Found in Possession of Hashish After Traffic Stop

[cdwjava]

The officer had no other reason than the out of state plates to pull us over we were driving perfectly.

That's what you believe. And, as I said, if the only reason for the stop was that the plates were from out of state, then the stop would be bad. But, since you have not read the report nor heard the officer have to legally articulate his reason for the stop, all any of us can do is speculate. I can't believe anyone who graduated from the police academy could be so dense and foolish as to somehow believe it is illegal to operate a vehicle bearing out of state plates in CA, but I suppose every once in a while a dunderhead passes through the screening process.

I honestly didn't know the hash was there, and the officer did know it was not mine.

You couldn't see the jar? I'd find that hard to believe, though it might be believable to say that you saw the jar but had no idea what was in it. If this is like most dope cars I see it was probably mildly (or greatly) cluttered which would further add to the doubt that could have been cast about your knowledge and ability to exercise control over it. And, remember, possession is not about ownership, it is about dominion and control.

This is the definition of malicious arrest which is illegal: The arresting of a person on a criminal charge without probable cause , or with knowledge that that person did not commit the offense charged.

There WAS probable cause: The presence of a controlled substance within your dominion and control. (Your knowledge is arguable, and probable cause does not require absolute certainty.) And all because the officer suspected it might belong to someone else does NOT mean that there was neither probable cause nor complete knowledge that another had committed the offense. In fact, had he been able to objectively say that the hash belonged to him and not to you, then there would have been no probable cause to make the arrest. But, he could not definitively say that.

Probable cause has a relatively low burden of proof. To proceed to trial requires much more than that which is required to support an arrest.

Oh, and try not to rely on a "dictionary" for a complete explanation of the application of a phrase or term, it is only good for general concepts. If it were so simple then we would not need attorneys.

Also, there is a website that dispensaries use it costs them I think $10 a month and they can make sure all recommendations are legit same with cops, but I think they have a more pricey one in Los Angeles County. Not sure of the specific url. I will ask next time I go to a dispensary

That might be a policy decision that the city and county have agreed to, but that hardly makes it state law.

You can make a complaint to the agency. If the officer was out of compliance with agency policy he can be disciplined.

If you truly believe that you can prove that the officer knowingly and intentionally stopped your friend without reasonable suspicion and you were arrested without probable cause or maliciously, feel free to consult an attorney and ask about a lawsuit. If the attorney wants several thousand up front, then your case is probably a dog.

[matt4200]

Well knowing what you know from the original thread do you believe the officer acted improperly?

Keeping in mind that this is the definition of malicious arrest which is illegal and grounds for a civil suit:The arresting of a person on a criminal charge without probable cause , or with knowledge that that person did not commit the offense charged.

[cdwjava]

Well knowing what you know from the original thread do you believe the officer acted improperly?

Keeping in mind that this is the definition of malicious arrest which is illegal and grounds for a civil suit:The arresting of a person on a criminal charge without probable cause , or with knowledge that that person did not commit the offense charged.

I don't know. As I said, if he made the stop solely for out of state plates, then the detention was bad and the evidence would be suppressed, the tow would likely have to be rescinded and the costs borne by the agency, and at best someone would get reamed.

Your dictionary definition is not the entire definition that would be used in court to define a "malicious arrest" and I doubt that you could prove that with what you have been told so far. A bad arrest, perhaps ... malicious? Probably not as that requires a level of intent that is difficult to prove. He could be held accountable for his incompetence if the detention or the arrest was bad, but I cannot see a "malicious" arrest claim hanging over this.

[matt4200]

That's what you believe. And, as I said, if the only reason for the stop was that the plates were from out of state, then the stop would be bad. But, since you have not read the report nor heard the officer have to legally articulate his reason for the stop, all any of us can do is speculate. I can't believe anyone who graduated from the police academy could be so dense and foolish as to somehow believe it is illegal to operate a vehicle bearing out of state plates in CA, but I suppose every once in a while a dunderhead passes through the screening process.


You couldn't see the jar? I'd find that hard to believe, though it might be believable to say that you saw the jar but had no idea what was in it. If this is like most dope cars I see it was probably mildly (or greatly) cluttered which would further add to the doubt that could have been cast about your knowledge and ability to exercise control over it. And, remember, possession is not about ownership, it is about dominion and control.


There WAS probable cause: The presence of a controlled substance within your dominion and control. (Your knowledge is arguable, and probable cause does not require absolute certainty.) And all because the officer suspected it might belong to someone else does NOT mean that there was neither probable cause nor complete knowledge that another had committed the offense. In fact, had he been able to objectively say that the hash belonged to him and not to you, then there would have been no probable cause to make the arrest. But, he could not definitively say that.

Probable cause has a relatively low burden of proof. To proceed to trial requires much more than that which is required to support an arrest.

Oh, and try not to rely on a "dictionary" for a complete explanation of the application of a phrase or term, it is only good for general concepts. If it were so simple then we would not need attorneys.


That might be a policy decision that the city and county have agreed to, but that hardly makes it state law.

You can make a complaint to the agency. If the officer was out of compliance with agency policy he can be disciplined.

If you truly believe that you can prove that the officer knowingly and intentionally stopped your friend without reasonable suspicion and you were arrested without probable cause or maliciously, feel free to consult an attorney and ask about a lawsuit. If the attorney wants several thousand up front, then your case is probably a dog.

What else would he have had "probable cause" to pull us over for simply from looking at us from the other side of the road?

Policy in CA is dictated by the AG correct or not correct?

The officer and his partner both agreed that the hash was not mine but were afraid their sergeant might say to release the person who's hash it actually was.

Yes, it was cluttered in the back seat trash and what not.

I don't believe it's a mulimillion dollar crazy thing. I just believe that honestly the officer should have known of the AG's stance, of interpretation of the law. And that the stop was not legitimate causing my friend to lose his car and me to have my liberties taken, and being thrown in jail.

I want to file a suit against the department suing them solely for my time and bail money, so basically what was lost as a result of the arrest. ($1300)

please feel free to reply

[cdwjava]

What else would he have had "probable cause" to pull us over for simply from looking at us from the other side of the road?

First, he doesn't need "probable cause" to detain someone, only "reasonable suspicion." There are tecnical differences in the two concepts.

Second, I don't know. I wasn't there. Perhaps he saw an improper lane change, or a bad light, no signaling, speeding, who knows? The point is that we do not know.

Policy in CA is dictated by the AG correct or not correct?

No. Policy is dictated by the agency. The opinion of the AG can have some impact on policy, but when pats of it has been rendered moot as a result of subsequent case law as then-AG E. Brown's 2008 opinion has been, it has less impact because the foundations upon which it relies for those policies are unreliable.

The officer and his partner both agreed that the hash was not mine but were afraid their sergeant might say to release the person who's hash it actually was.

So they told you. The police are permitted to lie to people they arrest. I might tell someone I arrest that stuff, too, in hopes that they might admit to knowing about it or dime off someone else whose stuff it might be.

And, yes, maybe they could have arrested the driver as it was his vehicle and you denied it was yours, but that would be harder to prove than arresting you since it was at your feet.

Yes, it was cluttered in the back seat trash and what not.

As I suspected.

I'm not surprised the case was never filed, but that's a far cry from making it a false arrest. if the basis for a false arrest were the non-filing of criminal charges, there would be no cops in CA and no misdemeanors would ever be pursued by the police.

I don't believe it's a mulimillion dollar crazy thing. I just believe that honestly the officer should have known of the AG's stance, of interpretation of the law.

I know the AG's stance, and since it has been rendered largely moot by subsequent case law, his knowledge of it is largely irrelevant.

Plus, let me quote from these very same guidelines:

5. Non-Cardholders: When a person claims protection under Proposition
215 or the MMP and only has a locally-issued (i.e., non-state) patient identification
card, or a written (or verbal) recommendation from a licensed physician, officers
should use their sound professional judgment to assess the validity of the person’s
medical-use claim:

a) Officers need not abandon their search or investigation. The standard
search and seizure rules apply to the enforcement of marijuana-related
violations. Reasonable suspicion is required for detention, while probable
cause is required for search, seizure, and arrest.

b) Officers should review any written documentation for validity. It may
contain the physician’s name, telephone number, address, and license
number.

c) If the officer reasonably believes that the medical-use claim is valid
based upon the totality of the circumstances (including the quantity of
marijuana, packaging for sale, the presence of weapons, illicit drugs, or
large amounts of cash), and the person is within the state or local possession
guidelines or has an amount consistent with their current medical needs, the
person should be released and the marijuana should not be seized.

d) Alternatively, if the officer has probable cause to doubt the validity of a
person’s medical marijuana claim based upon the facts and circumstances,
the person may be arrested and the marijuana may be seized. It will then be
up to the person to establish his or her medical marijuana defense in court.

e) Officers are not obligated to accept a person’s claim of having a verbal
physician’s recommendation that cannot be readily verified with the
physician at the time of detention.

Nothing in there precludes an officer from making an arrest even if there is a recommendation. The only way to have avoided the arrest was to have a state-issued card. For the third time I ask, why is it that you have no such card?

And that the stop was not legitimate causing my friend to lose his car and me to have my liberties taken, and being thrown in jail.

As I have written repeatedly ... If it can be shown that the officer's SOLE REASON for stopping the car was the act it had out of state plates, then the actions were improper and any subsequent citation, arrest, search, and impound can be suppressed and may be actionable in a civil court.

I want to file a suit against the department suing them solely for my time and bail money, so basically what was lost as a result of the arrest. ($1300)

That's a small claims action. But, first, you will likely need to make a complaint about the officer's actions and then make a claim for damages.

[matt4200]

I don't have a DHS card because first I don't know the process to get one, and I do not have additional funds to get one unless they are free or extremely cheap are they? do you know? Los Angeles or Ventura County?

What case law contradicts the AG's stance?

And the police weren't lying to me they were being honest, I told them 50 times before they even told me that they honestly believed that it was not my hash that it was my friends not mine, that I wasn't even there when he got it from the dispensary.

I repeatedly stated it's not mine I swear check to see if my fingerprints or DNA are on it I've never seen it before and never touched it it isn't mine.

[matt4200]

How would I get a copy of the report or prove that his only probable cause or reasonable suspicion for pulling over the vehicle was that it was for the plates?

If it was a bad arrest would the tow be rescinded and everything?

[cdwjava]

How would I get a copy of the report

You can ask the police department. They may not release it to you, however, as the matter may still be "open" as far as they are concerned. But, they might release it to you if the matter is considered closed.

or prove that his only probable cause or reasonable suspicion for pulling over the vehicle was that it was for the plates?

If he is dumb enough to admit to this in the report, then you'd have it in writing there.

If it was a bad arrest would the tow be rescinded and everything?

It should be, yes. The agency should have to eat the cost of the tow as well as seek to dismiss any citations or charges that might have issued as a result of the stop.

[cdwjava]

I don't have a DHS card because first I don't know the process to get one, and I do not have additional funds to get one unless they are free or extremely cheap are they? do you know? Los Angeles or Ventura County?

You can find out here:

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phc...=dca&unit=mmip

http://www.vchca.org/docs/public-hea...9.pdf?sfvrsn=0

What case law contradicts the AG's stance?

There are a couple, and they have to do with the number of plants. In essence the courts decided that the number of plants or amounts of marijuana that can be had was dependent upon the statutes and not some arbitrary level established by the AG or anyone else.

And the police weren't lying to me they were being honest, I told them 50 times before they even told me that they honestly believed that it was not my hash that it was my friends not mine, that I wasn't even there when he got it from the dispensary.

That does not mean there was no probable cause.

I had to arrest a guy the other day whose story I believed, but the objective evidence before me provided probable cause to believe a felony had been committed so I had little choice in the matter.

I repeatedly stated it's not mine I swear check to see if my fingerprints or DNA are on it I've never seen it before and never touched it it isn't mine.

They are rarely ever going to send off a jar of dope for prints or DNA. First off, DNA just won't happen - too expensive and too time consuming. Second, absent a violent felony, the state or local crime lab does not have the time or personnel to pursue prints on most simple possession cases. The results might take months to come back.

Like I said, if you feel you have a case for false arrest, talk to an attorney, gather a few thousand dollars, and give it a go. I don't see that you will have an easy time of it. Liability for a bad arrest, perhaps ... proving the intent required to show malice aforethought? Doubtful.

[matt4200]

If I could prove that it was a bad arrest would this website need to take down this slander about me,

"ARRESTED: 09/21/2012
F HS11357 Possess Marijuana/Hashish Possession
SOURCE: LAPD
Matt was arrested on felony charges of possession of marijuana/hashish for sale – He’s only been accused so he’s not a felon yet but with any luck he’ll be convicted of the crime and awarded the label of FELON. It’s kinda like the blue ribbon of the criminal world."

A couple days ago my girlfriend googled my name and it came up on some website. That is damage caused by the false arrest

- - - Updated - - -

BTW they got their info wrong it wasn't poss. for sale it was just Possession\