How to Get Arrested for Marijuana in One Easy Step

Ganjarden

Ganjarden

Well-Known Member
Nug of the Month
August 2008
If you'd like to get arrested for marijuana, just tell a police officer that you have some in your car:

The officer pulled Vento over at entrance 13 to Interstate 95. While talking to Vento, he appeared nervous, according to police. When asked why, Vento said he had been arrested in the past on drug charges, police said. The officer then asked if there was anything illegal in the car. Vento said he had a marijuana blunt.

Upon searching the car, police found two more blunts. All three tested positive for marijuana. Police also found a bag with a small amount of marijuana.

Vento posted a $250 bond and was released with a Monday, July 26, court date. [Darien Times]

As you can see, the police don't "go easier on you" just because you made things easier for them. If you admit to a crime, you'll be arrested for it. The constitution protects you against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches, so don't confess and never give police permission to search you or your belongings.

If you need more info on your rights during police encounters, watch 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. Then watch it again.


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: StoptheDrugWar.org
Author: Scott Morgan
Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org
Copyright: 2010 StoptheDrugWar.org
Website: How to Get Arrested for Marijuana in One Easy Step
 
Herb Zen said:
nice article,,, why would you ever tell the cops you have pot in the car?
Click to expand...

I dunno, but I'm guessing some people think that honesty is the best policy/being up front will get them a break. Unfortunately untrue.

If you've got MJ illegally, I have NO idea why you'd bring it up, I mean - I sure wouldn't. If you've got MMJ & have a rec, maybe someone would feel like they should mention it to avoid it getting taken or being mistaken for someone that has it w/o a rec. I know I thought for a while that it would be no big deal as long as I have my rec on me. I've since changed my mind after seeing the things people go through & decided that you'll never hear the words "By the way, officer, I have some weed in my purse." Closest you'll hear from me is "I do not consent to a search."
 
If you're just talking,say nothing and carry a card that has all your rights printed on it,including the right to no self incrimination.If they want to search,ask to talk to a lawyer first.Never admit a thing and never speak unless your lawyer has heard the situation and says it's OK.:peace::peace::peace::420::420:
 
Good video on youtube about what you say to a cop.
By a lawyer and a cop studying to be a lawyer.
Boils down to, "I have nothing to say. I would like to have my lawyer."
Long as you stick to that, you can't screw yourself.
 
If your situation allows it it's a good idea to have a lawyer on retainer.It doesn't cost much and you get a sure 24 hr phone number for your lawyer of choice.The only rule to remember is:"I want to talk to a lawyer".That's it,they can't say or ask you to say anything after that.:peace::peace::420:
 
sicntired said:
If your situation allows it it's a good idea to have a lawyer on retainer.It doesn't cost much and you get a sure 24 hr phone number for your lawyer of choice.The only rule to remember is:"I want to talk to a lawyer".That's it,they can't say or ask you to say anything after that.:peace::peace::420:
Click to expand...

That isn't enough. I remember reading about a court case where the above statement isn't enough to invoke your right to silence (and the evidence from the cops continuing to needle the kid after requesting a lawyer was able to be used as evidence because the kid didn't explicitly say he invoked his right to be silent.)

You need to specifically say that you would like to invoke your right to silence and then keep quiet.
 
My rules for police interaction. In car, drivers license, insurance, and registration. and with any question I reserve the right to remain silent on any questions. Just remember we all have the same rights.
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of the right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and the right to legal counsel (hence the so-called "Miranda rights"), and makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.[Note 1] The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him in a criminal trial.
Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent and have an attorney represent them.
The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for rape and kidnapping. (Miranda was subsequently retried, found not guilty in the court of law)

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
“ ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. ”

As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "read the Miranda warning to" a suspect (when the suspect is arrested).[1]

Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).[2]

On June 1, 2010, in deciding the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, the United States Supreme Court declared that criminal defendants who have been read the Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police in order for that protection against self-incrimination to apply. If they speak to police about the incident before the Miranda right to remain silent is mentioned, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas and by Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissented. Elena Kagan, who had presented the government's case as Solicitor General of the U.S. and who was nominated to succeed Justice Stevens, supported Kennedy's ruling in her arguments that pointed out that the ruling spelled out for prosecutors and defendants just how the right against self-incrimination applies in such cases. Those who oppose it state that the requirement that the defendant must speak to indicate his intention to remain silent further erodes the ability of the defendant to stay completely silent about the case. This opposition must be put in context with the second option offered by the majority opinion, which allowed that the defendant had the option of remaining silent, saying: " Had he wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response or unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights, ending the interrogation." Thus having been "Mirandized" a suspect may avow explicitly the invocation of these rights, or, alternatively, simply remain silent. Absent the former "anything [said] can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law."
 
curiousity said:
That isn't enough. I remember reading about a court case where the above statement isn't enough to invoke your right to silence (and the evidence from the cops continuing to needle the kid after requesting a lawyer was able to be used as evidence because the kid didn't explicitly say he invoked his right to be silent.)

You need to specifically say that you would like to invoke your right to silence and then keep quiet.
Click to expand...
Right you are.I live in Canada where things are a little different.I always thought you had way more rights that us but we got the charter and now the shoe is on the other foot.What I should have said was ask for your lawyer and then say nothing until he arrives,even if that takes a while.Never talk to the police under any circumstances.Nothing.You would be amazed at how damning a simple statement can be when you get to court.I found this out the hard way.Don't make the same mistake.This is the way most people find themselves convicted by their own mouth.:peace::wood:
 
Loose lips sink ships. :peace:
 

Similar threads

W
New Scanner Helps Police Catch Questionable Cars
Replies
0
Views
2K
Warbux
W
Jim Finnel
Rude Comment To Officer Leads To Arrest
Replies
4
Views
2K
demp5294
demp5294
MedicalNeed
Smyrna Police Officer Fired For Arrest On Marijuana, Firearms Charges
Replies
0
Views
955
MedicalNeed
MedicalNeed
Herb Fellow
Tip-Off Leads To Marijuana Arrests
Replies
0
Views
925
Herb Fellow
Herb Fellow
Jacob Redmond
Maryland Man Arrested On Marijuana Charges
Replies
0
Views
1K
Jacob Redmond
Jacob Redmond
Back
Top Bottom