The right to refuse a search should be taught in drivers ed. Ask the same kids if a the cops could search their phone and they would know to refuse THAT.
Get a lawyer. She may negotiate a deal, where she voluntarily takes some substance abuse program + pay fines (voluntarily!) and in exchange court dismissed the charges. Thus, she will not get a record.
I don’t know the specifics; I am not a lawyer. Basically, she volunteers to do everything the court finds appropriate, and, in return, court dismisses the case. The objective for her is to avoid any record. It is not uncommon.
Yes, get a lawyer. Everyone should always get a lawyer for any criminal proceeding no matter how minor. Equally important, get a local lawyer who will be familiar with the court involved. For example, in the courts where I practice a charge like this would be eligible for judicial diversion (keep your nose clean for 6-12 months and the charges go away). It wouldn’t take an attorney any time to negotiate that but a defendant would be unlikely to get if without an attorney.
As far as who is charged if drugs/paraphernalia are found in a car - that is a matter of state law. Some states charge the driver, others charge everyone.
Definitely teach your child to never consent to a search. The police also cannot hold you an extended period of time to get a drug dog to the scene (the dog is not a search, but can provide probable cause for one). Also teach your children not to say anything other than name and other identifying information until an attorney is present. The police can lie about the information they have to try to get people to say things, and will also suggest that the only reason to need an attorney is because you are guilty. Don’t fall for it.
@clairea “The police can lie about the information they have to try to get people to say things, and will also suggest that the only reason to need an attorney is because you are guilty. Don’t fall for it.”
That is true, unless the person is a friend of theirs or another officer, then they say to stay quiet and get an attorney. lol
Was she driving under the influence?
Agree with everyone above, get a lawyer and there may be a way to avoid consequences. But I do not think this should be hidden from the college, myself. Unless the charge goes away before May 1.
From what I understand she did not get charged with driving under the influence, just possession and paraphernalia. But I’m wondering if I have the whole story because they must have had a reason to search the car, right? I mean, I’ve never been pulled over for a traffic violation and then had the police search my car…
But yes, she will get an attorney and we are hoping the charges are reduced (to a nondrug charge) before May 1.
The reason to search the car might have been because the police officer felt like it. In my state, at least.
I’m sorry @rosered55, but that is not constitutional anywhere in this country. I do not think that is a helpful comment. It may look like that to you, since you may not be up on the niceties of Fourth Amendment law, but that is not the test – anywhere – and it does bother me to see people make comments like that.
OP, state laws vary so much that no one here can offer more than leads. Your state may have something similar to what we in California call “deferred entry of judgment” – which can totally wipe out the episode. Definitely time to lawyer up.
“Because they feel like it” is exaggeration but not much, in Wisconsin. Our state supreme court is chipping away at constitutional rights as quickly as it can. I follow its decisions. Here is an example: http://www.milwaukeecriminallawyersblog.com/2015/10/07/wisconsin-supreme-court-holds-traffic-stops-may-be-based-on-officers-objectively-reasonable-mistake-of-law/ Police officers don’t need much of a reason to stop a car and their reason can be wrong but still support a legal search.
I do not want to get into a debate with you @rosered55, but the scenario in the case you linked to is NOT “because the police officer felt like it.” Yes, a police officer can be wrong. It’s the high court in DC that said we ignore that if the officer acted in good faith – not your state supreme court. You actually have one of the better ones, IMO, or nmaybe I should say HAD.
In March 2016, my daughter was arrested in her dorm room in Oklahoma, after smoking pot. 2 dorm reps were coming around checking the smoke alarms and she had forgotten the notification that the check was that day. After they left, two police officers were there quickly and she was arrested on possession and paraphernalia. Hand cuffed and escorted out of the dorm. This was about 3 pm. She spent the night in jail.
The next day, she went before the judge via video and was released on her own. No bail. She called us and we drove up that night from oos.
The next day, we retained a lawyer in that town. He got her trial date pushed back until after finals. She did not lose her dorm, went before a committee and apologized. No discipline from university and she retained her OOS tuition scholarship. When she went to court, she was given probation on both on counts for 12 months, 40 hrs documented community service, a drug evaluation and random drug tests to be completed within 24 hours of notification (she had 3 total from Dec to March at her cost of $60 ea). and nearly 4K in court fines. Charges will disappear if she keeps out of trouble those 12 months.
She worked all summer and had a part time job fall and spring. She just sent her last court payment on March 2. Her probation ends April 8. We paid the atty but she has had to pay everything else.
it was a life changing experience for her and a good kick in the butt. She went from a 2.44 oos (transferred to an instate school) and has a 3.75 for fall (dang B was an 89) and all A’s so far for spring.
While it’s not a proud moment, it is what it is, and she’s come out better on the other side and she won’t start adulthood with a record.
Good luck to her.
Thelma2-thank you. I’m so glad everything worked out for your daughter!
Just because a search is unconstitutional does not mean that it won’t occur. It is a naive to think that there isn’t a ton of random treatment of 'suspects" that varies, in some ways, systematically across districts and regions of the country. One example is the use of the taser (not a search but something else that police presumably are supposed to “need” to use). Tasers are used in some places just to quiet someone down or calm them down, kinda the result of a loss of patience. But in other parts of the country, strict standards exist for their use.
So there are two different issues. One, how do police interact with the public and “suspects” when on their own and how much are their decisions scrutinized? This varies a LOT across our country and explains, at least in part, the low quality of the relationship between the police and the communities in which they serve in SOME locations. Please read that carefully - I don’t mean this is rampant. I just mean that there is enormous variation in virtually every sort of behavior and that includes police conduct, which can be alleviated in large part by training if the communities choose to follow that route.
The second issue is the variation in criminal justice systems across our country. I’m still shocked at what I’ve read about how differently the same crime is handled in different jurisdictions. The article below talks about the enormous differences in incarceration rates across our country, with a focus on Indiana.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/upshot/new-geography-of-prisons.html
This is NOT to say that our adult children shouldn’t be responsible for their conduct and held accountable. It is just important to understand that “justice” means very different things in different parts of the country and at a minimum, it is useful to know one’s rights while ALWAYS interacting with respect with law enforcement.
AND I wish the original poster of this thread the best of luck. We all make mistakes but what is important now are the choices made moving forward. There seems to be no real update to provide the schools now but likely will be sometime soon.
Police treat a carful of young people very differently, in my (and my kids’) experience- and may have just asked permission to search the car. What untutored young person is going to say no to a police officer?
Marijuana was decriminalized in my state and is now legal, though that status is on hold. I think it is a shame that someone with a small amount of pot has to go through this, while I see young people with 6 packs on the street all the time. Ever heard of pot smokers getting into a brawl?
But driving is another matter. That is why I asked if she was driving.
I hope this all resolves- and think it will. But any dishonesty at all with the colleges could have dire consequences. I might even tell them now. In fact, I would tell them now.
But why would she tell them now when it’s possible an attorney will be able to get the charges reduced or dropped?
With respect to whether or not to tell the school, I suggest looking at the language on the specific school’s application. If asked whether she has ever been convicted, the I would be comfortable not reporting it unless/until there was a conviction. If asked whether she has ever been charged, or had judicial diversion (under any name), then you need to consider disclosing it.
What’s she going to tell them - that she may end up up with a criminal conviction? When the situation is fully resolved, then, and only then, should she make any required disclosures. In the meantime . . .
(1) Get the best attorney the family can afford, and fight this tooth and nail! Whatever money they spend on an attorney could save them 10 times that much in college costs!!!
(2) Do your homework - find out exactly what does and does not need to be disclosed for purposes of federal financial aid, and then take a very careful look at the disclosure requirements for each of the schools she’s applied or been admitted to. If School A requires disclosure of any arrest, and School B does not, that’s something you need to know before she accepts an offer. (Ditto for which schools require disclosure of misdemeanors.) This family needs to be fully informed in order to make the best decision.
I see college attitudes toward this kind of thing as benign, from what I have seen- but understand others have had different experiences. To me, discussing with the college takes the pressure off somewhat.
This is not an unusual situation. I wonder if a free public defender could handle it. Depends on family finances but if financial aid is in the works, the family finances might be a factor when considering the type of legal help.
The FAFSA still does not need to be corrected, because there is no conviction as yet, and there probably won’t be one. This is a misdemeanor so no felony either. A drug related arrest is not a conviction, obviously. So technically no need to do anything yet, no.
There is definitely time pressure to get this resolved and hope it works out.
@compmom, I have read that if adcoms get the slightest whiff of drug issues in an applicant, that they usually deny the applicant. The reason is simple. There will be drug issues occurring at all schools no matter what, so adcoms feel they don’t want to exacerbate that issue by letting in a person that may already have drug issue. At least this applies to the selective schools according to a book a read several years ago. So don’t tell the school unless required to do so, and have the attorney negotiate down the charges in return for community service and/or drug testing. Kid may benefit from this in the long run.
I have direct personal experience with selective schools- not something I read in a book.
The problem that could arise is an accusation of dishonesty due to the timing issues here. As it stands, any school that requests info on arrests does not have that info and any questions on drug use or offense would not be answered honestly either, at this stage, because the arrest happened after the application and FAFSA (and other financial aid paperwork?) were filed.
If a student changes their course schedule, they tell colleges. If a student experiences any change in the information they have provided, they often tell colleges.
I don’t have legal training. But it is possible that schools would want to work with the applicant. I think being honest with them is important to avoid further trouble, but certainly a lawyer would give the best advice.
One other thing…it is not clear at all that this young person has a drug problem, but anyone in recovery is protected from discrimination according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have no idea how that might be relevant here, but wanted to mention. It certainly means access to accommodations once on campus.