OL J.B. Shugarts (official thread)

[BuckeyeNation27]

Well if any lawyer can convince a jury that scUM is of great importance JT is going to get the chair.

I think we're safe here.

 

[OH10]

I dont understand this argument. It's illegal to smoke pot. I am not passing judgment on this incident because I (we) don't know the facts. But if you do something illegal, you are held accountable regardless of how many people do it, end of story. The severity of the punishment is Coach's call.

I didn't say "don't punish them." I simply inferred that a suspension for a first offense occuring in the offseason would be excessive.

It's against the law. I get that. But much like drinking underage, it's a law most college kids will break.

 

[Buckin' A]

Many items (too many, IMHO) can be considered "drug paraphernalia" under the law, including plastic bags, tea spoons, and corn cob pipes ... and just about anything else that a cop with a chip on his shoulder thinks could be even remotely associated with drug use.

Not exactly. You could have all the bongs, spoons, baggies, etc that you want and it isn't illegal. It has to have residue or some trace amount of an illegal drug.

It always amuses me when people on here would rather trash the people enforcing the laws than the people breaking them. Is it a dumb law? Possibly. But what you consider a dumb law may be important to someone else...and vice versa.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Not exactly. You could have all the bongs, spoons, baggies, etc that you want and it isn't illegal. It has to have residue or some trace amount of an illegal drug.

I know that you are a policeman, and "residue" may be the standard that you have been taught, but that's not what the law says. The presence of "residue" is merely a factor in determining actual usage or intent to use.

 

[schwab]

Those pipes are sold legally in most gas stations you fill up at. Bongs, papers, pipes, hookahs... all sold for the same 'purpose', tobacco. It's the residue, or resin, that proves the use to be otherwise. Papers can only be 'paraphernalia' if there is something illegal to roll in them.

 

[Buckin' A]

I know that you are a policeman, and "residue" may be the standard that you have been taught, but that's not what the law says. The presence of "residue" is merely a factor in determining actual usage or intent to use.

That's completely wrong. You could have 50 bongs in your car and it's perfectly legal. It isn't until you use it to injest an illegal drug that it becomes illegal.


Here it is straight from the ORC:

(B) In determining if any equipment, product, or material is drug paraphernalia, a court or law enforcement officer shall consider, in addition to other relevant factors, the following:
(1) Any statement by the owner, or by anyone in control, of the equipment, product, or material, concerning its use;
(2) The proximity in time or space of the equipment, product, or material, or of the act relating to the equipment, product, or material, to a violation of any provision of this chapter;
(3) The proximity of the equipment, product, or material to any controlled substance;
(4) The existence of any residue of a controlled substance on the equipment, product, or material;

 

[matcar]

That's completely wrong. You could have 50 bongs in your car and it's perfectly legal. It isn't until you use it to injest an illegal drug that it becomes illegal.


Here it is straight from the ORC:

Thanks for posting this.

The results of the test will be available to the interested parties soon enough. If JB and Mike are clean, awesome. If not, seems they probably need a strong reminder about breaking the law.

Off topic but, by the way Buckin', thanks for the job you do.

 

[Wingate1217]

Buckin' A- What department are you presently with?? My bro is a homicide detective in C-Bus.....

 

[Brutus1]

He's a mall cop.




It's just a goof, Vic.

 

[Buckin' A]

Thanks for posting this.

The results of the test will be available to the interested parties soon enough. If JB and Mike are clean, awesome. If not, seems they probably need a strong reminder about breaking the law.

Off topic but, by the way Buckin', thanks for the job you do.

Thanks, I appreaciate that.

I should also clarify my previous post. A case can be made for Posession of Drug Paraphernalia based on statements of the defendant and/or whether or not narcotics were found with the paraphernalia. What I mean is that if they had been in possession of marijuana and had a pipe with no residue, then you could charge the paraphernalia based on the fact that they had marijuana on them. However, the only charge that i am aware of was the paraphernalia, whioch tells me that they had no drugs on them. In that case, you're going to need residue to make the case.

My response was more directed towards the statement that if a cop with a chip on his shoulder wanted to, he/she could charge you strictly for paraphernalia with no residue.

 

[Buckin' A]

He's a mall cop.




It's just a goof, Vic.

Paul Blart at your service...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Buckin - it's also not illegal to drive around with loads of cash, but I've seen it seized even where there wasn't a citation for a even simple traffic violation, much less a felony. But... we all "know" that most people don't run up and down 315 with 10,000 dollars in cash unless they're up to something.... But... it's still not illegal.

Now, don't get me wrong... I believe cops make the right call 999 times out of 1000. That is to say, I think a "chip on his shoulder" officer is the exception not the rule. Likewise, I don' t mean the above anecdote as "proof" that the cops screwed up in the Adams/Shugarts matter.. But... mistakes are made... likewise, a policeman's standard of proof is hardly beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been or is being committed. Indeed, it is because of this fact (and other factors) that cops have qualified immunity in most arrest cases.

In other words, enough to charge does not equal enough to convict. I know you know this, but in case anyone out there was wondering....

 

[LordJeffBuck]

That's completely wrong. You could have 50 bongs in your car and it's perfectly legal. It isn't until you use it to injest an illegal drug that it becomes illegal.


Here it is straight from the ORC:

(B) In determining if any equipment, product, or material is drug paraphernalia, a court or law enforcement officer shall consider, in addition to other relevant factors, the following:
(1) Any statement by the owner, or by anyone in control, of the equipment, product, or material, concerning its use;
(2) The proximity in time or space of the equipment, product, or material, or of the act relating to the equipment, product, or material, to a violation of any provision of this chapter;
(3) The proximity of the equipment, product, or material to any controlled substance;
(4) The existence of any residue of a controlled substance on the equipment, product, or material;

Thanks. Actually, I'm kinda familiar with the ORC (I linked the statute above), and I highlighted the relevant language for you.

So, like I said, "residue" is a factor to be considered, and it is not in itself dispositive. The officer can "consider" all of the above-mentioned factors, in addition to any "other relevent factors", find that all such factors favor the "offender", and still issue the citation.

Also, you completely ignored Paragraph (A) of ORC 2925.14, which states as follows:

(A) As used in this section, ?drug paraphernalia? means any equipment, product, or material of any kind that is used by the offender, intended by the offender for use, or designed for use, in propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. ?Drug paraphernalia? includes, but is not limited to, any of the following equipment, products, or materials that are used by the offender, intended by the offender for use, or designed by the offender for use, in any of the following manners:

(1) A kit for propagating, cultivating, growing, or harvesting any species of a plant that is a controlled substance or from which a controlled substance can be derived;

(2) A kit for manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, or preparing a controlled substance;

(3) Any object, instrument, or device for manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, or preparing methamphetamine;

(4) An isomerization device for increasing the potency of any species of a plant that is a controlled substance;

(5) Testing equipment for identifying, or analyzing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of, a controlled substance;

(6) A scale or balance for weighing or measuring a controlled substance;

(7) A diluent or adulterant, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, mannite, dextrose, or lactose, for cutting a controlled substance;

(8) A separation gin or sifter for removing twigs and seeds from, or otherwise cleaning or refining, marihuana;

(9) A blender, bowl, container, spoon, or mixing device for compounding a controlled substance;

(10) A capsule, balloon, envelope, or container for packaging small quantities of a controlled substance;

(11) A container or device for storing or concealing a controlled substance;

(12) A hypodermic syringe, needle, or instrument for parenterally injecting a controlled substance into the human body;

(13) An object, instrument, or device for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, marihuana, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil, such as a metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipe, with or without a screen, permanent screen, hashish head, or punctured metal bowl; water pipe; carburetion tube or device; smoking or carburetion mask; roach clip or similar object used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand; miniature cocaine spoon, or cocaine vial; chamber pipe; carburetor pipe; electric pipe; air driver pipe; chillum; bong; or ice pipe or chiller.

Obviously, an unused item is not going to have any "residue", but it still may be "drug paraphernalia" if it was "intended" or "designed" to be used as drug paraphernalia.

So, if the officer feels that an item is "itended for use" or "designed for use" as drug paraphernalia, then that item is drug paraphernalia, until the "offender" can prove otherwise.

Example: If you are driving around with a box of Cohibas, you can be arrested under the drug paraphernalia law if the officer thinks that you intended to make blunts out of them, because cigars can be used as "[a]n object, instrument, or device for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, marihuana" under ORC 2925.14(A)(13). The officer doesn't need to find marihuana with the cigars or any residue on any cigar - the cigars alone are drug paraphernalia if the officer says so (i.e., if he/she determines, after "considering" certain factors, that they were "intended by the offender for use" as "drug paraphernalia"). And if the officer says so, then how are you going to prove otherwise? Spend a lot of money on an attorney, and hope that the prosecutor has some common sense....

 

[Buckin' A]

Buckin - it's also not illegal to drive around with loads of cash, but I've seen it seized even where there wasn't a citation for a even simple traffic violation, much less a felony. But... we all "know" that most people don't run up and down 315 with 10,000 dollars in cash unless they're up to something.... But... it's still not illegal.

Now, don't get me wrong... I believe cops make the right call 999 times out of 1000. That is to say, I think a "chip on his shoulder" officer is the exception not the rule. Likewise, I don' t mean the above anecdote as "proof" that the cops screwed up in the Adams/Shugarts matter.. But... mistakes are made... likewise, a policeman's standard of proof is hardly beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been or is being committed. Indeed, it is because of this fact (and other factors) that cops have qualified immunity in most arrest cases.

In other words, enough to charge does not equal enough to convict. I know you know this, but in case anyone out there was wondering....

I agree. There is a big difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where I got my panties in a bunch was when people started talking about how it must have been some cop with a chip on his shoulder and that we should excuse our players b/c most college kids smoke weed, etc. Thus far, there is no reason to believe that the officer did anything more than his job.

 

[Buckin' A]

So, if the officer feels that an item is "itended for use" or "designed for use" as drug paraphernalia, then that item is drug paraphernalia, until the "offender" can prove otherwise.

Offenders are not required to prove their innocense...we are required to prove their guilt. An officer cannot arrest based on what he feels, it is what he can prove prove...and the residue, drug possession, or statements help prove that. You're dancing away from your original statement which was that an officer can arrest you simply for having an unused pipe if he has a chip on his shoulder. That is not the case.