kingmetal
05-16-2005, 03:20 PM
Collins is the man... learned some things by reading his book. Im not his tool- just wanted to keep some bro's aware.
Controlled Deliveries
By Rick Collins, J.D.
Controlled Deliveries
If investigators want to bust you for a juice package, their goal will be to get you to take possession of the package. There are two reasons: 1) once you accept a package of contraband, you can be arrested for possessing it; and 2) the feds will have generally obtained a warrant to search your house that cannot be executed until you accept the package.
That’s where your signature comes in. Signing for the package removes any argument that you didn’t accept it. Especially when it’s supported by the undercover agent’s testimony about the conversation that took place. “Are you Johnny Johnson?” You said, “Yes.” “Will you accept this package?” You said, “Of course!” and looked really excited when you saw the return address from China.
Could accepting possession be proven in other ways? Absolutely. The issue is determined by looking at everything you did and said. In the conversation we just described, you said you were the person who intended to receive the package, and you explicitly stated that you would accept it. The absence of a signature won’t magically protect you!
What if you refuse to sign, but try to accept the package verbally? A real courier wouldn’t give it to you if a signature was required, but let’s say this undercover agent courier would. Have you avoided an arrest and search? Of course not, because you’ve accepted the package! What’s more, your cagey behavior will be used against you to prove your knowledge of the illegal contents of the package – why else would you refuse to sign?
I’ve seen a number of cases where the target gets a funky feeling about the delivery guy and rejects the package. The undercover courier will then do everything possible to get the package into the target’s hands, with or without a signature. It’s the only way to execute the raid. In one desperate case, the courier blew his cover and flashed a badge. He summoned his partner, and the two asked to step inside to talk about the package. The target told them he had no idea what was in the package and that they most certainly could not come into his house. The agents said the package contained suspected drugs, and asked if they could open it. “Do what you want, it’s not my package.” They opened it, and inside were 500 Anabol tablets. “My mistake,” one agent said. “These are okay. You can import a personal use supply. Here, you can take them.” Nice try. The target told the agent to stick the tabs where the sun don’t shine and avoided an arrest and raid by the eight other agents skulking in wait just off the property.
Given the headaches presented by savvy suspects, law enforcers are taking a new approach: wiring the package to signal when it’s opened. When someone opens a package, that’s good evidence that he’s the one who knowingly intended to possess it, right? It might even be stronger evidence than signing for it. The application for the search warrant will request authorization to execute the raid once the signal goes off. Several jurisdictions have begun using electronic signaling devices, typically AT-4’s, to confirm that a target has opened his package. No part of the device is visible unless the package is opened. It makes no audible sound but transmits an alert signal to a remote receiver manned by the agents. These devices are perfect in cases where a signature request might spook the target. An AT-4 can make the difference between a botched operation and a valid arrest and raid. Be aware that it’s likely the wave of the future.
If You’re Arrested
Small-time arrests for personal possession are occurring more and more frequently. Sometimes these arrests arise out of car stops for traffic violations and the steroids are found during a search of the car. Car searches are frequent at border crossings, where law enforcement authorities searching for drugs are less restricted by Fourth Amendment constraints.
What you say during a confrontation with the police can have dramatic effects upon your ability to successfully defend your case if you are arrested. Remember that certain rights protect you. Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)] reaffirmed that confessions must be voluntary. It also established cautionary warnings to safeguard your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. They go like this:
* You have the right to remain silent.
* If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in court.
* You have the right to the presence of a lawyer prior to and during any questioning.
* If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
* If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This last one often gets forgotten.)
Do the police always have to give the warnings? No, the rule of Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation. The two elements -- custody and interrogation -- must both exist. If it’s either one without the other, the warnings aren’t required.
Custody. Custody generally means that a reasonable person, innocent of any wrongdoing, would feel that he or she was not free to leave. The place doesn’t matter: it can be at your home, job or gym, at the Postal Inspector’s office, in a police car, on the street, or wherever. If you’re not in police custody, the warnings don’t apply even if the police question you. Obviously, Miranda doesn’t apply if you’re questioned over the phone.
Interrogation. Basically, that’s police asking questions (except for pedigree stuff like name and address). If you’re in custody and they’re going to question you, they have to give you the warnings. If you’re not going to be questioned, even if you’re in custody, the police don’t have to give them. Say you’re arrested for drunk driving. They decide not to ask you any questions, so they don’t give the warnings. But you spontaneously blurt out that you “only had five beers.” Your admission of drinking can be used against you. The same usually goes if you peep up when you overhear the police talk about you to each other, such as, “This dummy is going to be doing some major time for all this juice, huh?”
What happens if the police don’t administer the warnings? The remedy is that your statements are excluded or suppressed because of the violation. Also, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates Miranda, that derivative evidence may also be suppressed. Suppression of evidence may or may not require dismissal of the case itself. If there’s enough other evidence that is admissible, the case goes on.
Keep in mind that incriminating statements are often the most damaging evidence in a criminal case. Let’s assume that under certain circumstances you’ve decided that it’s not in your best interests to submit to police questioning. If you’re not under arrest, you can simply ask, “Am I under arrest? If not, I’d prefer not to stay and talk to you.” Then leave. If the officer replies that you’re not free to leave, then you can invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege by saying, “I want to remain silent,” or “I don’t want to talk to you.” If you invoke this privilege, the police must stop questioning you, at least for a good while. Even better, invoke your Sixth Amendment right by saying, “I want an attorney right now.” If you demand a lawyer, the police can’t question you further unless you reinitiate the conversation.
Rick Collins, J.D., a veteran lawyer and former competitive bodybuilder, is the author of the groundbreaking new book LEGAL MUSCLE: Anabolics in America, available through this site. [© Rick Collins, 2003. All rights reserved. For informational purposes only, not to be construed as legal advice.]
Controlled Deliveries
By Rick Collins, J.D.
Controlled Deliveries
If investigators want to bust you for a juice package, their goal will be to get you to take possession of the package. There are two reasons: 1) once you accept a package of contraband, you can be arrested for possessing it; and 2) the feds will have generally obtained a warrant to search your house that cannot be executed until you accept the package.
That’s where your signature comes in. Signing for the package removes any argument that you didn’t accept it. Especially when it’s supported by the undercover agent’s testimony about the conversation that took place. “Are you Johnny Johnson?” You said, “Yes.” “Will you accept this package?” You said, “Of course!” and looked really excited when you saw the return address from China.
Could accepting possession be proven in other ways? Absolutely. The issue is determined by looking at everything you did and said. In the conversation we just described, you said you were the person who intended to receive the package, and you explicitly stated that you would accept it. The absence of a signature won’t magically protect you!
What if you refuse to sign, but try to accept the package verbally? A real courier wouldn’t give it to you if a signature was required, but let’s say this undercover agent courier would. Have you avoided an arrest and search? Of course not, because you’ve accepted the package! What’s more, your cagey behavior will be used against you to prove your knowledge of the illegal contents of the package – why else would you refuse to sign?
I’ve seen a number of cases where the target gets a funky feeling about the delivery guy and rejects the package. The undercover courier will then do everything possible to get the package into the target’s hands, with or without a signature. It’s the only way to execute the raid. In one desperate case, the courier blew his cover and flashed a badge. He summoned his partner, and the two asked to step inside to talk about the package. The target told them he had no idea what was in the package and that they most certainly could not come into his house. The agents said the package contained suspected drugs, and asked if they could open it. “Do what you want, it’s not my package.” They opened it, and inside were 500 Anabol tablets. “My mistake,” one agent said. “These are okay. You can import a personal use supply. Here, you can take them.” Nice try. The target told the agent to stick the tabs where the sun don’t shine and avoided an arrest and raid by the eight other agents skulking in wait just off the property.
Given the headaches presented by savvy suspects, law enforcers are taking a new approach: wiring the package to signal when it’s opened. When someone opens a package, that’s good evidence that he’s the one who knowingly intended to possess it, right? It might even be stronger evidence than signing for it. The application for the search warrant will request authorization to execute the raid once the signal goes off. Several jurisdictions have begun using electronic signaling devices, typically AT-4’s, to confirm that a target has opened his package. No part of the device is visible unless the package is opened. It makes no audible sound but transmits an alert signal to a remote receiver manned by the agents. These devices are perfect in cases where a signature request might spook the target. An AT-4 can make the difference between a botched operation and a valid arrest and raid. Be aware that it’s likely the wave of the future.
If You’re Arrested
Small-time arrests for personal possession are occurring more and more frequently. Sometimes these arrests arise out of car stops for traffic violations and the steroids are found during a search of the car. Car searches are frequent at border crossings, where law enforcement authorities searching for drugs are less restricted by Fourth Amendment constraints.
What you say during a confrontation with the police can have dramatic effects upon your ability to successfully defend your case if you are arrested. Remember that certain rights protect you. Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)] reaffirmed that confessions must be voluntary. It also established cautionary warnings to safeguard your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. They go like this:
* You have the right to remain silent.
* If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in court.
* You have the right to the presence of a lawyer prior to and during any questioning.
* If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
* If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This last one often gets forgotten.)
Do the police always have to give the warnings? No, the rule of Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation. The two elements -- custody and interrogation -- must both exist. If it’s either one without the other, the warnings aren’t required.
Custody. Custody generally means that a reasonable person, innocent of any wrongdoing, would feel that he or she was not free to leave. The place doesn’t matter: it can be at your home, job or gym, at the Postal Inspector’s office, in a police car, on the street, or wherever. If you’re not in police custody, the warnings don’t apply even if the police question you. Obviously, Miranda doesn’t apply if you’re questioned over the phone.
Interrogation. Basically, that’s police asking questions (except for pedigree stuff like name and address). If you’re in custody and they’re going to question you, they have to give you the warnings. If you’re not going to be questioned, even if you’re in custody, the police don’t have to give them. Say you’re arrested for drunk driving. They decide not to ask you any questions, so they don’t give the warnings. But you spontaneously blurt out that you “only had five beers.” Your admission of drinking can be used against you. The same usually goes if you peep up when you overhear the police talk about you to each other, such as, “This dummy is going to be doing some major time for all this juice, huh?”
What happens if the police don’t administer the warnings? The remedy is that your statements are excluded or suppressed because of the violation. Also, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates Miranda, that derivative evidence may also be suppressed. Suppression of evidence may or may not require dismissal of the case itself. If there’s enough other evidence that is admissible, the case goes on.
Keep in mind that incriminating statements are often the most damaging evidence in a criminal case. Let’s assume that under certain circumstances you’ve decided that it’s not in your best interests to submit to police questioning. If you’re not under arrest, you can simply ask, “Am I under arrest? If not, I’d prefer not to stay and talk to you.” Then leave. If the officer replies that you’re not free to leave, then you can invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege by saying, “I want to remain silent,” or “I don’t want to talk to you.” If you invoke this privilege, the police must stop questioning you, at least for a good while. Even better, invoke your Sixth Amendment right by saying, “I want an attorney right now.” If you demand a lawyer, the police can’t question you further unless you reinitiate the conversation.
Rick Collins, J.D., a veteran lawyer and former competitive bodybuilder, is the author of the groundbreaking new book LEGAL MUSCLE: Anabolics in America, available through this site. [© Rick Collins, 2003. All rights reserved. For informational purposes only, not to be construed as legal advice.]