Question with getting pulled over ticket/weed possession

[Nephlite]

The term "Mistake of fact" is a defense available to a criminal defendant. Whereas mistake of law is not a recognized defense in that capacity.

Think you got it backwards. While the error of the suspended license wasn't the OP's fault and he could get that charge thrown out because of that, the officers were acting on good faith that the suspended license was legitimate, therefore the arrest was substantiated by checking him for priors and finding it was suspended, then that gave them the right to search the vehicle. Police are allowed to make mistakes based on clerical error since they were going off "good faith" that it was correct at the time. Can't remember the case right now but it was a Supreme Court ruling.

He was pulled over for a missing plate and they ran his license, and found it was suspended (an arrestable offense). It's standard procedure in any department to run your license when they pull you over to check for priors, suspended license (in this case), etc. In this case, the officer didn't need probable cause to search the vehicle because it would have been searched incident to lawful arrest.

Well the registration is moot. He was pulled over for not having a front plate. So the whole he was pulled over for an error won't hold.

I'm sure he was pulled over legitimately but like I said they ran his license and it came up suspended. I'm sure that definitely won't hold in court but the possession charge is a bit harder to get out of.

[jmc]

the possession charge is a bit harder to get out of.

It would be extremely hard to get out of, even with a good lawyer.

"Your honor.

Yes I had drugs in my car, but the police wouldn't have found it unless the DMV didn't screw up!

So the case should be thrown out, because the DMV screwed me over!"

I just don't see it flying.

[Kellanved]

Think you got it backwards. While the error of the suspended license wasn't the OP's fault and he could get that charge thrown out because of that, the officers were acting on good faith that the suspended license was legitimate, therefore the arrest was substantiated by checking him for priors and finding it was suspended, then that gave them the right to search the vehicle. Police are allowed to make mistakes based on clerical error since they were going off "good faith" that it was correct at the time. Can't remember the case right now but it was a Supreme Court ruling.

He was pulled over for a missing plate and they ran his license, and found it was suspended (an arrestable offense). It's standard procedure in any department to run your license when they pull you over to check for priors, suspended license (in this case), etc. In this case, the officer didn't need probable cause to search the vehicle because it would have been searched incident to lawful arrest.



I'm sure he was pulled over legitimately but like I said they ran his license and it came up suspended. I'm sure that definitely won't hold in court but the possession charge is a bit harder to get out of.

Actually no, it cannot be stressed enough that in law, words and terms have specific legal significance, often beyond their ordinary meaning.

In this specific instance, you’re not talking about a mistake of fact defense. What you’re doing is questioning the validity of a search and seizure presumably in order to suppress incriminating evidence (no evidence, no case after all)

A mistake of fact is a defense, claimed by the defendant; the mistake is on the part of the defendant not the prosecution or some third party. A mistake of a fact is a defense where a specific mental state is required for the offense charged. (generally in the case of possession the mens rea (mental state) is knowledge – see the model penal code) The mistake of fact needs only be in good faith, it needs not be reasonable.

Briefly stated, there are two components to a crime, 1. the actus reus (the act requirement) and 2. mens rea (the mental state). The reason why mistake of fact is a defense is because the mistake of fact negates the required mental state of the offense, therefore there is no crime.

[Plow]

Driving on suspended = right to impound car.

Impound = legit search and seizure.


Talk to a lawyer, you're not going to be able to fight that one on your own. Lawyer will let you know if it's worth fighting at all.

[lovehatehero]

Ok, well I got my car back and was told the charges for the driving under suspension are going to be dropped due to the BMV sending over confirmation that that suspension was a mistake on their part. But ya, the possession charges are staying lol. Though I did talk to a lawyer and he said there is a real chance they could get the possession charges dropped due to the fact he said they should have never searched the car in the first place because my license really wasnt suspended. So not sure if its worth the lawyer fees or just take the little fine and be done with it.

On a side note, the narcotics chief called me asking if I knew of any sellers in the area and that he could make my ticket just go away. I thought it was funny, but ya Im no snitch...

[kyod]

Can't remember the case right now but it was a Supreme Court ruling.

Arizona v. Evans.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

Edit: I wouldn't fight the charges. Supreme Court disagrees with what your lawyer thinks.

[Firedemon]

Don't know about you guys, but if I could get rid of a narcotics charge on my ass by giving out some seller, you bet your fucking ass I'm doing it.

[antihero]

Don't know about you guys, but if I could get rid of a narcotics charge on my ass by giving out some seller, you bet your fucking ass I'm doing it.

preach it

[lovehatehero]

Don't know about you guys, but if I could get rid of a narcotics charge on my ass by giving out some seller, you bet your fucking ass I'm doing it.

seeing as the people i buy from are friends from 10+ years ago, really not gonna happen lol.

[aduidarnenye]

That record might haunt you for the rest of your life. They probably won't tell them who snitched. I dunno, I think I would still give a name.

Unless you can get those things expunged somehow?

[Salodin]

I thought it was less then a misdemeanor of a charge, something you don't even have to admit to when asked.

[Melchiah]

Didn't see anyone link this case yet, though I might be mistaken.

Arizona v. Gant (Search pursuant to arrest)

Supreme court ruled that an individual and his effects may be searched under the search pursuant to an arrest statute only to within that individual's reach of hand. Thus, if you were in the back of the cop car when arrested, search pursuant to arrest would not apply to your car.

However, driving on a suspended license is an infraction which would involve the impounding of his car, which means inventory search to protect the department, which leads to eventual discovery.

You're boned, plead guilty, pay the fine, and learn your lesson.*

I carry with me from time to time. However, when I have that in the car with me, I don't speed, I follow the rules of the road. You got into a car with a prohibited substance, with the knowledge that front tags are required in your area and that yours was missing. You gave them an excuse to pull you over and check you out. This is where you screwed up, the fact that the suspended license was bogus is immaterial.

Personally, I feel like you earned the fine, and you should be grateful that where you live it's just a fine. It's an arrestable offense here.

*If you're going to carry, you must remember to always maintain security.

[Atreides]

transporting my shit is probably my least favorite part of the entire process, which is why i always wrap it in 6-7 layers of foil/saran wrap and then stuff it in a secret place in my trunk. With NJ's law, I'm pretty sure you can get out of the "possession in a motor vehicle" charge by not having it within arms reach. I know it won't fool a canine but I make damn sure anything I carry in my car is not going to smell even the slightest and tip the officer off. My friends think I'm crazy, since I won't smoke my new bud until I get it safely home lol.

[Amelya]

I think if you have a squeaky clean record a lawyer may be able to get the charge expunged. I would at least ask about it. It may be a little fine now but it's still going to show up on your record forever.

Eh it looks like Ohio may do it differently, might be something to look into:

Ohio

Ohio is a "sealing."[28] Sealing allows first-time offenders to petition the court for the sealing of a conviction record. To be eligible, one must not have any current charges pending, or prior or subsequent criminal convictions, other than minor misdemeanors and those arising from the same incident. Completion of the court's sentence (fines, restitution, jail/prison, probation, etc.) and a waiting period from the date of discharge is also required (one year for misdemeanors or three years for felonies). Some serious offenses are ineligible.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2953.32

[Venga]

Just quickly, how much is a nugget. I was under the impression is was a small amount? Not entirely sure how much you can get away with for "personal consumption" but if it's under i would assume you can wriggle out of it.

As for the chief asking for the dealers name, pretty poor effort, you would have thought he would of offered face to face. Good of you not ratting out though.

[miokomioko]

Pull over = legit
Arrest = good faith
Search = legal
Nug = http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile..._5974403_n.jpg

Pay up~

[Haiko]

Omg best deals ever!

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Actually no, it cannot be stressed enough that in law, words and terms have specific legal significance, often beyond their ordinary meaning.

In this specific instance, you’re not talking about a mistake of fact defense. What you’re doing is questioning the validity of a search and seizure presumably in order to suppress incriminating evidence (no evidence, no case after all)

A mistake of fact is a defense, claimed by the defendant; the mistake is on the part of the defendant not the prosecution or some third party. A mistake of a fact is a defense where a specific mental state is required for the offense charged. (generally in the case of possession the mens rea (mental state) is knowledge – see the model penal code) The mistake of fact needs only be in good faith, it needs not be reasonable.

Briefly stated, there are two components to a crime, 1. the actus reus (the act requirement) and 2. mens rea (the mental state). The reason why mistake of fact is a defense is because the mistake of fact negates the required mental state of the offense, therefore there is no crime.

I think you have it backwards. I was not referring to the defendant as to "mistake of law" or "mistake of fact," I was referring to the officer. If the officer searched the car based on a mistake of fact, he's fucked, if the officer made the search based on a mistake of law he's not fucked.

[Melchiah]

I think you have it backwards. I was not referring to the defendant as to "mistake of law" or "mistake of fact," I was referring to the officer. If the officer searched the car based on a mistake of fact, he's(the OP) fucked, if the officer made the search based on a mistake of law he's(the OP) not fucked.

Attempting to edit for clarity, I think this is what you mean, right?

[Kellanved]

I think you have it backwards. I was not referring to the defendant as to "mistake of law" or "mistake of fact," I was referring to the officer. If the officer searched the car based on a mistake of fact, he's fucked, if the officer made the search based on a mistake of law he's not fucked.

You’re mixing things up, hence my initial post. The relevant context is criminal law and criminal procedure. I understand that you were referring to the mistake as being on the part of the officer and not the defendant. However, this is not what the concept of Mistake of fact or Mistake of law in the criminal law and procedure generally refer to.

As I previously indicated, the concepts of “Mistake of fact” and “Mistake of law” represent a very specific thing on their own and that specific thing only. They do not refer to a mistake made by any other party except for the accused. Mistake of fact does not refer to any random party’s mistake as to facts and neither does Mistake of law refer to any random party’s mistake as to law. Generally Mistake of fact is a defense, whereas Mistake of law is not. A cursory google search will confirm this for you. It isn’t backwards.

I get that you’re saying police officers are allowed to be mistaken as to facts and acts predicated upon an honest mistake as to the facts of a situation will be deemed valid whereas acts of police officers predicated upon a mistaken understanding of law are not valid. In that sense your post was accurate.

Broadly categorizing and labeling what you were referring to as Mistake of fact and Mistake of law is improper. Throwing around inapplicable legal concepts is not only wrong, it can mislead, especially those unfamiliar.