pageok
pageok
pageok
Cop Takes Marijuana From Suspect, Cooks Brownies, Eats Them With His Wife, Flips Out, Calls 911:
The Agitator has the scoop, and the tape of the 911 call is here via the Detroit Free Press. No charges have been filed.
Kovarsky (mail):
it's hard to isolate what the funniest part of this call is. other than the obvious "what's the score of the red wings" and "my mother in law just got here" non sequiters, i think the operator's insistence on knowing how many brownies contained the 1/4 oz is pretty strange.

that's what the cops get when they do the pot. he probably saw the "this is your brain on drugs" commercial with the extraordinarily hot girl.
5.10.2007 9:31pm
Nathan_M (mail):
The police officer thought he was going to die from taking too much pot? Aren't these people trained at all?
5.10.2007 10:01pm
FantasiaWHT:
The cop doesn't have any weapons in his house?
5.10.2007 10:01pm
Kovarsky (mail):
"What is the score of the red wings game?"

"Uh, what?"
5.10.2007 10:05pm
Lurker:
The police officer thought he was going to die from taking too much pot? Aren't these people trained at all?

He says later that he has some in the closet. You fail for posting before listening to the whole thing. :(.
5.10.2007 10:13pm
33yearprof:
Because he's a cop, nothing will come of it beyond severe embarassment.

Special deals for special people.
5.10.2007 10:33pm
Tomm:
The cop thought the marijuana may have been laced with something else and his wife was on the floor barely breathing. It is not so unreasonable that he called 911. Taking the pot in the first place is another story.
5.10.2007 10:34pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
The cop doesn't have any weapons in his house?

Uh, oh ... prohibited possessor under GCA 68: a user of unlawful drugs. Heard of a prosecution under that. They caught a guy with pot in the house, asked if he'd used it tonght, he said yes, asked if he had any guns in the house, yes, bingo, federal felony!

Of course that's what happens when you OD on marihuana. I mean if you don't rape somebody first. I saw it all in Reefer Madness.

Maybe someone oughta produce Reefer Madness II -- about how medical marihuana users start taking chemo drugs, waste away to nothing, and die within six months after they started using it.
5.10.2007 11:05pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
To be fair, I have consulted with those who have more extensive knowledge than I of illicit drugs and current events in the area, and am informed that lacing pot with more potent substances is now a fairly common practice. So it is quite possible that they were put down by something more potent than pot, and his calling 911 may not have been irrational. That would tie in with his saying that he'd done it before but never with this effect, and with his wife being down on the floor.
5.10.2007 11:18pm
whit:
"Because he's a cop, nothing will come of it beyond severe embarassment"

rubbish. i know that many like to think that cops get off easier. imo, they get more strict punishment than civilians given the same offense. and judges have no prob justifying it.

as for the part of the dying - well, mj has no LD50. nobody's ever died from it. that's correct.

however, in regards to the strong effects, it is also true as dave pointed out, that marijuana is sometimes laced. i have seen it laced with PCP and formaldehyde and LSD among other things.

i know a cop who ate a hamburger that the cook laced with crystal meth too. but that's another story.
5.10.2007 11:41pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
I have consulted with those who have more extensive knowledge than I of illicit drugs and current events in the area, and am informed that lacing pot with more potent substances is now a fairly common practice. So it is quite possible that they were put down by something more potent than pot, and his calling 911 may not have been irrational.


Actually, eating marijuana or hashish laced pastry can get you into some trouble. You won't die or anything, but you can consume quite a large amount of the drug before it has any noticable effect. When you smoke it, the high is pretty immediate and the sedative effect limits the dosage. Most people will fall asleep before they can get near the dose you can consume by eating the whole tray of brownies. At those levels, marijuana can be a moderately potent hallucinogen. If you had only toked before, the effect could be disconcerting at the very least.

Or so I've been told. I have no firsthand knowledge of such things. A friend of a friend told me about it. Barely an acquaintance, really.
5.10.2007 11:50pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
as for the part of the dying - well, mj has no LD50. nobody's ever died from it. that's correct.


Please get your facts straight. The LD50 for ingested THC in male rats is known to be around 1270 mg/kg, and this tends to be fairly predictive of humans.

Now, that's still not something anyone's going to encounter even if they tried to commit suicide by pot, but it's still there.
5.11.2007 1:20am
Kovarsky (mail):
not to lapse into surfer patois, but come on dudes.

those of you speculating about the severe chemical effects of marijuna needed to spend less time reading books about it and more time in high school.
5.11.2007 1:35am
Oren (mail):
For a cop you'd think that he would be able to handle his drugs or, failing that, he would be able to handle his shit without panicking. Instead, he proved that he is a lightweight and a freak at that.

OTOH, I would wish 18 USC§ 922(d)(3) wished upon him either (as I duly fear that particular code myself).
5.11.2007 1:51am
Frater Plotter:

however, in regards to the strong effects, it is also true as dave pointed out, that marijuana is sometimes laced. i have seen it laced with PCP and formaldehyde and LSD among other things.

Formaldehyde would give marijuana a highly detectable and decidedly unpleasant aroma. Pot dealers aren't interested in making their product unusable, so there would be no point in "lacing" (or rather, contaminating) it with formaldehyde. But see below -- you've been taken in by an urban legend.

LSD is destroyed by heat. LSD is actually rather unstable as drugs go; smoking it would entirely destroy it. (So, by the way, would adding it to running water. The old legends about hippies putting LSD in the water supply were just wishful thinking on the part of straights who wished they were hippies.)

PCP, on the other hand, can be consumed by smoking -- and frequently is consumed by adding it to marijuana, tobacco, or other smokable herbs. However, PCP is much rarer than marijuana, and users who desire the effects of marijuana are not likely to welcome the effects of PCP.

By the way, PCP distributed in liquid form has been known in slang as "embalming fluid", thus giving rise to the urban legend of formaldehyde marijuana.
5.11.2007 3:30am
David M. Nieporent (www):
"Because he's a cop, nothing will come of it beyond severe embarassment"

rubbish. i know that many like to think that cops get off easier. imo, they get more strict punishment than civilians given the same offense. and judges have no prob justifying it.
Whit, I know your self-appointed role here is to act as spokesperson for LEOs everywhere, to justify when you can and explain how "Okay, that would be bad but I've never seen an LEO do that ever" when you can't -- but did you read the article?
Dearborn police declined to pursue criminal charges against an officer last year, even after the cop admitted to taking marijuana from criminal suspects and, with his wife, cooking it up in brownies.
He was allowed to quit with no further consequences. And while the humorous part was a supposedly-trained LEO's complete unfamiliarity with marijuana, the outrageous part is that he stole the marijuana. So while I have nothing against drug users -- except the ones who punish other people for using while using themselves -- he's also a thief.

Oh, and the special treatment extends beyond cops to their families:
His wife, Stacy Sanchez, admitted to police investigators that on another occasion she removed cocaine from her husband's police cruiser -- drugs purportedly earmarked to train police dogs -- and used it during a three-week binge. She, too, has not been charged criminally.
5.11.2007 3:58am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
It's a shame that private attornys can't convene grand juries and prosecute cases against government wrongdoers.
5.11.2007 4:01am
whit:
"Formaldehyde would give marijuana a highly detectable and decidedly unpleasant aroma. Pot dealers aren't interested in making their product unusable, so there would be no point in "lacing" (or rather, contaminating) it with formaldehyde. But see below -- you've been taken in by an urban legend. "

um, no.

i've been taken in by the lab test that returned with positive results for LSD on a marijuana sample.

it may be that heat destroys LSD.

but that's irrelevant to the fact that people spike marijuana (most mj dealers are not chemists after all) with all sorts of stuff.

so, it's not legend. i stared numerous analysis straight from the state crime lab

formaldehyde?

yes

PCP ?

yes

LSD?

yes
5.11.2007 4:28am
whit:
"His wife, Stacy Sanchez, admitted to police investigators that on another occasion she removed cocaine from her husband's police cruiser -- drugs purportedly earmarked to train police dogs -- and used it during a three-week binge. She, too, has not been charged criminally."

look, i have charged over 200 drug cases. i have never charged ONE, let along got a conviction (wait for it)... without the ACTUAL DRUGS. she can admit to stealing 600 lbs of cocaine and snorting it over a 6 year period. so what? it's not enough to charge. you need the ACTUAL drugs. i believe you lawyer types call this "corpus delicti" or something. whatEver.

prosecutors don't (in the jurisdictions i've worked) charge people for possessory offenses without the underlying contraband.

if and when you have the drugs, you have to TEST them to make sure they ARE drugs. how do you test them - if they are GONE?

duh

i've had hundreds of criminals admit to all sorts of drug crimes. without THE ACTUAL drugs, it's not a case. it's "interesting info"

i know you think the cops got special treatment. sorry. again, this is my area of expertise, and at least in the jurisdictions i've worked in (three different states) - no DRUGS, no crime.

hope that helps

"Dearborn police declined to pursue criminal charges against an officer last year, even after the cop admitted to taking marijuana from criminal suspects and, with his wife, cooking it up in brownies."

and why is this surprising? let's look at facts, not rhetoric.

first of all (at least in my jurisdiction), admitting ANYTHING about drugs is not enough for a charge/conviction. you must (wait for it) RECOVER THE DRUGS to make a criminal case.

if he cooked it up, did they have any drugs left to charge him WITH?

as for the stealing the drugs part? well, they'd have to get the ADMITTED drug users to admit that they were in possession of marijuana, which he then stole. and even then, without the actual marijuana, it's not a provable case.

so, how do you charge a crime without evidence? let me know.

i prefer to let justice rule. cases are not charged if they cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
5.11.2007 4:35am
Brett Bellmore:

if he cooked it up, did they have any drugs left to charge him WITH?


Isn't that what blood tests are for? I'd assume that the admission was enough probable cause.
5.11.2007 7:38am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Whit, nice try. But let's not forget this part:

When later questioned by police investigators, Sanchez said his wife took the marijuana out of his police vehicle while he was sleeping, and she told investigators she tricked him into eating a pot-laced brownie.
and
But in a subsequent interview, Sanchez acknowledged he fetched the marijuana from his car, put it in the brownie batter, and ate the brownies.
Leaving aside the improbable notion that there was no evidence anywhere in the house (of the marijuana, at least, if not the cocaine)... that's at least one lie to the police, perhaps two. Are you going to claim that lying to LEOs who are conducting an investigation is not a crime? What we might call "dereliction of duty" is also a crime in Michigan. ("Willful neglect to perform such duty.") His confession, his admitted false statements, along with his wife's statements, may not be sufficient for drug charges, but it certainly is for that. (Because we don't need to test the substance to see whether it was "real" marijuana to know he's not allowed to confiscate it and keep it.)
5.11.2007 8:10am
Rodger Lodger (mail):
This is nothing...in one of Eric Schlosser's books he details how a congressmen who campaigned on tougher pot laws was practically crying as he pleaded for lenience in court for his son who was charged with drugs (sale?). "Let them eat marijuana cake."
5.11.2007 8:38am
markm (mail):
Drug users usually aren't charged, anyway (aside from stretching larger amounts into a "dealing" charge without any evidence that the drugs weren't for personal use). The only people I've ever heard of charged with stealing illegal drugs were cops - when it was much larger quantities, stolen to sell at a profit, and they were caught by an investigation into missing drugs rather than by confessing to the use.

OTOH, it isn't at all hard to find much better examples of cops getting special treatment - e.g., what seems to me a clear case of felony murder charged as manslaughter (Kathryn Johnston), or never charged at all (Waco - the original warrant was obtained with lies).
5.11.2007 9:25am
whit:
"Isn't that what blood tests are for? I'd assume that the admission was enough probable cause."

why do u assume this? it's not true anywhere i have worked.

in no jurisdiction i have worked for is admission of drug use (unless you are DUI - totally different thing) probable cause to get a warrant for a blood test.

never.

because having drugs in your system (unless you are driving and imparied by them ) IS NOT A CRIME

furthermore, USING drugs is not illegal. possession is. in no jurisdiction i have worked is having drugs IN YOUR SYSTEM a chargable offense. and especially when people call 911 for medical help because of overdose, prosecution is not the first thing on our (cops) minds.
5.11.2007 10:22am
great unknown (mail):
Does the police department decide whether or not to pursue criminal charges, or does whatever passes for the DA there?

As far as no material evidence being found, from the account it seems that not all of the brownies were eaten. There's your source for evidence. Furthermore, if the marijuana was taken from criminal suspects, this would comprise destruction of evidence and obstruction of a criminal investigation. Were the suspects who contributed the herb to Cpl. Sanchez's bakery charged with possession? If so, can they be convicted now?
5.11.2007 10:22am
whit:
nieporent,

it's not a try. it's how the real world works. the problem with lawyers and laypeople when they have this false notion that cops get special treatment (they do - they are treated more harshly when they break the law) is that they suffer from selection bias. you never see (or hear about) most noncharged cases involving civilians. they never make the paper. you hear about them with cops far more often cause when a cop is even accused of X, it makes the papers, etc.

i've gone to tons of overdose calls btw. guys with a needle sticking out of their arm with heroin residue, etc. we almost never press charges in those types of cases. when it's a small amount of drugs, people are calling for medical purposes, our job is first to protect life, etc. not make some 1/2 assed case for drugs, ASSUMING that there are drugs lying around

in no case, in any jurisdiction i work can people be charged for having drugs in their system (i am aware that in some jurisdictions, with some drugs , they can - california comes to mind).

furthermore, especially with marijuana, i can tell you that most marijuana cases with small amounts, the average seasoned street cop will look the other way, etc. because it's essentially a civil infraction ($50 fine, etc.) unless the guy has tons of priors, and it's not worth most cops time. that's reality, although again - it never gets to court, so your selection bias causes you not to see all those cases.

and then you see a case where a cop makes the paper (cause they will for practically anything) and its a double standard in your eyes.

very typical and understandable perception, just not reality
5.11.2007 10:40am
whit:
"Furthermore, if the marijuana was taken from criminal suspects, this would comprise destruction of evidence and obstruction of a criminal investigation"

again, you are assuming.

if the marijuana was taken FROM evidence, it would. if it was taken in the streeet it would not be, since it's not evidence, since no criminal investigation was opened. do you see the distinction?

i said this (months ago) that cops frequently destroy marijuana when they catch people with small amounts. that's not destruction or obstruction. it's called officer discretion

if a cop arrested a guy for mj, THEN stole some of the mj, that would be.

was that the case here?

i'm not gonna assume that
5.11.2007 10:59am
uh clem (mail):
The LD50 for ingested THC in male rats is known to be around 1270 mg/kg

1270 milligrams per kilogram? That's 1.27 times the rat's body mass. I think injesting just about anything that weighs more than than you do is asking for it.

Never eat anything bigger than you head. That is all.
5.11.2007 11:27am
Oren (mail):
Whit - Please explain why he isn't being Federally charged under 18 USC§ 922(d)(3) for being a forbidden person in possession of a firearm.
5.11.2007 11:39am
Benquo (mail) (www):
1270(mg/kg)*(g/1000 mg)*(kg/1000g) = .001270 kg/kg

That's 0.1270% of the rat's body mass.
5.11.2007 11:44am
DJMoore (mail) (www):
uh clem says: "1270 milligrams per kilogram? That's 1.27 times the rat's body mass."

Uh, no. That would be 1.27 kilograms drug/kg body mass.

Instead, the LD-50 is said to be 1.27 thousandths of the body mass. Still a heck of a dose, though.
5.11.2007 11:48am
Adeez (mail):
Man, this is priceless!!! Random immediate thoughts:

(1) Yet another example of why marijuana should and ought be legal. If people were allowed to grow their own, then there's no danger of smoking herb laced w/anything harmful.

(2) It probably wasn't even laced. But the guy's an amateur, and most here know that the effect from eating it is much stronger and more hallucinagenic (sp?) than smoking it. It's not the substance itself, but the psyche and mental makeup of the user. That's why some people can trip and smoke herb regulalrly and enjoy it, while others can go batty.

(3) War on Marijuana warriors, although a distinct minority, will love to use this as but another example of why we should spend billions fighting the good fight.

(4) This guy's reputation and life is over. Good. That's Karma baby. He's a pawn in an unjust system doing Big Brother's evil bidding. What does this say about the system, where cops can harass people and threaten their freedom for a harmless substance, and then confiscate it and use it for themselves. If Whit is right (that cops get worse punishment for the same offense), then terrific! Cops, like judges, have so much power over individuals. Pay them well, give them good benefits, respect their position. And when they abuse that power, punish them severely for abusing the trust we've given them.
5.11.2007 12:02pm
Kovarsky (mail):
I'd just like to second Adeez (2):

(2) It probably wasn't even laced. But the guy's an amateur, and most here know that the effect from eating it is much stronger and more hallucinagenic (sp?) than smoking it. It's not the substance itself, but the psyche and mental makeup of the user. That's why some people can trip and smoke herb regulalrly and enjoy it, while others can go batty.

Half the people I know that have ever gotten stoned recount a funny story about how they were that guy who thought the weed was laced the first time they smoked it. The officer is "that guy." Who says "uses pot" anyways? That's up there with "marijuana cigarette" as far as terms that reveal the speaker doesn't know what he's talking about.
5.11.2007 12:18pm
whit:
"Whit - Please explain why he isn't being Federally charged under 18 USC§ 922(d)(3) for being a forbidden person in possession of a firearm."

i've seen dozens of cases of people who had guns in their house when they possessed mj, never seen it charged

how do i know? i don't work for the feds, and in 20 yrs of law enforcement i've never heard of that charge, nor seen it applied
5.11.2007 12:44pm
whit:
fwiw, i know of two cases where an officer who was using mj (while an officer) was given drug counseling, and not fired or anything

at least in two agencies i worked for, use is not (usually) a firing offense.

stealing it from suspects DEFINITELY would be
5.11.2007 12:46pm
Kovarsky (mail):
what does fwiw mean?
5.11.2007 12:48pm
whit:
"This guy's reputation and life is over. Good. That's Karma baby. He's a pawn in an unjust system doing Big Brother's evil bidding"

oh for pete's sake. look, i don't think mj should be illegal either, but why is it "big brother's" fault?

why is it this cop's fault? does being a cop mean you buy into every stupid law on the books?

i hope not.

fwiw, i think there are far more egregious issues regarding privacy, and civil rights being curtailed in regards to domestic violence laws than drug stuff, but that's another issue

we elect representatives (and in many states we have an initiative process)

nevada put legalized mj as a ballot initiative a while back.

it failed.

i would have voted for it.

regardless, we get the reps we elect. it's as much our fault for electing these people and not making our opinions known.

what i think IS big brother'ish is when the feds enforce mj laws contrary to state medical mj laws.
5.11.2007 12:52pm
whit:
fwiw = for what it's worth
5.11.2007 12:52pm
markm (mail):
"USING drugs is not illegal. possession is." If it's in your bloodstream, you're in possession of it, aren't you?
5.11.2007 1:11pm
loki13 (mail):
*sigh*

While whit is apparently the anecdotal source of all things law enforcement on this board, allow me to clear up a few things that the has missed:

1. In this article, the officer (and the wife) were not charged for possession and theft of drugs. There are many accounts in the news (re: beatings etc.) of cops that do not get charged unless there is severe public pressure. I tend to trust published sources and the linked article over whit's anonymous anecdote.

2. Re: LSD on marijuana. I'm happy that you found it on numberous samples. This, of course, brings up two questions:
1. Why put it on? Since it is not efficacious (when consumed- marijuna must be heated/cooked- or when marijuna is smoked) there is no value added, so why is marijuana laced with LSD? See also:
Wikipedia Entrtry on LSD lacced Marijuana Hoax
See also
LSD cannot be smoked despite uninformed reports
The formaldehyde is a hoax as well.

PCP-laced marijuana does exist.

If you have a source, I'll be happy to recant. If you just have anecdotes, I call shennannigans.
5.11.2007 1:12pm
whit:
i knew you would miss this

why?

because many drug dealers (and users) don't read wikipedia and snopes to check out the veracity of drug myths. much like beavis and butthead smoking banana peels, they hear that lacing mj with PCP etc. is efficacious, so they DO it.

it's really not that hard to understand. drug dealers (and users) believe all sorts of myths about drugs. i recall several drug dealers told me (when i was undercover) that all they had to do was ask people who they were going to sell drugs to, if they guy was a cop. if he said no, then bought the drugs, it's entrapment.

seriously

the issue isn't "can LSD be smoked" (and still have pyscho-active effect)?

the issue is DO SOME DRUG USERS AND DEALERS ***think*** it will work and thus do it?

clearly, the answer is yes, since i have tested mj that did have LSD on it.

what you are assuming (wrongly) is that drug users and dealers don't buy into the myth.

since it's clear that many people have heard about this, and don't know it's a myth (that it works), it's understandable that many druggies would try it.


"1. Why put it on? Since it is not efficacious (when consumed- marijuna must be heated/cooked- or when marijuna is smoked) there is no value added, so why is marijuana laced with LSD? See also:
Wikipedia Entrtry on LSD lacced Marijuana Hoax
See also
LSD cannot be smoked despite uninformed reports
The formaldehyde is a hoax as well.

PCP-laced marijuana does exist.

If you have a source, I'll be happy to recant. If you just have anecdotes, I call shennannigans."
5.11.2007 1:18pm
whit:
"There are many accounts in the news (re: beatings etc.) of cops that do not get charged unless there is severe public pressure. "

again, with the bias. see: "beating"

whether or not an application of force is a "beating" (which i think implies it's an UNJUSTIFIED application of force) is the fact in question. the vast majority of uses of force that involve strikes (iow "beatings" by your wording) are justified, and that's why they aren't charged.

of course it's true that some cops sometimes get away with using excessive force (and many don't).

it doesn't follow that because a newspaper reports on a "beating" that it is in fact

1) unjustified use of force
2) criminally actionable (2 requires more stuff than 1 to prove)
5.11.2007 1:21pm
markm (mail):
1270 milligrams per kilogram = 1.27 grams/1,000 gram. That's about 3 ounces (a hamburger patty) for a 150 pound person. But remember, that's pure refined THC. At 10% THC content, it would be two pounds of prety good weed (almost a kilo). In hash brownies, I think the chocolate would kill you first.
5.11.2007 1:29pm
whit:
fwiw, some ancient greek guy said ANYTHING in high enough dose is poision, but clearly MJ is about as close to nonpoisonous/deadly/nontoxic as you can get.

even water will kill you if you drink too much of it, but nobody talks about water being toxic.

"Drinking excess water sometimes causes hyponatremia, because the absorption of water into the bloodstream can dilute the sodium in the blood. This cause of hyponatremia is rare, but has been found in psychotic patients who compulsively drink more than 20 liters of water per day. Excessive drinking of beer, which is mainly water and low in sodium, can also produce hyponatremia when combined with a poor diet.""
5.11.2007 1:33pm
liberty (mail) (www):
PCP laced pot exists, also cocaine and other uppers, among other things. It may also be laced with some pretty nasty chemicals. OTOH it could have just been a strong batch and they at a few too many brownies. Brownie creep can make it tough for the uninitiated to recognize the high as just a high and not something more dramatic. This guy just sounded stoned and paranoid. His wife, though, was in a slightly more dangerous situation if she'd taken 5 Vicodin.

Still, seemd like he's just a young foolish police officer. Not surprising, kind of funny, and he deserves the mockery a bit since he went and cooked the drugs he confiscated.
5.11.2007 1:33pm
whit:
i also find it stupid that he chose to use an ILLEGAL high (and risk his job) when there are so many legal highs that would not put his job in jeapardy.

clearly, he's an idjit.
5.11.2007 1:36pm
whit:
in many of the lab tests i have seen, coke is laced with speed. many of the people who attribute jitteriness to coke are actually jittery from the speed (which is much cheaper than coke on agram per gram basis) which the dealers use to stretch their coke out with. people will snort it and feel the instant rush (from the speed) and thus think that its "good coke".
5.11.2007 1:39pm
Prufrock765 (mail):
I have prosecuted and I agree with Whit's posts.
The cop should be discplined, even fired. But there is nothing to charge him with unless you have a police report instancing a theft. A person can not be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt solely on the basis of his admissions.
Cops do not get especially lenient treatment, ceteris paribus. The reason that every mope on the street can say that he knows someone who got hammered for the same crime that the Officer Krupke got off easy for is that the most imporant factors in fashioning a plea are 1. provability and 2. Defendant's criminal record.
OTOH as a my judge said once in sentencing a cop for some criminal misfeasance: "Much is expected from him to whom much is given".

As far as drugs in the system being the basis for a charge, bear in mind that the blood test will not show "Marijuana"...it will show marijuana metabolites which legally is not the same thing. No one gets charged for having drugs in the blood...except for alcohol, for which there is a specific statute
5.11.2007 1:47pm
David Maquera (mail) (www):
Another cop who is above the law. This guy reminds me of soon to be former police chief, Jim Kesterke, of Berrien Springs, Michigan.
5.11.2007 1:51pm
uh clem (mail):
1270(mg/kg)*(g/1000 mg)*(kg/1000g) = .001270 kg/kg

That's 0.1270% of the rat's body mass.


Hey, what's a few orders of magnitude among friends?

//must've been the LSD-lace marajuana talking
5.11.2007 1:55pm
Fub:
whit wrote at 5.11.2007 9:40am:
in no case, in any jurisdiction i work can people be charged for having drugs in their system (i am aware that in some jurisdictions, with some drugs , they can - california comes to mind).
In California "some drugs" means most scheduled drugs, but does not include marijuana. The typical charge is Health and Safety Code Section 11550, which doesn't specify 11054(d)(13) or (20) (marijuana and extracts). Schedules are at 11053 and following. Available for lookup here.

Conviction of H&S 11550 is sustainable on no more evidence than arresting officer's "expert testimony" (ie: "yup, he looked to me like he was stoned on something illegal"). No lab test is necessary.

Defendant has burden of proof that any non-schedule I drug charged was administered under direction of a licensed prescriber.
5.11.2007 2:05pm
whit:
correct. i knew they could charge for having heroin in the system, cause i did a ride along (several) in LA etc. and the cop did just that with a junkie. chick had needle marks, constricted pupils, slurred speech and admitted to shooting up. he charged her.

i was aware mj was not included in that charge. iirc, california even made personal possession of small amounts of mj chargeable as a civil infraction (like a speeding ticket, not a crime).

and here's a blurb about how it's handled in seattle.

note: 35 personal possession of pot arrests in a year, in a city of over 500,000.

like i said, most people with small amounts of mj get the "look the other way" treatment round here. which is fine by me.

------
Ten years ago, city cops arrested 500 people for personal-use amounts of pot, defined as less than 40 grams, enough for about 50 joints. Last year, the first year under the new law, only 59 were arrested, according to information gathered by Carr's office. So far this year, it's 35.

"I actually look at every case," said Carr, who sits on the pot-arrest monitoring panel established by the initiative. His office has jurisdiction over the city's misdemeanor drug cases. "It tends to be a couple of joints in the possession of someone stopped for something else."

The effort to decriminalize pot smoking isn't confined to Seattle. Voters have approved similar initiatives in Oakland, Calif.; Columbia, Mo., and, just two weeks ago, in Denver.
5.11.2007 2:20pm
whit:
here's the link on seattle's pot initiative. forgot to add


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/249424_marijuana23.html
5.11.2007 2:21pm
whit:
prufrock, good post. thanks

btw, that "can't be prosecuted based solely on an admission" is one of the first things we learn. im surprised how few attorneys seem to realize it.

that's especially true in the wife's case. without the cocaine she claims she used handy to be tested, there is NO way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it WAS cocaine.

and once the drugs are gone (and if they are in your system, they are gone in my jurisdiction, for possessory offenses) - they are gone.

no such charge round here for having any drug in your system.
5.11.2007 2:25pm
r78:

i believe you lawyer types call this "corpus delicti" or something. whatEver.

Uh, Whit, if you are in the business of "charging" people for crimes, you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of a "confession". That is what it is called when someone admits to a crime like, say, stealing cocaine from a police cruiser.

Psssst, you don't need that fancy latin word when you have a confession.

Keep up the work protecting the public.
5.11.2007 2:26pm
whit:
r78, you are wrong. as prufrock (former prosecutor), noted you DO need more than the confession

you CANNOT convict somebody of ANY crime based solely on confession.

so, get real. you're wrong

i'll protect the public by knowing the law. i suggest you do the same

look it up

not that i expect an admission you were wrong from such a snarky poster
5.11.2007 2:28pm
loki13 (mail):
Whit,

Can you cite a single case where the sentencing for marijuana possession was increased because testing found the presence of LSD on the marijuana*? I was unable to find it on either google or westlaw, but perhaps your research skills or better than mine. Again, do you have any evidence you can cite other than your colorful stories?

*penalties for LSD possession as a function of weight are greater
5.11.2007 2:28pm
Fub:
Prufrock765 wrote at 5.11.2007 12:47pm:
I have prosecuted and I agree with Whit's posts.
...
No one gets charged for having drugs in the blood...except for alcohol, for which there is a specific statute.
I have defended, and I do not believe that last statement is true in California. The basis for my belief is first that statutes specifically criminalize being under the influence of an illegal drug, and second that I've seen such prosecutions with my own eyes. See above at 5.11.2007 1:05pm.
5.11.2007 2:31pm
whit:
btw, here's some legal type references for you...

"The corpus delicti rule requires that any statement made by the defendant be corroborated by independent proof; in other words, the confession of a defendant taken alone is not enough to convict her of a crime. State v. Aten, 79 Wn. App. 79, 89, 900 P.2d 579 (1995), aff'd, 130 Wn.2d 640, 927 P.2d 210 (1996); State v. Meyer, 37 Wn.2d 759, 763-64, 226 P.2d 204 (1951). "
5.11.2007 2:32pm
Prufrock765 (mail):
Fub
I have spent more time defending than prosecuting. The Cali statute referenced above looks like another "public intoxication" statute---what our fathers called "drunk and disorderly" before we discovered better living through advanced chemistry. Moreover the Cali statute looks more like a formalization of a "lets get these junkies into rehab" policy.

The point at issue was "possession" charges, since that is what all the people on here were saying that the cop should get hooked for. The cop was not in public, so no PI charges are in order.
5.11.2007 2:39pm
whit:
"Can you cite a single case where the sentencing for marijuana possession was increased because testing found the presence of LSD on the marijuana*? I was unable to find it on either google or westlaw, but perhaps your research skills or better than mine. Again, do you have any evidence you can cite other than your colorful stories? "

who said you could cite for it?

you are creating a strawman. i never said somebody was cited for it. i said i have seen lab analysis of MJ return with various other drugs adulterating the MJ to include PCP.

but how is that relevant. you would have to show that the defendant knew (or should have known) there was PCP, LSD etc. on their mj.

like i said, i've found all kinds of weird stuff return on lab tests. if somebody is in possession of mj, you can prove pretty easily that they knowingly possessed it. if you use fancypants chemical tests to show traces of LSD, PCP whatnot on their mj you would need to prove they had some kind of idea these drugs were on their mj
5.11.2007 2:40pm
whit:
also, many jurisdictions don't have ANY drunk in public charges, let alone drugged in public

mine does not.
5.11.2007 2:42pm
Thief (mail) (www):
Somewhere, Alice B. Toklas smiles...
5.11.2007 2:45pm
Witness (mail):
whit, why do cops test for things like LSD in marijuana if they can't use the evidence against the offender? Seems like a total waste of time if what you say is true.
5.11.2007 2:47pm
blindgambit:
I have to say that I tend to find Whit's anecdotes perfectly believable. Having lived in a small, poor, southern town on a major freeway for a couple of years, I've learned many criminals are criminals and not good members of society for a reason-they're not exactly rocket scientists. I'm not sure why it's hard to believe that people would put substances on mj (or other drugs) that actually have no effect.
5.11.2007 2:53pm
whit:
witness, generally speaking, they don't

you have to specify (in many cases) what you are testing for. in the garden variety mj test, they don't even do much if any chemical testing. mj is sent to a leaf analysis technician, etc. first which gives more than enough to charge.

there are reasons to check for other stuff on mj like if somebody totally wacked out on it, and you suspect there might be something more to it.

it's kind of like how doctors don't like to do uneccessary tests (too expensive, etc.).

often, there will be a specific reason to test for stuff like the case where the d00d was totally wacked out.

in the case of "sherm" (PCP lacing), the wrapping paper gets discolored (if they dose it AFTER rolling especially), which gives you a hint as well
5.11.2007 2:54pm
Fub:
whit wrote at 5.11.2007 1:28pm:
you CANNOT convict somebody of ANY crime based solely on confession.
Absolutely correct. Minor nit: confession must be extrajudicial (ie: unsworn) to invoke the corpus delicti rule.

It's rarely invoked but I've seen once. When dinosaurs roamed the earth my crim law prof handled a case where an officer got a report of a car driving erratically on an offramp but no specific description. For some reason he decided he knew who was driving the car, who lived near the offramp. He went to the defendant's house and asked "have you been driving today?" Defendant was both drunk and he answered "yes". Defense raised corpus delicti rule. Case dismissed.
5.11.2007 2:56pm
Witness (mail):
whit, You didn't answer my question, so let me phrase it more specifically. Why do cops EVER test for LSD if they can't use the results against the offender? As has been noted here, heat destroys LSD; it's therefore imposssible for someone to get "totally wacked out" on pot b/c it's laced with LSD, which seemed to be your only explanation for why tests would be done.
5.11.2007 2:57pm
r78:

you CANNOT convict somebody of ANY crime based solely on confession.

Here you have the confession. Presumably you would also have evidence sign out sheets or chain of custody documents establishing that the cocaine was in the husband's possession. If not that, presumably you would have testimony of evidence sargeant or custodian who gave the husband the cocaine to be used in the "dog training"

Also, regarding the marijuana - you have the 911 call, the fact that paramedics responded, and also presumably there were tox screens performed at hospital. This - coupled with the confession of theft - would be sufficient for a convictions.

I know that smug, self-righteousness is the first line of defense whenever anyone in law enforcement is caught commiting a crime, but you might want to distance your emotions for how you look at the law - if you do have any responsibility for protecting the public, that is.
5.11.2007 2:58pm
whit:
"Also, regarding the marijuana - you have the 911 call, the fact that paramedics responded, and also presumably there were tox screens performed at hospital. This - coupled with the confession of theft - would be sufficient for a convictions. "

among other things, if the tox screens were performed at the hospital for medical purposes, they would not be admissible.

ditto anything he said to paramedics, for the purpose of them treating him.

and i say again, having mj (metabolites) in your system is NOT illegal.

i'm just telling you these kinds of cases DO NOT GET CHARGED

i go to OD type cases all the time where the guy admits taking all sorts of drugs, and sometimes even has traces of the drug/paraphernalia in his possession or near him

they are usually dealt with a a "assist to medical, no case report required" type of clearance.

"know that smug, self-righteousness is the first line of defense whenever anyone in law enforcement is caught commiting a crime, but you might want to distance your emotions for how you look at the law - if you do have any responsibility for protecting the public, that is."

no, it's experience based on the reality of what actually happens when cops interact with citizens. if some guy got all wacked cause he ate some kind of pot brownie, and called 911, he would most likely get a once over by medics, and a trip to the hospital if warranted.

i'm sorry, but 20 years of dealing with this sorts of stuff gives me a base of examples to recount, and that's the way it works in the real world.
5.11.2007 3:06pm
whit:
"whit, You didn't answer my question, so let me phrase it more specifically. Why do cops EVER test for LSD if they can't use the results against the offender? As has been noted here, heat destroys LSD; it's therefore imposssible for someone to get "totally wacked out" on pot b/c it's laced with LSD, which seemed to be your only explanation for why tests would be done."

at least where i work, there is a checkbox type of system when you test for drugs. if you suspected the mj was adulterated you would have the lab test for a cross-section of psychotropics, etc. which would include LSD (PCP, peyote, etc.).

you're not going to say "test for every psychotropic EXCEPT LSD cause LSD gets destroyed by heat, so it obviously is not LSD". you just test the frigging box

i remember one incident where a guy found a white hard chunk of god knows what. sent it off to the lab with the boxes checked, and it returned with a long winded explanation, ending with "commonly known as boneless, skinless chicken breast"

it had been there a while.
5.11.2007 3:12pm
Witness (mail):
whit, Wait, I thought these tests were very expensive and, like doctors, cops try to avoid doing unnecessary tests so save on that expense. At least that's what you told me. If that's the case, why wouldn't they even include LSD in this supposed catch-all test for psychotropics?

"at least where I work"

I think that's the problem here. You have a very, very limited perspective on law enforcement techniques.
5.11.2007 3:16pm
Witness (mail):
Oops, should be "so as to save" and "why would they even."
5.11.2007 3:21pm
whit:
do you have difficulty reading?

they test for a cross section. that's how it works. all i am explaining is why i have seen mj return with adulterated substances. im not saying that's how it works in OTHER places.

i am saying that is how the form (and lab) works HERE.

i don't know how expensive they are, but they do cost something and NORMALLY a cop is not going to order a test for OTHER stuff when he thinks he has mj. if he thinks it might be adulterated, he checks an extra box

you sound like some building 7 conspiracy theorist.

i do not have limited perspective on LE techniques when it comes to drugs

i have testifed as an expert witness and have more drug experience (since i worked deep undercover which very few agencies do) for a long time.

i've trained in several states (and with the feds), and my perspective is not limited

sorry, but nice try
5.11.2007 3:21pm
r78:

among other things, if the tox screens were performed at the hospital for medical purposes, they would not be admissible.

What are you talking about? DUI drivers who cause accidents are routinely prosecuted using their tox panels. Are you for real?

And, I notice that you don't mention anything about cocaine prosecution. Well, nevermind.
5.11.2007 3:22pm
whit:
for the hundredth time

read what i wrote earlier.

if yoyu are under arrest for DUI, there is a procedure (written into the law) to get a chemical test admitted
that's cause there is IMPLIED CONSENT when you are under arrest for DUI

there is no such thing for being ADMITTED to the hospital for an overdose.

there is no CRIME for having mj in your system (specifically MJ metabolites). there IS a crime for driving while impaired by drugs and alcohol, and specific enabling statutes.

do you understand the distinction?

i did mention the cocaine prosecution

i said since the cocaine is GONE, the wife admitting she snorted it is not enough to convict her of anything.

snorting cocaine is also not illegal. possessing it, is.

that's a distinction you fail to understand, even if you could PROVE she had snorted it (which you can't)
5.11.2007 3:25pm
whit:
btw, ARE YOU FOR REAL?

a guy gets admitted to the hospital for drug use, and you think the cops can use his tox screen against him for criminal prosecution????

amazing
5.11.2007 3:30pm
Witness (mail):
whit, I don't really feel that your ad homs against me were necessary. I also don't see how anyone can have the hubris to claim that their perspective is "not limited." Everyone's perspective is limited, whit, even yours.

At this point, I'm just going to let this end. The point I was making is very clear from my posts: I don't believe you've ever seen a lab test come back that showed marijuana laced with LSD. Your provincial anecdotes continue not to persuade me.
5.11.2007 3:31pm
whit:
i'm not rtying to convince you with my anecdotes. i know what i've seen

that's one of the great things about shows like cops. if it wasn't for skeptics like you actually seeing people do the stuff they do, it would be even harder for civilians to understand how incredibly moronic criminals can be and some of the stuff they do.


btw, way to backpedal. what you said was
i have a " very, very limited perspective on law enforcement techniques."

that's false. ESPECiALLY in regards to drug investigations, in which i have more extensive experience than the vast majority of cops.
5.11.2007 3:37pm
Witness (mail):
How did I backpedal? Yes, I said that. Your response was to TWICE tell me that your perspective is "not limited." If you had responded instead with something like, "My perspective is limited, but not to the extent you seem to think," that would have been one thing. But instead, you replied that your perspective was "not limited." Do you see the difference?
5.11.2007 3:40pm
Fub:
Prufrock765 wrote at 5.11.2007 1:39pm:
Fub
I have spent more time defending than prosecuting. The Cali statute referenced above looks like another "public intoxication" statute---what our fathers called "drunk and disorderly" before we discovered better living through advanced chemistry. Moreover the Cali statute looks more like a formalization of a "lets get these junkies into rehab" policy.
Except that H&S 11550 does not specify "public". It states "No person shall use, or be under the influence of any controlled substance which is (1) specified in ..." It specifies misdemeanor penalties.

The statute existed for decades before California's recent Prop. 36 provided for rehab.

Although it is likely most charges are the result of a defendant being in public since that's where most police encounter people generally, being in public is not an element of the crime under H&S 11550.
The point at issue was "possession" charges, since that is what all the people on here were saying that the cop should get hooked for. The cop was not in public, so no PI charges are in order.
I'll not quibble about whether calling 911 makes his act "in public", so I'll agree that if the jurisdiction's statute requires "public", then he was not "in public" until he stepped out his front door. But the California statute does not specify "public".

As for possession charges, leftover brownies, or brownie pan scrapings, or even crumbs on the table, could be sufficient to make possession charges stick, depending on meeting usable quantity threshold.

I'm even more certain that possession of drug paraphenalia would stick. A brownie pan (or anything else used to prepare or ingest illegal drugs) is considered "drug paraphenalia" if the paraphenalia holds testable drug residue.

Since he gave a brownie to his wife, he could be charged with transportation or supply. There is evidence of that besides his confession. I've seen that charged for passing a joint at a concert.

I agree with whit that the drug should be legal. But until that day comes I see no reason not to throw the same book at police or prosecutors who violate the law that police and prosecutors throw at civilians.
5.11.2007 3:49pm
whit:
again, what book would that be?

there are several assumptions here.

1) that this type of crime is routinely prosecuted (it aint in my jurisdiction. when people call for OD's etc. it's dealt with almost exclusively as a medical problem
2) that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute

the cali statute does not apply to MJ btw. (under influence of drugs).

what i am saying is that, based on the facts i have seen thus far, no book would be thrown at anybody else (civilian) in my jurisdiction for th same behavior, and that's assuming it's even provable.
5.11.2007 3:57pm
whit:
witness.

ok, fine. my experience is extensive, much more extensive than the average cop, but it is not UNlimited, therefore it is limited.

is that your point?

it's pretty absurd imo. everybody's experience is thus "limited" in that sense, unless they are the omniscient being (tm).

that's not what people mean when they say you have "limited experience" merely that is not unlimited.

not to mention your whole "very very limited" thang. but whatEver
5.11.2007 4:00pm
r78:

i said since the cocaine is GONE, the wife admitting she snorted it is not enough to convict her of anything.

You miss the point. The crime would be stealing the coke, not the snorting of it.
5.11.2007 4:02pm
r78:

a guy gets admitted to the hospital for drug use, and you think the cops can use his tox screen against him for criminal prosecution????

same thing here. The crime is that he stole marijuana from someone, and no doubt doing it while acting as a police officer makes him all the more worthy of prosecution.

Here you have a confession made on a 9/11 tape and the proof that he actually stole it would be the traces in his system. Other than the fact that this guy is a rotten cop, why would you have a problem prosecuting him?
5.11.2007 4:07pm
Witness (mail):
whit, Right. That's why I qualified my assessment of your perspective as not just being "limited" (which, as you point out, would be redundant as everyone's perspective is limited), but as being "very, very limited." Thus, a responsive reply from you would not be, "My perspective is not limited" (as you indeed responded), but rather, "My perspective is not very, very limited. It's only somewhat limited, but it's still better than most."

I appreciate you correcting that word choice so as to more carefully articulate what you actually think. It's no secret that a wide swath of posters and commenters on this board buy into the notion that "sloppy writing reflects sloppy thinking." Thus, I hardly think my point is "absurd."
5.11.2007 4:14pm
Witness (mail):
whit, I also think it's worth noting that your perspective, experience, and anecdotes are worthless as long as you're posting behind the cloak of anonymity. Anyone could easily make up an account on here, claim to have even more experience than you, and then say that you're full of it. Would you take their word for it? I doubt it, so why expect us to take yours? Reveal who you are so we can verify your bona fides.
5.11.2007 4:27pm
Eliza (mail):

i have never charged ONE, let along got a conviction (wait for it)... without the ACTUAL DRUGS. she can admit to stealing 600 lbs of cocaine and snorting it over a 6 year period. so what? it's not enough to charge. you need the ACTUAL drugs. i believe you lawyer types call this "corpus delicti" or something. whatEver.

In my jurisdiction the actual drugs aren't essential for a possession or possession with intent charge. The government can use circumstantial evidence to show past possession. Once they've done that, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied and the statements can come in. Still, this kind of thing strikes me as poor sportsmanship.

Anyway, as for cops getting charges, can we at least admit that cops, DAs and their families don't get many speeding tickets?
5.11.2007 4:29pm
Fub:
whit wrote at 5.11.2007 2:57pm:
again, what book would that be?

there are several assumptions here.

1) that this type of crime is routinely prosecuted (it aint in my jurisdiction. when people call for OD's etc. it's dealt with almost exclusively as a medical problem
2) that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute
I agree that we both make assumptions and those assumptions may be erroneous. But I don't think there is a good standard for "routinely prosecuted". I've seen transport and delivery charges filed for passing a joint at a concert. I've seen drug paraphenalia charges filed for possession of a match with MJ residue on it (a so-called "Jefferson Airplane roachclip"). I've seen under the influence charges stick on nothing more than an officer's testimony that in their expert opinion defendant was under the influence of an illegal drug.

So, I hope we can agree that, depending on this officer's jurisdiction's laws, and upon facts suggested by the news report, there are several possibilities for criminal charges. Any of those possibilities may be negated by more specific facts that are not in the news report.
the cali statute does not apply to MJ btw. (under influence of drugs).
True. I already said that.
what i am saying is that, based on the facts i have seen thus far, no book would be thrown at anybody else (civilian) in my jurisdiction for th same behavior, and that's assuming it's even provable.
I am certain that you have more professional experience in these matters than I. But in my limited experience I have seen multitudes of charges heaped on defendants for things you say aren't prosecuted in your jurisdiction. I think we can agree that states, and even counties, differ in what they prosecute, and how they prosecute.
5.11.2007 4:32pm
whit:
"Anyway, as for cops getting charges, can we at least admit that cops, DAs and their families don't get many speeding tickets?"

oh absolutely.
5.11.2007 4:51pm
whit:
fub

exactly right. i can only speak specifically on the three jurisdictions i have worked in regards to this and that it how it works there.

i just see this constantly and not just in regards to cops (see: rush limbaugh and oxycontin) that when certain classes of people are found in circumstances like this, that all of a sudden, there's a "hang em out to dry" attitude combined with the (mistaken belief) that cops routinely get cut breaks on criminal matters ( i readily concede they get cut breaks on speeding) and are dealt with less harshly. ime, the opposite is true. they get dealt with more harshly, especially in politically correct crimes.
5.11.2007 4:54pm
Fub:
whit wrote at 5.11.2007 3:54pm:
i just see this constantly and not just in regards to cops (see: rush limbaugh and oxycontin) that when certain classes of people are found in circumstances like this, that all of a sudden, there's a "hang em out to dry" attitude ...
When an enforcer or advocate of what one considers an unjust policy or law violates that law, I think it is perfectly reasonable and human to say "hang em out to dry" just as ordinary citizens are hung out to dry.

I don't think the same sauce for goose and gander is inappropriate.
... combined with the (mistaken belief) that cops routinely get cut breaks on criminal matters ( i readily concede they get cut breaks on speeding) and are dealt with less harshly. ime, the opposite is true. they get dealt with more harshly, especially in politically correct crimes.
I don't doubt your points about your jurisdiction. But we have different experiential bases. I and plenty of other people have seen officials including cops and prosecutors get legal breaks that ordinary citizens don't get, and not just for speeding tickets. Obviously various jurisdictions have different track records on these things.
5.11.2007 6:03pm
loki13 (mail):
Whit,

In my (apparently more limited experience, and from the courthouse) than yours:

1. Seized marijuana is not routinely tested for adulterants.
2. LSD is not tested for.
3. LSD has never been used to adulter marijuana.

I have provided links showing why LSD is never used to adulter marijuana. I have been unable to find one (1) case where a person was sentenced for having LSD-laced marijuana. You have provided attacks and unsubstantiated (and increasingly bizarre) rants.

At this point, I will believe my experience &research, instead of the anecdotes of an anonymous supercop with extensive undercover experience and tons of federal joint task-force responsibilities who has "stared numberous results" from the state crime lab saying otherwise (yet cannot point to a single case resulting from these numerous results... perhaps it would blow your deep cover?)

Again, find a source if you want any credibility.
5.11.2007 6:29pm
Kelvin McCabe:
I have nothing to add to this already beat to death thread, other than, (insert Nelson from simpon's laugh) HAAAHH HAAAHH! The cop is obviously an idiot with ethical/professional responsibility issues. But on the bright side, it is apparant that the marijuana was good enough to cause this idiot to call the cops on himself. I wonder, since it was michigan, if it was a strain from oh canada that did this copper in or just a locally grown varient.

Since marijuana is grown EVERYWHERE and will continue to be grown so long as there is an earth to grow it on (humans arent even needed for this endeavor), perhaps this is sign # 1,654,877,987,246,758 that the war on drugs in general, and the war on marijuana in particular, is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE FAILURE.
5.11.2007 6:50pm
Duuuuude...:
That cop had to be an amateur if he watched a hockey game while stoned. Every stoner I know watches Sponge Bob or Adult Swim.
5.11.2007 6:57pm
loki13 (mail):

war on drugs in general, and the war on marijuana in particular, is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE FAILURE.


Kelvin,

I disagree. As long as our vigilant undercover law enforcement community continues to spend time and resources battling the scourge of LSD-laced marijuana, our city streets shall remain safe.

Personally, I think Duuuuude may have a point, and the event that caused the panicked phone call was the appearance of Mooninite Lite-Brite set in the wasted cop's home. This is not just the work of drug fiends, as Mayor Menino would have you know, it is the work of Tourists. Or Terrorists. Hard to make out the difference sometimes.
5.11.2007 7:07pm
whit:
kelvin, we can agree on one thing. the war on drugs sux and is a failure.
5.11.2007 8:15pm
whit:
" The cop is obviously an idiot with ethical/professional responsibility issues."

no, i'm somebody that believes that people have rights, and you don't charge (let alone convict) somebody based on WHO they are, only what they have done.

when people like you are in charge, we get travesties like the Duke "rape" case.

as for my ethical issues, i'll stand by my record. i got 20 years, and not a single internal affairs complaint - that's partially luck, since even doing the right thing can get you complaints, whether false or unfounded.

but apparently standing up for the rule of law and equal treatment under the law gets me misbranded by you.

so be it.

methinx it's a bit of projection.
5.11.2007 8:17pm
whit:
as for the LSD laced mj.

like i said, criminals are idiots. they don't check wikipedia. criminals do ALL kinds of things based on urban myths. the issue is not 'does it work'?

the issue is - are some criminals dumb enough to TRY it?

that is the case.

but i already explained that.
5.11.2007 8:18pm
loki13 (mail):
Whit,

Then please provide a prosecution for it.

Liquid LSD is almost never sold. After manufacturer, the liquid is placed upon blotter paper (usually) or some other surface it can saturate (microdot, in the old days- sugar cubes).

So the chemist who makes it (not the 'dumb street criminal') would have to make the affirmative choice to put it on pot, which someone with the knowledge and/or werewithal to make LSD would know wouldn't work. For the same reason you don't find MDMA-laced marijuana.

Because I have never heard of it, and I cannot find a single reference to it in a prosecution, or on any web source, I find it hard to believe an anonymous poster who claims to see it on such a regular basis.

Again- give a source, because repeating "I told you so, and I'm robocop" doesn't work. How's this- I'm the former hidder czar of the DEA, and I know it doesn't happen.

So there.
5.11.2007 8:41pm
r78:
-burp-
5.11.2007 8:43pm
Oren (mail):
Given the price of LSD ($5/100mcg hit) and the amount you'd need to lace (at least 1 hit /gram) then even for the best pot ($20/gram) it's just not economically feasible. Criminals might not be scientists but they are damn good economists.
5.11.2007 8:47pm
loki13 (mail):
Oren,

The reason you mention for the lack of LSD-laced marijuana is also the reason for the scarcity of PCP-laced marijuana. PCP (costing money and being desirable) is a plus selling point for marijuana. Therefore, laced marijuana will sell for considerably more and will be marketed as such.

The many anecdoatal stories you hear (man, I must've had some laced weed) are just that- stories, used to explain an atypical reaction to the psychotropic properties of regular (albeit sometimes stronger) marijuana. Unless the marijuana is truly of unknown providence (like, say, stolen from the police evidence room), the buyer will be well aware that the pot is laced- heck, the seller will go out of his way to tell him, because he will be charging more for it.
5.11.2007 9:02pm
whimsy:
whit said,

it's not a try. it's how the real world works. the problem with lawyers and laypeople when they have this false notion that cops get special treatment (they do - they are treated more harshly when they break the law)

In Las Vegas very few police officers have been charged and AFAIK none has ever been convicted for unlawful death. It would be nice if this was an indication of the high quality and professionalism of the police forces. Unfortunately, it's not. Some of the deaths that have ocurred during arrests and which didn't even get an inquest had more than sufficient evidence to at least be given to a grand jury.

I have a relative by marriage who is a police officer. He left the big city police force that he started with because of the petty (and sometimes not so petty) corruption ignored by superiors and city government as well the insitutional corruption of unofficial quotas for tickets and fines. As he says, he joined the police to help and protect people and society, not to help the city budget. He's much happier serving with a good suburban police force. (But even there he deals with drugs and violent crimes.)



Having taught at a university, IMOHO if there is a war on drugs then the government has already lost. Through the students I could have gotten most of the popular drugs within 3 days. Not that the DEA will ever admit that the reality of the situation, especially under its current head who recently stated that Prohibition was a success, an accurate statement if referring to organized crime or Seagram.
5.12.2007 10:59am
Stein:
Whit,

I just wanted to say thanks for some illuminating comments. Despite some people here giving you a hard time, it really is good to see a different perspective on this. I may not agree with every single point you made, but the discussion was informative. No snark - just thanks.
5.12.2007 1:16pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Whit

On the special treatment given to cops, google Salvatore (Sal) Culosi. What do you think would happen to a non-cop who "accidentally" shot a cop? On the off chance that the shooter wasn't killed by other officers in retaliation, would the DA decline to prosecute on the grounds that it was just an unfortunate accident?

Hell, even you admit police corruptly don't give tickets to other police.
5.12.2007 5:58pm
markm (mail):

whit, You didn't answer my question, so let me phrase it more specifically. Why do cops EVER test for LSD if they can't use the results against the offender? As has been noted here, heat destroys LSD; it's therefore imposssible for someone to get "totally wacked out" on pot b/c it's laced with LSD, which seemed to be your only explanation for why tests would be done.

The explanation is simple: Cops are usually smarter than crooks, but most of them still "aren't exactly rocket scientists". Especially the one that set up Whit's checkbox for a tox screen to include LSD...
5.13.2007 12:03pm
Vinnie (mail):
"On the special treatment given to cops"
or google SARASOTA -- John Coffin

Police are held to a "higher standard". If I did that while serving someone I would be in jail.
5.13.2007 1:08pm
GMC70:
As a current prosecutor, I can tell you that whit's observations re "corpus delecti" and MJ in a system are absolutely correct, at least in my jurisdiction. Pot in your system, combined with any sort of "confession," will get you exactly squat in terms of a prosecutable case.

some of you are apparantly so consumed with criticism for the "war on drugs" (perhaps justifiably so) and law enforcement that you've overlooked basic criminal law.

Typical ivory-tower law prof mentality.
5.13.2007 3:01pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
GMC70: once again, read the facts of this case. The whole "corpus delecti" thing is a red herring. They apparently made marijuana brownies, ate a bunch, and got sick, and the cop called 911. Do you actually think that in between the time he called 911 and the time people arrived, he managed to eliminate all traces of marijuana from the house?

(We're talking about cops who routinely "smell the odor of marijuana" whenever they want to justify a search, after all.)
5.13.2007 5:17pm
Kelvin McCabe:
What the hell whit? I was talking about the cop who stole and ate the pot brownies. The guy is a police officer who stole dope from a suspect and baked it in his home. His wife steals coke meant for training the local drug dog and snorts it up. The reason he has ethical/professional lapses here is BECAUSE HE IS A COP. Its one thing to be a citizen, protest the war on drugs, and eat pot laced brownies. Thats called civil disobedience. Its another to be a cop, who hypocritically enforces the laws against others, but ignores the law when it comes to himself. If stealing pot or coke is not an ethical or professional issue in your jurisdiction, your entire force needs help.
5.14.2007 2:53pm
mischka89434 (mail):
Spent a lot of time reading this over and whit... all I can say is you really shouldn't speak in absolutes. Yes in your jurisdictions and experiences perhaps there is no criminal offense but I can tell you that in Nevada "Internal possession" is a crime. We have some of the toughest laws on drugs of any kind including marijuana. So had he been in this state, there should have been prosecution.

Also, there is at least in my own personal knowledge, things like "Cocoa Puffs" which is marijuana laced with cocaine.
5.15.2007 3:38pm
topaz_shoreline (mail):
Around these parts, (Oregon) "possession by consumption" is a crime. If it is in your blood, you are in possession of the drug. But of course, that was in Detroit, but even here, the cop would have gotten off with a wink and a nod. Of course, unions for correctional staff and cops prevent random drugs tests, so it shows just how much anyone wants to look for evidence of "possession by consumption"

On the lacing topic, I have heard from SWIM that Raid (yes, the insecticide) is being sprayed on weed. Way cheaper than PCP and a bunch of insecticide eaten just might make one believe the Red Wings game was tied 3-3.
5.19.2007 12:44am