Can Police LEGALLY do this?

Just wondered if it is legal for an officer of the law to charge someone for a crime, but then tell them it won't be "filed" IF they give 3 names of people dealing drugs.

This seems to be the protocal in our small town, and it has really gotten out of hand. In fact, 5 boys (young) were found breaking into the concession stand at the ball park and were told to give names of people that would lead to a drug arrest. 2 of the boys had no idea who was selling, buying, or using...they were breaking in to a concession stand to steal candy. Pretty sad, huh? Now these boys are wandering the streets trying to find out who uses drugs. If not for what they were told, it's possible they would NEVER know who sold drugs. Does this make any sense?

Wonder who I could contact about this. I just don't think it can be legal to do things this way. Any one know????
--sandikayg

Re: Can Police LEGALLY do this?

Deals are made like this all the time. This sound off base however. Is there more to the story than what you know to be true? People who are caught with drugs are asked to squeal on others all the time with the promise of a lighter or reduced sentence.The law can also drop charges. There is a saying that goes " you cannot break the law when you are the law." The police have a lot of slack in the way the handle things. It does not make it right, it is just how it is. Whenever I knew anyone who fought the law, the law won.
--XOutlaw Woman

Re: Can Police LEGALLY do this?

Yes, It's legal. And Police know that they get more crime fighting done going after the dealers than the users.
--Loraura

Re: Can Police LEGALLY do this?

Sandi - they did the same thing to me when I was arrested (Except that I was arrested for meth posession.) I think it is pretty standard practice too - when I got arrested in 1979 for the same thing, they did the same thing.

How old were the boys?
--Penelope

RE: Can Police LEGALLY do this?

I think it depends alot on the County Attorney's office, what 'deals' the officers are allowed to offer. The presentation in this case seems to be not only lacking but inappropriately placed.

In a way I can understand not wanting to arrest the 'little guy', there are a million of them, but the guys at the top calling the shots those are the ones who a case needs to be built against. So that the larger scale production and distribution can be stopped, or at the very least slowed down.

The comment was made that you can not break the law when you are the law. I know of at least one judge who does not believe that. One officer announcing in court that what he did was within the boundries of his job because he was the law, was kindly informed he was to do 30 days in the county jail, because officers enforce the law, attorneys represent different aspects of the law, and judged interpet the law...no where did this judge see where any of them WERE the law.

I think we need more judges like this one.
--Just Ol Ma

Re: RE: Can Police LEGALLY do this?

Thanks for all your responses. The boys that broke into the "candy loot" WERE over 18...but not much more. I realize something has to be done to stop trafficing...but I just don't think this is the way to do it. Now if they were arrested for drugs, I could see just a little more clearly why they wanted names.

After reading your posts...I saw that this wasn't only happening in small towns. I don't think the "law" realizes the danger they put families in when they ask for this, or DEMAND it.

I know from listening to kids around here, that when there is a bust they ALL get paranoid. EVERYONE is a snitch. Guess that's the life of a tweeker, huh? I agree with the judge that stood up to it. What makes me even more angry is that the "millions of users" don't get ANY better from being in jail. It might stop a few (scaring the pants off 'em), but for the majority, it just means you can't get a job and are forced to go back to what you were doing before you were arrested. Why can't our government see this?

Any way, I really appreciate the comments. I really thought this was a small town gig going on but now I know it's not. Thanks you guys for helping see yet another side of all this.
--Sandi

Re: RE: Can Police LEGALLY do this?

Back in my using days, I knew a hand ful of meth addicts that were arrested with labs, possesion, and dealing.

They get off if they snitch. So they get there "get out of jail free card", and still use, cook, deal, and posses the drug. In the mean time, the MIGHTY COPS get a couple of names, arrest a couple more addicts and give them the same "free card".

My friend got arrested for manufacturing, he got out of jail on $400 bail. It's been one month, and he's back doing the same old @#%$.

If we are going to incarcerate, at least keep them "safe" in jail for a f%cking minute!

This topic really burns me...

I love you all,
--bg75

SNITCHING FOR THE COPS

My daughter refused to snitch, would NOT cut a "deal" with the DA's office and would not plead out. So she was given the max sentence (10 years) and served 8.

If a cook or a user DOES snitch not only are they in jeopardy, so are their family and friends. I think people looking at prison have a different code of ethics than those of us not in the CRIMINAL "justice" system....if they have any ethics left. I doubt I could go to prison rather than snitch...and i don't mean it's a code of valor to/or NOT snitch. Actually, as usual I don't even know what i'm talking about....just some ideas rambling through my head. Who knows what any of us would do in that moment?

Love and peace,
--Elizabeth

Re: SNITCHING FOR THE COPS

I think the police/dtf are letting the "users" do their work for them...and I also agree that once arrested, if they snitch or not at least get that person some help!!! Even if it's sitting in solitare for a month. It just seems to me that all the "give me names or you go down" sounds like black mail to me, and it's not helping clean up anything. What's the point? One give 2 names, then the 2 go free after giving their names, and on and on. No one stops using, no one goes to jail, nothing is done to help stop anything.

I must say one more time: I DO NOT BELIEVE USERS NEED TO BE IN JAIL!!! Most...and not all, but most need rehab. When is the government going to realize this?? Do they really want to stop the meth madness or is it just job security???? ugh! I get so aggrevated!!!!
--sandikayg

Re: SNITCHING FOR THE COPS

The prison indusry is huge. In California it is the second largest item in the state budget. Each prisoner costs us taxpayers thirty to forty thousand dollars a year.

Most of the prisoners are in for drug related charges.
--Sfj

Re: SNITCHING FOR THE COPS

Rehbilitation would be so much cheaper AND EFFECTIVE than prison. I wonder if there have been real life studies of addicts who were sent to long term rehab instead of prison? I know people who are doing just that (My "Wife in Law..." my kids stepmother is in rehab instead of prison right now.) I wonder if they have taken a long term look at these people - I know that once you have finished drug court, you are off probation and on with your life. Her (My kids stepmom) options are to finish this program, or go to prison. I believe that she went in with the desire to avoid prison, and at this point (Almost 6 months later) she appears to actually want to be clean. I guess the real test will come when she is out of rehab and in the real world.
--Penelope

Re: SNITCHING FOR THE COPS

From what I have read prison is more expensive for the taxpayers...If I recall, Mr. Kerry Edwards had a pretty good plan for rehabilitating the "the addict gone crimainal". At least maybe some sort of system looking at each sitiuation individually. Does'nt the "druggie" at least deserve at least that?

Again, the argument comes up that if the addict wants help, they know where to find it. Incarceration may be the only option for some.

I love this message forum because you guys are the only people where we can all let our minds wonder for the good!

I hope one day we can celebrate together for all of our efforts towards recovery, for our families for putting up with us, and our new system we impimented for the suffering addict who turns"criminal".

I love you all, bg75

Re: SNITCHING FOR THE COPS

Penelope-glad you brought up "drug court". A 24 year old male thrown into my life (thru my dgtr) is trying to get "drug court". So far, it is looking very promising--IF he doesn't get out and go nuts before his court date gets here. He is to go June 30 ONLY to enter a plea...so the drug court is still just "hanging". When he showed me the rule book for drug court, I have to say it didn't make any sense to me. I understand going to NA 90 times in 90 days...but if our drug court is the same as others, the other rules just don't seem reasonable. For instance, they MUST be working or going to vo-tech or some type of school BUT for the first month, in addition to NA meetings, they MUST go to a group meeting every week day at 2:00 to 3:00. Now who in the world is going to hire you, let you leave at 1:30--come back to work at 3:30 (driving time included)?????? The second month, group meetings are from 3:00-4:00. I don't even know of any vo-tech schools that are out early enough for that. There were several other things that made me think "What are they doing? Setting this up for failure?". We have only had this available for 2 years, and there have only been 2 people graduated from the program. I believe the soonest you can get thru is 15 months, and the longest is 18 months (best I can remember).

As usual, they probably paid some goof ball about 75,000 to do a study on this (thru grant money), and this is what they came up with. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I don't see how this could work unless you have a job working for Mommy & Daddy and they let you leave when ever you want. Again, I'm sooooo frustrated at the system!!!!

Take ONE prison, turn it into a drug rehab/prison and get these people some real help!!! Make the facility self-contained and give everyone jobs while they are there, instead of a bed, gym and basket ball court. Geez....it doesn't take a rocket scientist!!! In fact, they should make their own clothes, grow their own food, raise animals, etc. It shouldn't cost the tax payers! Heck, get some of them into marketing and have them figure out how to raise money (campaign againt use, etc). WHATEVER!!!!

I think I'm going to copy this thread and send it to our legislatures...and any one else I can think of. Dang it! Truth be known, the government probably used this stuff on soldriers to start with. (in fact I think I heard that some where)??

And yes, I am venting, but I'm also ready to get up and FIGHT. This is crazy. I'm watching all these kids grow up and become loosers when they had a full life ahead of them. Not only that THEIR children are the BIGGEST loosers. Moms and Dads letting grandparents (or anyone else) raise their kids, and if they don't, the kids are witness to a life that no child should see. UGH!!!! I'll say it again UGH!!! I'm sick of government being so stupid about all this. As long as they get big fat retirements and benefits most of us only dream about, they think they've served their country. (better stop here before this turns REAL political!) LOL!

--Sandi

THIS SITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. The information provided is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your health care professional if you have a specific health concern.

HOME | ABOUT US | METHAMPHETAMINE LINKS | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US
ADVERTISE ON THIS SITE