[thehitman912]

I received a package with an alleged amount of Cannabis inside as contents. I did not sign for the package, nor did it have my name on it. When I grabbed the package, opened the door, then walked inside and closed the door behind me, there were loud beatings at the door. "Police open up!" I replied with "This is my own private abode, present me with a warrant and I will!" They said they didn't need one, then kicked in my door ,put guns to my head demanding my name. One of them even slapped me in the back of the head yelling "Tell us your f#$&ing name!" I told them they should know my name already before busting down my door, I mean they are the police right? That seems like pivotal information to have before kicking in someone's door. Anyway after that they hand cuffed me took me outside and asked me for consent to search, I denied. After that we waited about 7 hours for a search warrant. Once that came in they searched the residence found what they were looking for, tried to get me to talk but I denied that as well. Then I got booked. The main question I have about this is:

If my field arrest report is filled out 3 hours before the search warrant is even signed shouldn't it make the charges on the field arrest report void? Sense there was no search warrant in hand to be able to find the charges on my field arrest report 3 hours earlier, how were these charges obtained legally?

[smoothy]

Two words... "Probable cause", they knew what was in that package before it was ever opened.


Your combative responses only provoked them further. No surprise there.

Obviously you are out on bail... should you not be discussing this with your attorney?

[AK lawyer]

A "field arrest report", whatever that is, apparently is not the charging document filed in court. Thus it is immaterial to the validity of the court charges.

What makes you think they should have known your name simply because you were the occupant of the dwelling?

First, it is doubtful that they have ready access to a database of owners of all residences.
Even if they did know who the owner was, you could have been

• a renter,
• a guest of either the owner or the renter,
• a trespasser, or
• any number of other persons.

Before they went any further, it is only reasonable that they identify you.

To think that they should have known you doesn't make any sense at all.

I disagree with Smoothy's view that "This is my own private abode, present me with a warrant and I will!" was a combative response. You were indeed asserting your rights, but of course it depends on your tone of voice.

It does appear that, from what you have told us, you may have enough reasonable doubt to be acquitted. Was the package addressed to your address (I understand it was not addressed to you by name)? Did you know the person who mailed it?

[smoothy]

According to a SCOTUS majority opinion... refusing to identify ones self when asked with probable cause is grounds for arrest.

Yes, Police Can Arrest You for Failing to Identify Yourself - Mike Riggs - The Atlantic Cities

The officer explained that he was conducting an investigation, and that the man would be arrested if he didn't identify himself. Arrest me, the man said. The officer obliged, and Larry Hiibel was convicted and fined for obstruction. Hiibel appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the order to identify himself had violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Five of SCOTUS's nine justices—Anthony Kennedy, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—disagreed on these grounds:

1.) Nevada's stop-and-identify statute granted police reasonable authority that, when exercised appropriately (like during a domestic violence call) outweighs the privacy of a suspect.
2.) Asking for ID is consistent with the "purpose, rationale and practical demands of a Terry stop." By arguing that the Terry ruling allows for stop-and-identify (it's also what allows for stop-and-frisk in NY), the court rejected the idea that Nevada's law would allow police to demand ID without cause. There has to be a "lawful basis for the stop in the first place," and a domestic violence report falls in that category.

And thus we get the Austin PD stopping a woman who they arguably had cause to stop—jaywalking being illegal and all—and deciding to arrest her when she failed to identify herself.

This is why I stated his refusal escalated the situation. The box of pot was probable cause. By now they know if it was or not via lab tests so there is no alleged to it.

Sure he's got grounds to contest everything....what happens will decidied in court. He should be dealing with his lawyer on his defense rather that relying on internet advice.

[AK lawyer]

Smoothy, I don't disagree with you.

But there is no suggestion here that OP was asked to identify himself and refused. Nor do we even know if a "stop-and-identify" statute, as discussed by SCOTUS (in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 124 S.Ct. 2541 (2004)), was involved.

[thehitman912]

I have been with my lawyer he worked out a plea deal. I didn't really like it, so I inquired about going to trial. He told me that if I went to trial I would be found guilty and go to prison. So I asked to take a look at the motion of discovery, he told me he didn't even have it! So how would he know the outcome of trial, if he doesn't have the motion of discovery?
The package was mailed to my address however I didn't know the person mailing it.

[excon]

Hello the:

Your name or whether you answered, or whether they had the RIGHT to ask, or whether you had the RIGHT to refuse, means NOTHING... Our friend, smoothy, thinks you should be POLITE to the cops as they throw you on the floor and step on your neck. ME?? I don't buy that crap.

Some lawyers work out plea deals.. That's what they do. Evidently you hired one of those. Then there are lawyers who'll FIGHT. You need one of those.. Good for you for knowing about discovery. Any attorney worth his salt would file to see the affidavit the cops used to get the search warrant and/or warrant's... Yours didn't. Fire his a$$. If he's court appointed, fire him anyway, and hire someone who's gonna look out for YOUR interests.

excon

[thehitman912]

Two words... "Probable cause", they knew what was in that package before it was ever opened.


Your combative responses only provoked them further. No surprise there.

Obviously you are out on bail... should you not be discussing this with your attorney?

If they already knew what was within the package, why didn't they have a search warrant in hand for the property it was being sent to? If a plain clothed man with a gun says they're the police. Then demands to open up the door without an official document stating he has grounds to search and seize everything illicit inside, I should be able to take a combative stance against this unknown intruder. The police put a lot of people at risk by not having a warrant, they should be required to have one before demanding to enter someone's home out of surprise.

[AK lawyer]

If they already knew what was within the package, why didn't they have a search warrant in hand for the property it was being sent to? ...

Until your lawyer figures out how to discover the circumstances of the arrest, we don't know, but if someone told them, for example, what was in the package a few moments before it was delivered to you, there wouldn't have been time.

You say they demanded that you let them in, you refused without a warrant, and they busted in anyway. Then they waited to get a search warrant. I'm guessing they were saying they didn't need an arrest warrant. Makes sense if they believed that they had probable cause to arrest you.

[smoothy]

If they already knew what was within the package, why didn't they have a search warrant in hand for the property it was being sent to? If a plain clothed man with a gun says they're the police. Then demands to open up the door without an official document stating he has grounds to search and seize everything illicit inside, I should be able to take a combative stance against this unknown intruder. The police put a lot of people at risk by not having a warrant, they should be required to have one before demanding to enter someone's home out of surprise.

Hard to say... perhaps they were expecting someone not from the house to pick it up? That happens frequently... ship it to someone else's address... wait for it to be dropped off, then run and get it.

My point being... plain clothes police have badges. If you had simply asked to see the badge after they said police... without all the other stuff being said (basically been a lot more tactful)... It might have gone down very differently. Challenge the authority of someone that has it... then they will feel compelled to prove how much they have. A lot of people make that self defense claim... as long as they identified themselves... you end up in a very difficult position.

Its really not wise to admit to a thing or discuss a pending case online. There are ways to monitor your communications and you wouldn't know they were doing it until its too late.

Our friend excon preffers the combative approach... which might provoke them further and try to make an example of you... I prefer the tactful approach... which they usually don't get as nasty (since you didn't kill a cop or anyone else or didn't molest little kids)... and then can't use your actions against you. Besides... it would bolster your case of police brutality if you didn't give them cause in the first place.

I've talked my way out of several situations in my younger years surprisingly enough in 3 different countries (USA, Italy and Austria) that could have easily had me handcuffed and brought in just on principle had I reacted in another way. (trust me what was going through my mind was NOT the same as what was coming out of my mouth at the time). I've known a number of law enforcement people across te spectrum over my life, town,county, state, FBI, military and Paramilitary (foriegn country) well enough to know what sets them off, and what doesn't.

As was hinted at by both myself and AK lawyer... sometimes HOW you say something is more important than WHAT you say. Its all going to be decided in front of a judge....how difficult they make it before then is based on your behaviour around them.

[talaniman]

Don't take the plea deal if you are innocent. That's your right. Then the process continues. Maybe you get off on a technicality, maybe you won't. Its way too early to tell. Honestly guy, I don't know if you are guilty, or innocent, but I do know whatever the circumstances, you admit to nothing, and say nothing without a lawyer present, no matter what they say.

I hope you did that for yourself at least! You get squat until you reject what they offer. You are no longer dealing with the cops but with the prosecutors office.

[Fr_Chuck]

If they are following a package, which they know has drugs, they merely follow the package.

You receiving the package. Does not mater if you signed for it, shows you receiving the drugs.

They have the right to enter your home. If they believe the evidence could disappear prior to a warrant being given. Also, if what they say, was a drug delivery, it is also a crime in process and they have the right to arrest at that point.

They may do a minor search of the house, to be sure, no one else is hiding. So if they looked in drawers and small areas, without a search warrant, any thing they find, beyond the package, or after package is found, may be contested.

What they will have to do, is show a connection between the sender of package and you. Show that you would have known drugs were in package, and perhaps show you received prior packages.