Check out some similar questions!

Darnell14 · May 20, 2011, 06:24 AM

Ok, I've been out on bail for a year with the stipulation that I remain clean. There were no urine tests being taken and I was sure I was getting jail time for my offense so I lived life to the fullest. When my trial date came I lucked out and copped to a 2 year suspended sentence with ramifications up the wazoo. My first meeting with my P.O. is Monday (4 days after trial) and she stated that I would have to provide a urine at that time which will no doubt be dirty. I haven't done anything since the trial date and think I should be given a little time for my system to clean itself out... do I have a leg to stand on here? And what should I do?

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated!

J_9 · May 20, 2011, 06:30 AM

You were given the stipulation to remain clean and you didn't. Guess it's time to pay the piper and learn your lesson.

What makes you even think you have a leg to stand on?

tickle · May 20, 2011, 06:30 AM

Stay clean and provide the urine test when specified. You can't do anything else like 'buy time' or that will send up massive red flags to your probation officer.

What else did you expect us to say ?

Darnell14 · May 20, 2011, 06:38 AM

I know but I haven't done anything since BEING sentenced, and I plan to follow all the stipulations to a T. Shouldn't there be a small window before being slammed with a urine just several days later?

J_9 · May 20, 2011, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Darnell14

Ok, I've been out on bail for a year with the stipulation that I remain clean.

Guess you should have remained clean then huh?

J_9 · May 20, 2011, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Darnell14

IShouldn't there be a small window before being slammed with a urine just several days later?

You mean like 365 days?

Dude, you got busted, you were told to stay clean and you didn't. You're screwed. You didn't learn your lesson did you?

excon · May 20, 2011, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Darnell14

Shouldn't there be a small window before being slammed with a urine just several days later?

Hello D:

There SHOULD be, but that doesn't mean there will be... It's a good argument. I'd keep making it.

excon

Darnell14 · May 20, 2011, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by J_9

Guess you should have remained clean then huh?

Tough crowd here.:eek: The difference (at least there SHOULD be a difference) is that the stipulation that I violated was for remaining out on bail (which is now over and I already got my money back.) The SENTENCE which commenced yesterday said no usage (which there hasn't been) and there won't be... makes sense, doesn't it?

Darnell14 · May 20, 2011, 06:52 AM

I'm in Massachusetts by the way, if that makes a difference.

Darnell14 · May 20, 2011, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello D:

There SHOULD be, but that doesn't mean there will be... It's a good argument. I'd keep making it.

excon

What do you think my odds are?

excon · May 20, 2011, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Darnell14

makes sense, doesn't it?

Hello again, D:

Yes, and I'd KEEP using it... I think YOU have them down, but there are a few distinctions at work here... Before you were supervised by the probation department, you were supervised by the court. The COURT supervision says NOTHING about getting high AFTER you've been released. The probation supervision says NOTHING about getting high BEFORE you were put on probation. Therefore, you did NOT violate your probation.

I fondly remember a situation I was involved in... I was in a half way house STILL under the supervision of the Department of Corrections... I wasn't allowed to visit my old partner, but I did anyway. The cops were watching him and saw me with him..

Then I got OUT of the half way house and was put under supervision by the probation department... The fu**ing cops called me up and threatened to VIOLATE my supervision because I visited my friend... But, of course, THAT supervision had ended with NO violations, and a new one started. I certainly hadn't violated the new one...

I have to tell you, it gave me GREAT pleasure to tell that cop to go to hell.

excon

J_9 · May 20, 2011, 07:00 AM

You see, you were told BEFORE you were sentenced to stay clean and you didn't. The court has the authority to test you immediately after sentencing if they so please. Had you followed instructions prior to sentencing you wouldn't have to worry, but you didn't.

You made the choice to live "life to the fullest" after you were told to "remain clean," and now you have to suffer the consequences to your actions.

Had you followed directions you wouldn't be in this position.

Darnell14 · May 20, 2011, 07:06 AM

Thanks for the advice guys (even the [I]sobering[I] viewpoint from J_9.) Guess I'll play my hand on Monday see where the cards fall. Hopefully I'll be back to report a positive outcome!

AK lawyer · May 20, 2011, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Darnell14

Tough crowd here.:eek: The difference (at least there SHOULD be a difference) is that the stipulation that I violated was for remaining out on bail (which is now over and I already got my money back.) The SENTENCE which commenced yesterday said no usage (which there hasn't been) and there won't be... makes sense, doesn't it?

Yes, I get it actually. You haven't violated the conditions of the sentence and, although you admittedly violated the conditions of bail, the bail has been exonerated. The penalty for violation of bail should be considered separately. If your UA comes up dirty, make the argument. It couldn't hurt to try, I guess.

Arguably, the remedy for violation of bail would be an exclusive remedy (keeping the bail amount), and would not include revoking probation after conviction.

One problem I can see is that you may not be able to prove that a dirty UA indicates whether the drug use was before or after the sentencing.

Originally Posted by excon

... The COURT supervision says NOTHING about getting high AFTER you've been released. ...

I don't quite follow that part. Released on bail? Sure it does.

Or do you mean released from bail? The judge said "Defendant is released from bail, and sentenced to two years probation." The "window" of opportunity would be about as long as the judge took to say that comma between "bail" and "and sentenced". :)

excon · May 20, 2011, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

One problem I can see is that you may not be able to prove that a dirty UA indicates whether the drug use was before or after the sentencing.

Hello again, lawyer:

It's worse than that... In the first place, proof is NOT a factor in probation violations. Suspicion is good enough...

Plus, the PO COULD say, and I've seen 'em do it, that it doesn't matter WHEN the drug was consumed... It only matters that he POSSESSES it NOW, within his tissues... That's a violation...

I'd STILL make the argument, though.

excon

AK lawyer · May 20, 2011, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by excon

...
It's worse than that... In the first place, proof is NOT a factor in probation violations. Suspicion is good enough...
...

I understand that (except that if the PO asks the court to revoke probation there is some "burden of proof" - the judge is going to have to find that he violated the conditions). But what I'm saying is that even if the PO is sympathetic to his argument, she could say "Yes, ok, but assuming it makes a difference, how do I know you didn't take the drug yesterday?"

What do you think, excon, should he be above-board and admit it before doing the UA?

BMI · May 20, 2011, 08:14 AM

Wrote something, missed second page, no longer relevant, don't know how to delete, sorry.

excon · May 20, 2011, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

except that if the PO asks the court to revoke probation there is some "burden of proof" - the judge is going to have to find that he violated the conditions. What do you think, Excon, should he be above-board and admit it before doing the UA?

Hello again, lawyer:

The PO would NEVER ask the court to violate his prior supervision, when she could just violate the present supervision a whole lot easier. That is, if she has a mind to violate him at all.

He's going to be found out anyway... Arguing that he got high BEFORE he was on HER probation is the ONLY argument he has.

excon

Darnell14 · May 20, 2011, 08:23 AM

That almost answers my other question. Should I try to garner a little support/sympathy beforehand by saying my urine may be dirty and this is why? Or should I wait for the results and try to if and & but my way out of it then?

excon · May 20, 2011, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Darnell14

Should I try to garner a little support/sympathy beforehand by saying my urine may be dirty and this is why?

Hello again, D:

There AIN'T no sympathy or support... There's only COPS and PO'S wanting to bust you. You don't like them. They don't like you.

This is simply a matter of whether she THINKS she can sustain a violation or not. Your ONLY hope is to let her know that she MIGHT get a decent argument out of you in front of a judge.

excon