Results 1 to 10 of 10

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8

    Question Is Consuming Narcotics During a Traffic Stop Less Legal Risk

    My question involves search and seizure law in the State of: California

    Scenario:

    Q has a very small amount of narcotics in her vehicle and she's driving somewhere. Q is pulled over for a "traffic stop."

    Let the fun begin

    As a person who's defying the will of the majority regarding her choice to consume a prohibited substance, Q is now faced with several choices none of them are particularly attractive but in order to avoid the wrath of the majority she has to pick the "least risk" option.

    1) Quickly consume the small amount of substance (preferably undetected by the cop). In this case the substance does not onset immediately and takes a prolonged period of time to demonstrate its effects.

    2) Leave substance where it is (not in plain view) and play the no-consent-no-plain-view-no-probable-cause game and try to avoid a vehicle search.

    Now... I would like to hear an objective assessment and comparison of risks between the two options.

    Some things cons that I see for each option:

    1) What happens if the cop observes Q consume the narcotics? That could be roughly broken down into a) clearly see the consumption b) see Q do something suspicious ("furtive"?) but not sure what exactly happened. Are there possible legal risks with what could be viewed as "destruction of evidence"? It seems the worst possible outcome here for Q is DWI if Q gets later pulled over after being let go after the initial stop and the substance already took effect and there may be possible some kind of evidence-related charges which I know very little about. So my main question here is about evidence-related charges legal risk.

    2) Even if the no-consent strategy works, the cop may still search, find contraband and lie/make up probable cause for the courts. Q will have a lot of fun trying to prove he's a liar. There's also as I understand the factor, of a dog being in the cop's car in which case he would not need to prolong "the detention" and could casually walk the dog around the car and produce immediate probable cause for a search when the dog alerts. He could also illegally prolong the detention by not having a dog with him but calling K-9 in and making Q wait anyway. Again Q will have a lot of fun proving foul play on the cop's part in this case. It seems the worst possible outcome for Q in this case is: Possession

    As far as I know possession carries more serious legal consequences than DWI. What I'm not sure about is possible evidence-related charges.

    Hopefully, this is not too convoluted. I can clarify the scenario more if needed, just ask a question. Thanks!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign, Traffic Violation Code VC 22450(A), Fresno California
    By JasonDDI in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 01:41 PM
  2. Search and Seizure: Narcotics Found During Traffic Stop - Probable Cause for Residence Search?
    By hopper in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-12-2010, 01:22 AM
  3. Drug Possession: Drug Object Possession, Schedule 4 Narcotics, Possession Legal in Prescription
    By AHuebsch in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 09:54 PM
  4. Is It Legal to Direct or Stop Traffic in Florida
    By luckytigerlady in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 01:10 PM
  5. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Legal Or Illegal Traffic Stop?
    By benz182 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 07:33 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources