ADDING CHARGES AFTER ARREST/TICKET on SEPARATE CHARGE

[jayguyatlanta]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Georgia

It's been so long since I remember Criminal Procedure... I've practiced Mass Tort and Corporate Law since law school.

A friend asked me about a situation he was involved in. He was in a hotel room - the room was under his name. He had a few people over - not the most upstanding of citizens. At any rate, he fell asleep in the room and slept past his checkout time. The hotel manager contacted the City police (East Point). When the police arrived, my friend awoke. They charged him with occupying a "dive." However, they also found in plain view, on the table on the otherside of the room, one bud of pot and a little bit of residual powder in a bag. He claims to know nothing of the bag or of the pot - that someone else came in and left it on the table.

Now the ticket/notice to appear gives as the only charge: occupying a dive. However, in the explanation section is states "green leafy substance and some white powder residue found on table in room." So there is no other drug charge enumerated on the ticket. My initial thought was that they were detailing the evidence in order to support the "dive" charge... My thinking is that if they were going to get him on possession, they'd have to charge him for it and that chances were since they didn't enumerate it in the charges section, then his only charge is the occupation of a dive.

He is concerned that when he goes to court - that they'll tell him that a charge is added. I've never experienced anything like this and have only been before a judge once. It doesn't seem like typical procedure in that you would think he would have to have notice of the charge. Plus they didn't arrest him, read him his rights, etc...

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

 

[jst67]

tell him to get new friends

 

[Florid-aise]

Facinating background there, Tort Torney, for the questions being asked.

Facinating situation given the following reasoning.

1. Where in this instance it would appear that the LE officers had no probable cause to enter the room in the first place, the hotel owner may have had justification to do so.

2. I am amazed that the owner of the hotel is not incensed and outraged at the charge leveled against the occupant of one of his rooms. Really? "You mean officer, that you are calling my establishment a dive, how dare you?"
This posted scenario begs the question; when someone oversleeps at Holiday I, or at Ho Jo's, etc., would and could a similar charge be brought against that occupant?

4. Of course there can be other charges added; trespassing in the technical sense for example; so can he also be charged with jay-walking. Will the charge hold up for conviction at jury trial? I doubt it. But there would be nothing stopping the SA from charging and/or adding such a charge in any case.

5. If it were me, my whole take would be to hope that a jury of my peers had at one time stayed in a hotel and/or motel somewhere in their respective lives; and that each of those jurists would remember that the process of check-out and settling of accounts occurs at check-out time and not until. How then could I be charged with any crime at all, when I have not yet even checked-out?

Would the jury buy my argument? What do YOU think?

 

[seniorjudge]

Could you give us the exact wording on the "occupying a dive" law?

I thought all those things had been ruled unconstitutional about 50 years ago, along with the loitering by wandering from place to place without apparent purpose ordinances.

I would love to see the law on this one. Sounds fascinating.