Judge To Cops: Return Mans Marijuana

[mrjarrell]

Cops to judge: No. Judge to cops: Return it or I'll find you in contempt.



I can't wait to see how this one ends up. I'd really like to see the cops cave and give the man his weed back, it would set a whole new precedent for how they're supposed to actually handle things. Then again, another part of me wants to see them be douche bags and get sent to jail for pissing off the judge. Bet the guy'd get his weed back then. LOL.

Joseph L. Robertson's Marijuana Will Be Returned By Cops Who Seized It, Judge Orders

 

[JB357Mag]

Give me back my weed man!!!!!!!!!!!


Jimmy

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sounds like there may be an ex post facto issue here. I'd love to see a judge incarcerate someone for contempt based on an arrest that was legal at the time (May comes before December). If the judge was telling me to do this, I'd tell him to pound sand too.

....are police not entitled to constitutional rights?

 

[mrjarrell]

The Constitutional Right to tell a judge to go pound sand? Try it and see how it works out for you. Contempt charges trump just about anything, as far as I can tell. And the judge is the final arbiter.

 

[Trigger Time]

The cops are wrong here. The judge is the final law here. What he says goes. I don't understand why they would ignore what a judge says. Is there more to this?
What happens to cops if they are found in contempt?

 

[Trigger Time]

....are police not entitled to constitutional rights?

As a department, no. As individuals, yes.
Cops aren't the law. They enforce it. If a judge makes a verdict you follow the law as he ruled. Or apeal to the next level.

 

[churchmouse]

Never seen a LEO that will take "NO" for an answer. They like to have the final word.

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't blame the cops for enforcing the law at the time but when the judge makes a decision respect it especially as a department who is under his authority.

If I ignore a judges order I'm going to jail no if's ands or buts. Period.

 

[churchmouse]

I don't blame the cops for enforcing the law at the time but when the judge makes a decision respect it especially as a department who is under his authority.

If I ignore a judges order I'm going to jail no if's ands or buts. Period.

Yes, anyone would (civilian)
LE must feel strongly they were right in this.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Sounds like there may be an ex post facto issue here. I'd love to see a judge incarcerate someone for contempt based on an arrest that was legal at the time (May comes before December). If the judge was telling me to do this, I'd tell him to pound sand too.

....are police not entitled to constitutional rights?

No ex post facto issue. The arrest and seizure was legal under state law at the time. That is not what the judge is saying. He's saying give back the man's weed that was seized and is still in their possession. No different than any other seized property.
If you seize anything and a judge says give it back and the dept won't, wouldn't you expect contempt charges?

 

[level.eleven]

Sounds like there may be an ex post facto issue here. I'd love to see a judge incarcerate someone for contempt based on an arrest that was legal at the time (May comes before December). If the judge was telling me to do this, I'd tell him to pound sand too.

....are police not entitled to constitutional rights?

Scary.

 

[LEaSH]

Yeah, about that... Sooorry Judge, that MJ has already been smoked.

 

[jbombelli]

Sounds like there may be an ex post facto issue here. I'd love to see a judge incarcerate someone for contempt based on an arrest that was legal at the time (May comes before December). If the judge was telling me to do this, I'd tell him to pound sand too.

....are police not entitled to constitutional rights?

Lol. Since when can the police just tell a judge to go pound sand?

I'd really like to see you wilfully disregard a judge's order and tell him to pound sand.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Lol. Since when can the police just tell a judge to go pound sand?

I'd really like to see you wilfully disregard a judge's order and tell him to pound sand.

The same time when citizens tell police to "pound sand."

 

[Kutnupe14]

No ex post facto issue. The arrest and seizure was legal under state law at the time. That is not what the judge is saying. He's saying give back the man's weed that was seized and is still in their possession. No different than any other seized property.
If you seize anything and a judge says give it back and the dept won't, wouldn't you expect contempt charges?

Legal under state and federal law. A state court can say it's legal to return the dope, but it's not legal under federal law. If LE is determine NOT to hand over the dope, then I imagine they would cite federal law. And if the judge does try to hold an individual in contempt, who exactly is going to arrest that person, which techinally under federal law, would be an unlawful arrest? Should said person resist an unlawful arrest, if it's tried? And what happens if this goes to the Supreme Court? I think it's a no-brainer how they would rule, if they are to interpret federal law as superceding state.

 

[level.eleven]

I'm pretty sure this won't elevate to a constitutional crisis.

 

[Trigger Time]

Legal under state and federal law. A state court can say it's legal to return the dope, but it's not legal under federal law. If LE is determine NOT to hand over the dope, then I imagine they would cite federal law. And if the judge does try to hold an individual in contempt, who exactly is going to arrest that person, which techinally under federal law, would be an unlawful arrest? Should said person resist an unlawful arrest, if it's tried? And what happens if this goes to the Supreme Court? I think it's a no-brainer how they would rule, if they are to interpret federal law as superceding state.

Well in Indiana the county coroner can arrest the sherriff, so if the sherriff won't arrest the police then maybe the coroner?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm pretty sure this won't elevate to a constitutional crisis.

I wouldn't be so sure. Every state that has passed drug laws that conflict with federal law gives LE the option of picking "one or the other." That's a serious problems for both the safety of the public and LE.

Imagine that Indiana passed a similar law like in Washington. Now lets say the feds draw up an case against a person who they think is selling, and they have proof that they keep small amouts of drugs for personal use. The feds task local LE to help them raid the home. In light of SB1, and person thinking they are "legal," creates a very dangerous situation with the "right" (or rather wrong) person.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well in Indiana the county coroner can arrest the sherriff, so if the sherriff won't arrest the police then maybe the coroner?

No to knock coroners, but they don't have the stones (some literally).

 

[level.eleven]

No to knock coroners, but they don't have the stones (some literally).

This is a threat. A challenge. An insult to your very manhood.

Law be damned.