sobriety tests, and that testimony was accepted by the judge. What evidence did you offer to contradict the officer, other than "Well, I think I passed" (if even that)?

That your lawyer didn't follow through in a more timely manner about the video? That's unfortunate, assuming one ever existed. But he knew the trial date, and he shouldn't have built his trial strategy around a video that he had neither obtained or seen, let alone one that may not have ever existed. Nor would it seem particularly difficult to shift to a standard trial strategy. If you wish, you can add "ineffective assistance of counsel" to the issues you raise on appeal.

A few things.

The field sobriety exercises are not pass or fail, so I can not see why the officer would have used those words it in his report.

His search of you was not illegal. You were legally detained and he legally checked you for weapons. While doing this he felt a container, which through his training and experience he knew often times is used to hold illegal drugs. Or at least that’s how he should have articulated it.

Your blood test will not be thrown out because you were legally arrested for DUI and consented to the test.

The drugs would have been found anyway after you were arrested for DUI.

Quote:

---

Quoting Florida Deputy

---

You were legally detained and he legally checked you for weapons. While doing this he felt a container, which through his training and experience he knew often times is used to hold illegal drugs. Or at least that’s how he should have articulated it.

---

Seriously, even had the police officer stated that instead of the truth, how do you propose that would help? A pat down for weapons is exactly that. Finding something that theoretically could hold drugs (which would mean anything, right?) doesn't justify the officer's removing and inspecting the item, as the person's (presumed) possession of drugs does not pose any risk of harm to the officer.

Quote:

---

Quoting JOSHUAACE2

---

Three tests performed.

1. (HGN) Horizontal gaze nystagmus? Officer testified I failed this one- He also stated on the citation that my eyes are brown. I assure you my eyes are the absolute brightest blue there is. With a flashlight in my eyes you'd think this would be pretty easy to ascertain.

---

While the eye color issue is interesting in terms of disputing his attention to detail, it's not important to the outcome of the test. There is no such thing as a failing or passing on this type of observation; one merely notes whether certain peculiarities of the eyes' movement are present or not.

Quote:

---

2. Stand on one foot, other foot 6 inches off the ground and count 1001, 1002, 1003. Performed this test from 1001 to 1010, then put my foot down. Officer asked me to perform this test again. Again I counted to 1010 and put my foot down. Officer failed me on this test because he said he never told me to put my foot down. I wasn't going to count to 1999.

---

Right. So your argument that you're pretty sure you "passed" the tests despite having chosen to stop before it was completed seems a little odd to me. Part of the instructions for this test are to continue counting until the officer tells you to stop. If you stop before that, then you haven't done the test like most sober people would. The reason the test has to go on for a while is because alcohol is a central nervous system depressant, which affects how well you can mark time. By having a baseline time in mind, the officer can look at how long you actually stood there versus how long you think you stood there to help determine whether you're likely having a depressant or a stimulant in your system. I digress.

Quote:

---

3. Take nine steps heel to toe turn 180 degrees and take the same nine heel to toe steps back. He asks if I can perform this test, I say no! He asks why not ? I say " because about step five I'm going to walk right into your car"
He then backs his car up 10 feet. I perform the test and he fails me for turning 180 degrees the wrong direction.

---

The instructions are actually a little more in detail than you'd like us to believe. You start on a given a foot and take an odd number of steps, which puts you on the other foot. At the ninth step, you're supposed to take small choppy steps around the ball of the foot, the power of the pivot coming from the other foot. There's only one direction you can turn. So, you either ended on an even step, thus turning the wrong direction, or you didn't take the small choppy steps around the leading foot with the trailing foot providing the torque. So, yeah, sounds about right: you didn't follow directions, and thus met enough of the criteria to start leaning towards probable cause.

Deputy, You my friend are missing the point, as are others here. The inevitable discovery exception would not even be an issue unless the search was deemed illegal by the judge. At that point, the evidence is inadmissable unless the prosecution can prove the evidence would have been discovered through an ongoing, idependant investigation, so as to remove the taint of the illegally seized evidence. Not likely since this was a traffic stop.

Now as to the Officers testimony about field sobriety-- it is moot. What kind of credibility can you give the testimony of someone who has been found to have illegally searched the suspect? Answer, NONE

aaron, insighful post. Even if the justification for the "Terry" search had been present (it obviously was not), Then the scope of that search would still have exceeded it's boundaries when the officer retrieved any item he thought was not a weapon. There is a plain feel exception, but that was not the case either. It very likely could have been film in the film cannister. BTW, the officer testified "through my experience, people have been known to hide small knives in film cannisters". Be funny if I hadn't lived it.

MR. Knowitall, I was appointed a Public Defender. Have you ever heard of the Sixth Amendment? Where it states that you have the right to counsel, that has been interpreted to mean "effective assistance" by the U.S. Supreme Court. See "Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799" or "Geders v. U.S., 425 U.S. 80, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L. Ed.2d 592"

And yes that issue was raised on appeal.

Thanks for the feedback.

Ashman, in regards to the heel to toe test. If he failed to inform me which foot to start on, I really only had a 50-50 chance to get this right. He didn't say I took too many,or too few steps. He said I turned the wrong direction. Meaning I started with the wrong foot forward. Would have liked to have seen the video he said he recorded, that the state never produced. Maybe, just maybe, he didn't clearly (key word - clearly) give the directions for this test. Might also point out that at no point did he say I was swaying, swerving, or leaning.

I was convicted of driving with any amount of cannabis in my system. Had just finished a 12 hour shift at work so I wasn't even under the influence of marijuana at that time. Having mj present in your urine, and being under the influence are two different things.

On another note, this forum reminds me of the courtroom-- I am cloaked in the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. Also I received two tickets that night. 1) posession of mj. 2) D.U.I. Ticket 1 say's I was N/B on Lierman, and have blue eyes. ticket 2 Say's I was S/B on Lierman and have brown eyes. Traveling 2 different directions at the same time with different colored eyes. Who was high?

Thanks for the feedback,

Roger

Quote:

---

Quoting JOSHUAACE2

---

Ashman, in regards to the heel to toe test. If he failed to inform me which foot to start on, I really only had a 50-50 chance to get this right. He didn't say I took too many,or too few steps. He said I turned the wrong direction. Meaning I started with the wrong foot forward. Would have liked to have seen the video he said he recorded, that the state never produced. Maybe, just maybe, he didn't clearly (key word - clearly) give the directions for this test. Might also point out that at no point did he say I was swaying, swerving, or leaning.

---

Lots of "ifs" in here, but if your claim is true then it isn't a matter of a 50-50 choice; it's a matter of the test being improperly administered.

Quote:

---

I was convicted of driving with any amount of cannabis in my system. Had just finished a 12 hour shift at work so I wasn't even under the influence of marijuana at that time. Having mj present in your urine, and being under the influence are two different things.

---

Well, not for me they aren't; any amount in my urine leads me to the same conclusion: I've been potteried! Or something.

It's not really difficult to determine how much is in the urine and how much is required to make one "influenced" (here we say impaired). It's simple chemistry.

Quote:

---

On another note, this forum reminds me of the courtroom-- I am cloaked in the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. Also I received two tickets that night. 1) posession of mj. 2) D.U.I. Ticket 1 say's I was N/B on Lierman, and have blue eyes. ticket 2 Say's I was S/B on Lierman and have brown eyes. Traveling 2 different directions at the same time with different colored eyes. Who was high?

---

No, in a courtroom you have the presumption of innocence as the law sees it. After you've been convicted, you have the presumption of guilt because, you know, a whole lot of people listened your story and didn't buy it.

I'm not saying if all you say is true (we have only your word on it, and it sounds unusual in this day and age. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), then you have more than a case for an appeal; you have happened upon a system of corruption in what we consider our more or less polite society. You should be on every news station with transcripts of the trial, and the paperwork and the evidence. Eventually, someone important will notice, perhaps even a great appellate lawyer.

Ashman, for starter's 1 is not a lot of 'ifs'. Secondly, I think I stated pretty clearly in my original post that I was ignorant of the D.U.I. law's when I was pulled over. As a condition of the probation I received I had to submit to a urine test weekly for a year. 96 days after the last time I smoked I still tested positive for thc. Was I "impaired" for that entire time? Hardly.

Now, as far as the preumption of innocence in the Courtroom; Not the one I was in. And that my friend, was the point behind this post anyway. Let me summarize this one more time. The pre-trial motions were:

1) Defense Motion to suprees evidence gathered from a search conducted beyond the scope of a "Terry" stop.

2) Defense Motion to supress statements made by the Defendant in violation of "Miranda".

3) Defense Motion for substitution of Judge for cause (Would a Public Defender put her A** on the line for this if she didn't believe it?)

4) Prosecution Motion in limine barring any testimony about the prosecution's 4 month delay in providing the results of the blood test. Some 3 months after Defense first sought to discover them.

5) Defense Motion for continuance. PD argued for a continuance 1 day before trial because she was "unprepared for trial in this matter".

# 4 above was the only Motion granted despite clear and convincing testimony being illicited in pre-trial hearings to carry the burden on #'s 1,2,3 and 5.

Now the issues raised on appeal were:

a) Defendant's Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment were violated. (the "Terry" frisk)

b) Defendant's Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment
were violated. ( Custodial interogation prior to "Miranda")

c) Defendant's Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment
were violated. (Ineffective assistance of counsel. Public Defender's Motion for continuance being denied--couldn't be a clearer case)

d) Defendant's Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment were violated.

e) Prosecutorial misconduct (Failure to disclose discovery)

f) Judicial overreaching (made up the rules as we went along) (Who ever heard of picking a jury before addressing the pre-trial motions?)

Every issue brought on appeal was backed by a U.S. Supreme Court case, an
Illinois Supreme Court case, And a corresponding cite to the Trial Court Record, that showed the misconduct/violation occured.

The Appeal was denied too. Would you believe the Appelate Judge who authored the oppinion was formerly the presiding Judge in the county I live in. In fact, he also was the person that appointed the associate Judge in my case to the bench in the first place.

Ashman, I agree that extroardinary claims require extroardinary evidence. This is all true though. I am not a liar! Anyone out there that doesn't believe me the Trial Court Record can be found in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Champaign County Illinois. The Case number is, 99-Dt-179. The Appeal can be found in the Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth Judicial District, case number 4-00-0268.

This post is not a rant of "I didn't do it". As I stated before I was ignorant. Completely guilty of what I was accused of {ILCS ch 625 act 5 sec 11-501(a)(2)}. However, I contested this charge on Constitutional grounds. If "we the people" do not hold the Government accountable for it's actions, who will? This wasn't about avoiding punishment for something I did. This was about trying to protect the Constitutional Rights for my children, and their children. Trying to protect your rights, and the rights of your children, and their children. I fought for "We the people", I lost, But I fought.

When the Government can use illegally gathered evidence, in front of a biased Judiciary to convict a guilty man, it can use that same scenario to convict an innocent man. I fought for him.


Thanks for reading, feedback appreciated as always. We may have differing oppinions, but I love you just the same.

Roger

Quote:

---

Quoting JOSHUAACE2

---

Here's where it gets kind of crazy. Filed motion to supress the cannabis seized in violation of Terry v. Ohio. During the supression hearing, when asked why he searched the defendant the officer stated, "Because I search everyone I come in contact with". The Judge interjects at that point and say's " You mean when your'e on a dark lonely street and the defendant is making furtive gesture's and you genuinely have a concern for your safety or the safety of others". That is when you "pat them down".

The officer responds " No, I search everyone I come into contact with". (Cha Ching--Wrong answer, I'm outta here-- Um not so fast). The Judge then admonishes the officer about his policy, then informs the State's attorney what a valid Terry frisk is (I'm so outta here). Then the Judge with no prompting from the State's Attorney say's " So that brings us to the business of inevitable discovery".

---

I agree, wrong answer. The admittance should have thrown the MJ charge out. You mention Terry, correct. An officer can only pat down a person who they believe may be armed, a reasonable belief is enough. He stated he had none, just that he pats everyone down. I would have thrown it out.

IF the frisk was legal, then under the "plain feel" doctrine", which most states probably follow, if he believed it to be contraband or the fruits of, from his experience, he can search the inside pocket.

You got a raw deal!!

BOR, thanks for the affirmation, small consolation but it is something.

If anyone out there knows of any remedy for a ten year old case, please post or pm me.

Again thank you for reading, and as always feedback is greatly appreciated.

Roger

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

I agree, wrong answer. The admittance should have thrown the MJ charge out. You mention Terry, correct. An officer can only pat down a person who they believe may be armed, a reasonable belief is enough. He stated he had none, just that he pats everyone down. I would have thrown it out.

IF the frisk was legal, then under the "plain feel" doctrine", which most states probably follow, if he believed it to be contraband or the fruits of, from his experience, he can search the inside pocket.

You got a raw deal!!

---

This sounds right. I'm not really familer with Terry vs Ohio. I know it involves police searches, but I'm not up on all the details. Anybody have any links I can check out?

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

This sounds right. I'm not really familer with Terry vs Ohio. I know it involves police searches, but I'm not up on all the details. Anybody have any links I can check out?

---

Links? Shucks, I'm still working on "Quotes"

If you google "Terry vs. Ohio" or "392 U.S. 1" it should be easy to find.

Blueeagle, It is the standard for the conditions under which the police can "stop and frisk" in the absence of a warrant, or probable cause.

Roger

Quote:

---

Quoting JOSHUAACE2

---

Links? Shucks, I'm still working on "Quotes"

If you google "Terry vs. Ohio" or "392 U.S. 1" it should be easy to find.

Blueeagle, It is the standard for the conditions under which the police can "stop and frisk" in the absence of a warrant, or probable cause.

Roger

---

You don't say. I'm sure, vouchsafed on this even, that BlueEagle would like a more robust explanation of this so-called "stop and frisk" bit, more on the frisk than the stop though.

Pst, he was being facetious in his response to BOR.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

You don't say. I'm sure, vouchsafed on this even, that BlueEagle would like a more robust explanation of this so-called "stop and frisk" bit, more on the frisk than the stop though.

Pst, he was being facetious in his response to BOR.

---

To witty for me. I know there is a joke here....

Roger

Ashman, facetious and vouchsafed. You give me more credit than I deserve. I wouldn't even know what the hell them words mean without Webster here.

Okay, here is the question.

An Officer who performs an unlawful "Terry frisk", can he also be the Governments "Proof" of inevitable discovery?

Doesn't it stand to reason, if an unlawful stop invalidates the search; That an unlawful search would invalidate the stop.

Roger

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Ashman, for starter's 1 is not a lot of 'ifs'. Secondly, I think I stated pretty clearly in my original post that I was ignorant of the D.U.I. law's when I was pulled over. As a condition of the probation I received I had to submit to a urine test weekly for a year. 96 days after the last time I smoked I still tested positive for thc. Was I "impaired" for that entire time? Hardly.


Roger

---

96 days? My BS meter was really ringing on that one. Most THC is out of the system in 7 days if you are a very lite or occasional smoker. 30 days after quitting if you were a heavy smoker. You are saying your THC stayed in your system for over 3 times what a normal body does? I know it can be traced in your hair follicle's but wow.

Quote:

---

Quoting nite_riderusa

---

96 days? My BS meter was really ringing on that one. Most THC is out of the system in 7 days if you are a very lite or occasional smoker. 30 days after quitting if you were a heavy smoker. You are saying your THC stayed in your system for over 3 times what a normal body does? I know it can be traced in your hair follicle's but wow.

---

Your BS meter will just have to ring. On my 14th weekly test I was still testing positive, my levels were decreasing every week though.

Back in 1986 I tested positive over sixty days after my last consumption of mj. Back then they didn't get an ng per ml, it was merely a clean or dirty test. Almost got violated.

The extrapolation rate of THC has a lot of variants, as it is stored in fatty tissue, fitness is one of them. Addonnis I am not. Saturation level is another, An extreme heavy smoker over a long time period I was.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Your BS meter will just have to ring. On my 14th weekly test I was still testing positive, my levels were decreasing every week though.

Back in 1986 I tested positive over sixty days after my last consumption of mj. Back then they didn't get an ng per ml, it was merely a clean or dirty test. Almost got violated.

The extrapolation rate of THC has a lot of variants, as it is stored in fatty tissue, fitness is one of them. Addonnis I am not. Saturation level is another, An extreme heavy smoker over a long time period I was.

---

That still doesn't change the decay rate. You'd have to have something chemically wrong with your system for your system to require more than 3-6 times the duration of time to clean out the same amount of reagent. In other words, you're saying that you smoked so much for so long that you were constantly high weeks after you quit smoking; that's the decay rate we're talking about here.

Ash, I didn't say anything about being high for weeks on end after the last time I smoked. Why do I even bother posting when you seem to be able to speak for both of us?

Anyway, back on point, Again I will ask, Can anyone cite a case where the Governments "proof" of inevitable discovery was the testimony of the officer who committed the illegal search in the first place? Remember this is a stop and frisk.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Ash, I didn't say anything about being high for weeks on end after the last time I smoked. Why do I even bother posting when you seem to be able to speak for both of us?

Anyway, back on point, Again I will ask, Can anyone cite a case where the Governments "proof" of inevitable discovery was the testimony of the officer who committed the illegal search in the first place? Remember this is a stop and frisk.

---

Nor did I say you said as much. However, the laws of physics and chemistry are simply and finite. If more than 3 months after having not taken the chemical in question, given its known period of decay, it were still present in such quantities in your body, it must be the case that something in your system is unable to breakdown the chemical like it does in most other people. Or, more simply put you'd have to have been high for days or weeks after your last dose.

Chemicals leave the body in very predictable ways; they all are broken down at a constant percentage rate of decay. The only way, given the rate implied by your argument, for this to occur is that your body changes its rate of removal. This isn't how chemistry works.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Nor did I say you said as much. However, the laws of physics and chemistry are simply and finite. If more than 3 months after having not taken the chemical in question, given its known period of decay, it were still present in such quantities in your body, it must be the case that something in your system is unable to breakdown the chemical like it does in most other people. Or, more simply put you'd have to have been high for days or weeks after your last dose.

Chemicals leave the body in very predictable ways; they all are broken down at a constant percentage rate of decay. The only way, given the rate implied by your argument, for this to occur is that your body changes its rate of removal. This isn't how chemistry works.

---

Appears like you used a lot of words to call me a liar. You are wrong. But since you are a chemist, please tell us the maximum amount of time THC can be detected in your urine.

Then I will take the fourteen consecutive piss test results (with a steadily decreasing ng per ml) to my physician and ask, HOW THE HELL DID THIS HAPPEN, ASHMAN SAYS IT'S IMPOSSIBLE?

Anyway, back on point, Again I will ask, Can anyone cite a case where the Governments "proof" of inevitable discovery was the testimony of the officer who committed the illegal search in the first place? Remember this is a stop and frisk.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Ash, I didn't say anything about being high for weeks on end after the last time I smoked.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Nor did I say you said as much.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

In other words, you're saying that you smoked so much for so long that you were constantly high weeks after you quit smoking;

---

Looks like you said, what you said you didn't say.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Looks like you said, what you said you didn't say.

---

Right. I said essentially you're "saying" that. I suppose I should have said, as I did, that it's a necessary implication of your assertion. But I wasn't saying as a quote that you said as much; it's a figurative phrase.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

I suppose I should have said, as I did, that it's a necessary implication of your assertion.

---

Ummm, no it's not. Again you are suggesting that THC metabolites in ones system makes them "High". It just doesn't work that way. The "euphoric" feeling caused by smoking mj is relatively short compared to the time it can be detected in your bodily fluids. Maybe you didn't learn this in school, I thought it was common knowledge.

Just do a google search on how long THC metabolites can be detected in your urine. Tell me if you find ninety days for a frequent user pretty common. Nothing wrong with my system, something wrong with your source of information.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Anyway, back on point, Again I will ask, Can anyone cite a case where the Governments "proof" of inevitable discovery was the testimony of the officer who committed the illegal search in the first place? Remember this is a stop and frisk.

---

Just about EVERY case where "inevitable discovery" is invoked involves a search that is otherwise unlawful. It is only invoked when the evidence would be tossed due to a bad search (in this case the marijuana discovered outside the scope of a Terry frisk), and that an another independent avenue would result in that inevitable discovery (in this case, the DUI). If the only support the officer has for your marijuana DUI is your possession of marijuana, I'd agree that you have a potentially good case for appeal. But, if the evaluation was accepted by the court and a jury as valid and the evaluation showed that you were impaired, then an arrest was lawful and the marijuana would have inevitably been discovered as a search incident to that arrest.

Unless you can completely discount the officer's field sobriety tests or probable cause to believe you were driving under the influence, you are dead in the water.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Ummm, no it's not. Again you are suggesting that THC metabolites in ones system makes them "High". It just doesn't work that way. The "euphoric" feeling caused by smoking mj is relatively short compared to the time it can be detected in your bodily fluids. Maybe you didn't learn this in school, I thought it was common knowledge.

Just do a google search on how long THC metabolites can be detected in your urine. Tell me if you find ninety days for a frequent user pretty common. Nothing wrong with my system, something wrong with your source of information.

---

Perhaps you should, instead of writing a polemic of this ilk, read your mail in which I delineate the mathematics of how, assuming a half-life decay rate most favorable to your position, it's highly unlikely you'll have met the initial conditions to have a detectable level (the level used as a standard, not an absolute detectable level) left in your system. Indeed, the half-life used in that mathematics is only 2.6 days shorter than the longest ever measured half-life of 12.6 days. The mean half-life is about four and a half days. For you, I used 10 days to be generous to your claim. This is taken from a study of THC decay rates conducted by Johansson, Halldin, Agurell et al. and published in the European Journal of Pharmacology in 1989.

What's your source?

I read the original messages but not the entire thread. I think most of the posters got far away from the original question.

First, if there was no video, your attorney should have questioned the officer about it. Does the car have an in-car video system, and why was there no video.

Secondly, you should never have agreed to the test. Yes, take an alcohol test blowing in the machine, but nothing else. Anyway you know this too late.

Third, this was NOT a Terry Stop. A Terry Stop typically is when a person is walking, riding a bike, etc. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion.

In your case, the DUI, there was probable cause to stop you.

A police officer can frisk a driver for weapons. The officer can not use it to go on a fishing expedition to find out what you have on you that he might be able to get you for. YES, it was an illegal search.

However, as you were arrested for DUI, when you got processed at the jail they would have found it and that is the inevitable discovery. However, if you didn't say anything about it and it was discovered at the jail itself, you could have been charged with a felony of introduction of a controlled substance into the jail.

The 90 days for the THC to be out of the system, blah blah is irrelevant. You had it in your pocket. I seriously doubt you would be carrying the bud around if you did not recently smoke it or intended to smoke it. Pretty flipping stupid to have it on you if you were not using it.

If you could beat the DUI, then you could get the bud surpressed as fruit of the posionous tree.

At any rate, if his body takes that long to rid itself of chemical's, I would be making a hasty trip to my local specialist to find out why. That could be indicative of much greater physical problems and if proven, be another avenue to overturn the initial DUI charge.

Quote:

---

Quoting nite_riderusa

---

At any rate, if his body takes that long to rid itself of chemical's, I would be making a hasty trip to my local specialist to find out why. That could be indicative of much greater physical problems and if proven, be another avenue to overturn the initial DUI charge.

---

While I agree that if his story were true that it takes that long for his body to break down something (more than 3 times the amount of time ever documented to be necessary), he should seek a professional, I don't see how that at all is relevant to a dui charge. I'm unfamiliar with a legal defense that because someone's body breaks down an impairing chemical slower than everyone else's that said person isn't responsible for comporting with the law.

Ash, my source is personal experience. BTW the lab doing the test counted anything over 20ng/ml as a positive. First test was a friday, 183ng/ml. The next test was the following Wednsday, and then every wednsday there after for 51 weeks. the next 13 results were 156, 134, 123, 111, 102, 93, 82, 69, 59, 47, 38, 29, 22,(all were ng/ml). Followed by 38 negatives.

Neither the local lab that collected and tested the specimens, nor the probation department found it all that unusual. One didn't refer me to a doctor, and the other did not file a probation violation report.

A steadily declining concentration, but nothing close to a half life in a seven day period. A medical marvel I might be, IDK. A liar I am not. Again this is way off topic. What I really want to know is:

Can anyone cite a case where the Governments "proof" of inevitable discovery was the testimony of the officer who committed the illegal search in the first place?

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Ash, my source is personal experience. BTW the lab doing the test counted anything over 20ng/ml as a positive. First test was a friday, 183ng/ml. The next test was the following Wednsday, and then every wednsday there after for 51 weeks. the next 13 results were 156, 134, 123, 111, 102, 93, 82, 69, 59, 47, 38, 29, 22,(all were ng/ml). Followed by 38 negatives.

---

Oh, well, that's how science works after all. There's no amount of data collected over any number of years by any number of scientists that ever deal with the claim of someone's personal experience. After all, that chemistry voodoo only works on the other six or so billion people on the planet, not on me - I'm special.

Now you're arguing that your level wasn't just detectable (by the objective 50 ng/mL), but was four times as great, using almost the longest possible half-life ever known to exist. My god man, you'd have to have taken in at least 2 kilograms of the original chemical to have it remain in that quantity 9.6 half-lives later.

Quote:

---

Can anyone cite a case where the Governments "proof" of inevitable discovery was the testimony of the officer who committed the illegal search in the first place?

---

Sure, just as soon as you give us the citation to your conviction and its appeal on this issue. You claim the search was illegal, which means that you'll have to be able to show the officer lacked probable cause to have arrested you in the first place.

Curiously enough, he thought you were impaired, arrested you, and didn't you, lo and behold, have an impairing chemical in your system? One might think he was onto something there.

Anyway, the answer you seek is given to you up-post. I think by Carl.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Anyway, the answer you seek is given to you up-post. I think by Carl.

---

What Case? What post number? I don't see it. You couldn't be wrong about this could you?

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

What Case? What post number? I don't see it. You couldn't be wrong about this could you?

---

He answered the question you have about inevitable discovery. I wouldn't expect him to cite a case from his state as it's irrelevant to your state.

No, I'm not wrong that he answered the inevitable discovery question. Of course, I (along with all other scientists in the world) are wrong about all things in science. So, it's a fair question.

Joshua, in #31 I tried to post an explanation of inevitable discovery and how it is applied.

Inevitable discovery is something that only applies in a situation where a piece of evidence has been suppressed as a result of a bad search and is then readmitted as a result of a second action, independent of the first, where the discovery would have been (arguably) inevitable.

As such, virtually every case you read will be similar to your situation.

- Carl