Establishment of Probable Cause for a Drug Offense

[Jache]

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?

[jk]

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 - - -

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.

[Jache]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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"

[jk]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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.

[Jache]

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 - - -

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

[Taxing Matters]

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.

[jk]

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.

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

[Jache]

[/FONT]

I love the supercilious humor in these threads...

[jk]

[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 - - -

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.

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.

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.

[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.