(NYC marijuana law chart from NORML)
An article in Cannabis News by Harry G. Levine, a professor of sociology at Queens College, City University of New York, explains why New York City is the "marijuana arrest capital of the world." The law states that possessing a small amount of pot results in $100 civil citation for the first offense. Yet 40,300 people were arrested and jailed in NYC last year for possessing small amounts of pot. How so? By trickery on the part of the NYPD. Police officers convince people to pull their stash out of their pocket, promising to go easy on them if they do, then bust them on charges of having marijuana "open to public view," which means they can be handcuffed, fingerprinted, and jailed on a misdemeanor charge. (As you might expect, racial profiling figures heavily into the arrests.)
The Epidemic of Pot Arrests in New York City (Via The Agitator)
RSS Feed
I'm not great on the details of crime, so I have to ask... Isn't that entrapment?
Seems like classic entrapment. Any lawyer or PD worth their snuff should get that kicked post haste.
@#1: Yes, it is indeed entrapment and illegal as can be. However, getting a lawyer to get it dismissed as entrapment would cost more than the $500 fine. Being a simple misdemeanor, the jail time would almost certainly be waived or suspended, as long as the fine is paid up front. Just business as usual in the Big Apple, I'm afraid.
So what do we do when stopped and hassled? Familiar with the polite but "no thankyou" 4th amendment approach to subway searches. Similar?
This news just in - Cops don't care about fairness.
The article says that "young whites" use pot more than young blacks or latinos, but then shows evidence of "profiling" by merely comparing white arrest rates to black and latino arrest rates, without controlling for the age of the arrestees.
Is it possible the latino and black populations of NYC are more heavily weighted to the "young"?
And I'm sure that if you refuse to pull out the stash, you can be arrested on some other sort of charge.
I have a friend who was tricked in this exact manner last year (he was rolling a purely tobacco cigarette when first approached).
The arresting officer also took the liberty of personally contacting my friend's workplace to let them know what had happened, "just in case they were interested".
Yet another reason for me to NEVER set foot in the USA...
From what I've seen on tv programmes like ABCs 'Homeland Security USA' and read in so many articles such as this, I fear that if I ever went to go to visit the states they'd lock my ass up and I'd never get to go home again.
@#1&2: Upon further review, I discover that it is now perfectly legal for police to blatantly and intentionally lie to people in an effort to get them to incriminate themselves. So much for Miranda v. Arizona.
Probably the NYP just ran ouf of ideas for the next episode of COPS...
Listen, I live in Amsterdam so I don't give a hoot either way, but what's the big deal here? It IS illegal in NY, yet you're still using it and crying about getting a fine or locked up. What's that you say? You want the freedom to put into your body whatever you want? Well, that's why you live in the land of the free, right?
This should have been posted in ifyoudontlikeitchangeit instead.
I haven't smoked pot for a couple of decades now, but I certainly enjoyed it back when I was younger. Is it too late for me to turn myself in? I'm sure that it's in my best interest and in the interest of society that I be punished for my crimes. God knows how I managed to be happy and successful for so long. If I had known how destructive pot is, I would have screwed up my life more.
@A Nonny Moose: Police have been lying for years. A commonplace interrogation tactic is to make up some completely damning evidence to try to get you to confess. For example "We know you were there, we have your fingerprints all over the murder weapon. Your DNA was found at the scene and a print matching a shoe we found in your apartment was found on the lawn. Now do you want to explain why you were in the victim's apartment?" All of it is made up, of course, but they want you to say "well yes, I was there but...(reasonable explanation)."
Now they actually have you on record saying you were there, even if there was no physical evidence linking you to the crime scene.
Bottom line, if the police think you committed a crime, don't talk to them without a lawyer present. You gain absolutely nothing by doing so, but any manner of tricks may get you into trouble.
@ A Nonny Moose #5:
Miranda v. Arizona was about what rights the accused have after being arrested.
I don't mind so much that cops can lie to get people to admit that they've done something illegal (otherwise undercover investigations would be impossible) but this is a clear case of lying to get someone to actually commit an additional offense with that bullshit "open to public view" charge.
This video is pretty interesting. Nearly 30 minutes long and worth watching -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
NYPD has nothing on the Tigard, Oregon PD. They put ads up on Craigslist in the Casual Encounters section and imply that they will have sex with the guy if they get some pot. Then they bust the guys for delivery of pot when they show up.
http://wweek.com/editorial/3539/12906/
a guilty pleasure of mine is watching the show Cops... after watching it for the last several months i have realized that most of the people on the show that get busted for small amounts of pot do not understand the law or their rights. never once have i seen a perp utter the words "i do not consent to any searches officer." i guess the lesson here is that if you are going to use an illegal substance you should know the laws surrounding it and the tactics of your local police service.
Yes, the video in #11 is full of things similar to those referred to by #9, with explanations of why that can be so harmful to innocent people under question.
To the cops who were bored
Once they'd run out of crime
New York, I love you
But you're bringing me down...
Warning to everyone: Don't trust the cops.
Why does this need to be repeated?
There's actually a very simple trick you can use yourself to prevent the cops from using their own trick: don't carry illegal substances on your person in the first place.
I have no doubt many of you could list specific reasons why marijuana should be legalized. By all means convey those reasons to your elected officials and/or strive to elect different officials. In the meantime, obey the law until you can change it. It may be frustrating, but common sense is often inconvenient.
@ #17 forgeweld
Tigard police did more than "imply" an exchange, they advertised it.
i spent a night in the can(26 hours total) in nyc for smoking a one hitter in the lower east side. undercover cops snagged myself and a friend. we met several other people in the joint as well who had been smoking weed.
it was depressing to see the system from the inside. such a waste. but i look forward to digging up the mug shot if i get famous. ;)
remmelt, you bring tears to my eyes (in a good way).
Best thing to do with cops: Pay attention to them, obey what orders are reasonable under the Constitution, and meet all else with a blank stare and silence.
A rookie cop actually tried this crap on me. He asked me and my gf to stop, we were riding our bikes briefly on the sidewalk to avoid a blocked street. We did and he asked us for ID, I gave him mine, but she didn't have any on her. Then he said "do you have anything on you that I shouldn't know about, turn it over and I won't charge you with a stronger offense." I couldn't believe it, I just said, "hey man, I'm 36 years old..." basically implying I'm too old to be pulling that rookie shit on me. He gave me back my license and that was it, but then he made a bunch of little black kids stop to give them the same crap. I told them to keep their mouths shut, that they don't need to show him shit, he was none to happy about it, but he was by himself, about 19 or 20 and probably got a little intimidated. In any case he moved along, but it's disgusting that this is common policy. To all the people who say, "what's the problem what you're doing is illegal" think that what the cop's doing is MORE illegal, and not only illegal, but immoral as well. And ifyoudon'tlikeitchangeit, well you have to know about it to change it, and not to many people know about this I don't think. Spreading the word is good.
Remmelt@~12: Way to condescend, dude. Some of us have been working diligently, both individually and as a group to change this ignorant prohibition for all of our adult lives. It's not that easy when Big Pharma has a vested interest worth billions to keep cannabis illegal and the prison industrial complex would be closing prisons without it. Add to that the ignorant fear of the inexperienced masses backed up with redneck-state hysteria (reeinforced by alcohol consumption) and you have a molasses-slow movement toward changing it. Those who really want their pot now, hassle free, are moving to places like Amsterdam.
Having worked in the system these are my top three rules:
1) Cops are NEVER your friend, no matter what they say.
2) Don't say anything except: "I want my lawyer." The state is required to provide you with a lawyer free of charge.
3) Don't ever submit to any test (lie detector, blood alcohol, writing, DNA or otherwise) without your lawyer.
Cops use all kinds of unethical tactics to get confessions. Waking the accused up in the middle of the night is another favorite for convincing them to take a DNA test. The "if you help us, we'll help you" is an old favorite. I can't believe anyone is surprised by this.
Remember, nobody talks, everybody walks. Don't implicate yourself!
seriously, remmel, that is easy for you to say. I've been to amsterdam and i didn't see any statues commemorating all your work in keeping your city free. we are trying to change the laws but there is more corruption in NYC than in all of Holland - and this is but one of the more liberal states regarding marijuana laws.
I don't see why, with a lawyer or not, judges don't throw out these additional 'in plain site' charges. In all the scenarios people bring up, they're either being enticed to a commit a crime by the police (entrapment) or following police orders (is there a name for committing a crime by doing so?)
This is entirely different than police lying to someone to get them to confess (in which a crime already occurred) -- this is about police tricking someone into breaking a law or instructing them to commit one.
#27: "what the cop's doing is MORE illegal, and not only illegal, but immoral as well."
I can see how you might argue that one thing may be more immoral than another, but one thing can not be "more illegal" than another. It's like saying a person killed by a WMD is more dead than one killed by a drunk driver. Neither one is even remotely alive.
Even assuming it's possible that the cop's trick is more illegal, it still can't work unless the suspect has already broken the law by being stupid (or high) enough to be holding the THC.
No lawyer could throw it out.. The officer could say, "I told him he should surrender any other illegal substances he had on his person. He complied willingly, and I charged him with the appropriate charge." He could then claim the offender was "so high he didn't realize he incriminated himself". Since he was using a substance that altered his memory, his testimony to the contrary would be discredited.
It's easiest just to not smoke in public, or don't smoke at all. (Cannabis is better in food anyway.)
This, arguably, is NOT entrapment.
Entrapment is when the police create a situation in which a person commits a crime that they would not normally commit. Example: if the cop puts a $100 bill on the ground and hides in the bushes. I walk by and pick up the money. Cop jumps out and arrests me for stealing his money. That is entrapment. I would not normally steal anyone's money- buy by placing it in my path and making it available- it becomes entrapment.
Entrapment is a slippery thing. If the accused is "led to believe" that it is better to give up the goods, then supposedly the cops can't be held responsible for that. Cops can led the accused to believe ANYTHING. The rules are very vague here.
How does this practice (playing 'gotcha' with the Citizenry) not bring the administration of Justice into disrepute?
Are the politicians unaware of what the long-term political consequences of this kind of contrived legal harassment will be as to keeping the Citizenry happy?
I guess they don't care about keeping the public happy: but wtf then are politicians for??
Is anyone here aware of the Kingpin law? Google it. They aren't lying about the whole "snitch and we will give you a lighter sentence" deal. Drug laws are different. If you snitch, then you get a heavy, but lesser than the alternative sentence. If you don't snitch, you're convicted of the same crimes as the highest level kingpin.
What's the verbal formula now ? I mean, in response to ANY question from a police officer? Since "misleading" police is now a imprisonable offense...hey is that Martha Stewart?
Something like: "I'm sorry, Officer, but I cannot help you at the present time. I request that I may be permitted to speak with my lawyer." And repeat as necessary, to every question...
I would not know though if this is the right way to go,or to say...maybe a bribe would work better, eh?...lol.
America has increasingly of late become more & more....hmmm..."foreign"...to me: particularly in spirit.
1. Here is my ID
2. Am I being detained?
3. Am I being arrested?
4. Am I free to go then?
5. Goto 2.
@ 32
Actually, you're completely wrong. Any basic basic cop/law tv show will clearly explain the difference between murder 1 & 2, man slaughter, willful neglect as well as the many other shades of grey or levels of guilt. That's just criminal law, civil court is even more interesting when it comes to percent of fault.
There is a big difference between an WMD and a drunk driver the least of which is sanction during a time of war. So try another analogy, since we are discussing means not ends.
This article is nonsense.
New York State's penal code has a mechanism by which marihuana possession is effectively decriminalized, called an "Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in cases involving marihuana." (MACD)
You get arrested and your case is taken off the calendar and sealed within 1 year barring any new arrests.
No fines. No surcharges. No allocution of guilty. The MACD can be imposed by the Court without the consent of the prosecution as long as there no other charges accompanying it, and/or so long as the the charges don't pertain to marihuana *sale*.
If people are pleading guilty and taking the fines, then they are stupid. And amazingly unfortunate.
Indeed, as a Criminal Practicioner in NY, I can tell you that the MACDs fly so fast and furious that they effectively de-criminalize marihuana and make processing an arrest for possessing weed completely not worth the effort and money to pay the police officers, DA staff and Court staff to process a case that is effectively dead on arrival and will get almost automatically dismissed.
Hell, the cost of office supplies alone probably outweighs the skimpy fines that some rare, unlucky defendant might have to pay when chances are he will get the MACD imposed over the People's objection.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but scads of arrests for marihuana possession is not a money making endeavor for the city by any stretch of the imagination.
Feh.
Remmelt,
The issue isn't that people are being arrested for breaking the law, it's that the police are trumping up the charges by ordering the person to unwittingly break further laws.
Manslaughter is not murder, possession is not public consumption. We should at least expect to be tried for the right crime.
And lots of work is being done by lots of people to change the drug laws, pissy side-liners don't help much.
@SARAVANH
Would the 'in plain site' charge be lumped in with MACD , or would that constitute a separate charge and disqualify one from electing that option ?
I doubt the DA office cares about stuff like this, but this does seem to be a way in which police officers can conveniently create charges where one does not exist.
Well, since you asked (I was trying to avoid being too wonky)
Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 170.56:
§ 170.56 Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in cases involving marihuana.
1. Upon or after arraignment in a local criminal court upon an information, a prosecutor's information or a misdemeanor complaint, where the sole remaining count or counts charge a violation or violations of section 221.05, 221.10, 221.15, 221.35 or 221.40 the court, upon motion of a defendant, may order that all proceedings be suspended and the action adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, or upon a finding that adjournment would not be necessary or appropriate and the setting forth in the record of the reasons for such findings, may dismiss in furtherance of justice [...]"
§ 221.05 Unlawful possession of marihuana.
A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana.
- this is when you are caught with weed on your person. It is an infraction, upon which even if you are convicted, it carries no status as a criminal conviction, more along the lines of a traffic ticket. You may want to litigate how it came to be that your pockets were exposed and revealed, but even still, if you don't have any open cases or any other pending MACDs, this will undoubtedly be dismissed and sealed.
§ 221.10 Criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth
degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses:
1. marihuana in a public place, as defined in section 240.00 of this chapter, and such marihuana is burning or open to public view; or
2. one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing marihuana and the preparations, compounds, mixtures or
substances are of an aggregate weight of more than twenty-five grams.
Criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree is a class B misdemeanor.
- this is what I think you are referring to. If you have a baggie in your hand and people can see it, or are smoking a joint on the street, then this too qualifies for a MACD.
and I stand corrected because....
§ 221.35 Criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree and § 221.40 Criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree both pertain to small quantity sale, and these too are covered by the MACD provision.
Long and short of it, if you are busted and charged with all four of these sections in one fell swoop, you still are eligible for a MACD.
The big proviso is that if you have a MACD on your record that is still in the one year period before which it times out, you are ineligible for a new one until that existing one times out.
So, I repeat, the article is hogwash.
Oh, and § 221.15 Criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree is possession in excess of a certain weight.
Hogwash is pretty much anything that comes out of a lawyers mouth. But spending a night or weekend in jail is not hogwash, paying a fine, perhaps naive and stupid, but not hogwash, having it on your record for even a year, not hogwash. Arguing semantics when children are being arrested? Well that's hogwash indeed.
25grams is nearly an ounce. Do you really need to be carrying that much gear around with you? I'm just asking.
Any police force is merely a criminal organization bestowed with a government monopoly.
@45
The law is semantics.
@34
I guess the counter argument is that a person wouldn't normally pull out their pot at a strangers request. It was because they were police officers that people complied.
@3
You would think it would be in the best interest of a group like NORML to help pay to overturn enough of these that the cops don't bother anymore. I bet donations would go up quite a bit.
Well, @45,
speaking to you and not the high horse you rode in on, I'll just say that this - the central point of the article is the police are using chicanery to trick normal (yet evidently law-ignoring citizens) into divulging the contraband in their pockets so that they can be arrested and then tagged with a fine as a money making enterprise. I was simply trying to explain how that article doesn't make sense within the confines of the law, both in concept and in practice.
Have a good day.
"Do you really need to be carrying that much gear around with you? I'm just asking."
Well, presuming you don't grow it yourself, you will have to get it from your dealers house to your own.. so yes.
@SaraVanH the central point of the article has nothing to do with the fines. It mentions training for rookies and overtime pay, and just a general desire to harass as being the main point. The fines are only mentioned in passing and it never states that they are levied much or at all. Did you pass the bar with that poor reading comprehension? Why do you feel the need to barely read an article and fill a page with bluster about how you are a lawyer and blah blah blah? Such a huge display of ego generally hides a great deal of insecurity. Sorry about your problem... have a nice day.
"Marijuana isn't a drug, it's a leaf"
- The Governator
You'd think someone with some education would be able to at least spell marijuana... (Clue: There's no H. I can even spell it while completely train-wrecked...)
@54
Glad I'm not the only one who didn't know what to make of what sounds like a well-educated lawyer from the state in question, who obviously has some experience in the matter, repeatedly misspelling the drug in question.
SaraVanH, is there a different legal spelling of mariJuana we are unaware of?
@54 and @55
I'm not defending the statements, but
"Marihuana" is an older spelling of marijuana. It's usually used in law books, as the laws are OLD.
Wikipedia notes it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29
What fixes this is that VOTERS throw the politicians out, vote in people who have reasonable intelligence and will change these stupid laws.
It's better than having the population begin shooting back at the cops and political whores in the streets.