Wrongful Arrest?

[busybeaver85308]

Arizona

Long story short. I have been in a child custody battle for close to a year now. As a result, I started to use "spice" to keep from getting in trouble while battling my ex. I was arrested on May 5th for Possession of a Dangerous Drug and DUI under state bill 2167 which bans the sale and consumption of only 10 chemicals commonly used in spice up till Dec. 24th 2010. I explained that I had just bought the product less than an hour before from a smoke shop in Phoenix and that it is sold and labeled as 100% legal in all 50 states. The arresting officer then proceeded to pull up a news article on his cruiser's lap top that stated Jan Brewer (AZ's Gov.) had signed into affect in February a law banning all spice. The officer called for backup, and the second officer to arrive even told him it has to do with the chemicals involved. The arresting officer then called the county prosecutors office and asked if they wanted to charge me, and they did.

I was arrested and held at Yavapia County jail and had to post bail the next day. My car was impounded. I lost the job up in Kingman I was heading up to start, all progress made in my child custody case, and lost several days of work due to court days. Four days after my arrest, my mug shot and story was all over the internet (google "AZ spice arrest," most have "didn't know it was illegal" in the titles if you'd like to see), making me look terrible to the whole world.

I knew I had done nothing wrong and their test's ended up proving that. All charges against me were dropped.

Now, I am not money hungry/sue happy, but I would also like compensation for all the money I lost over this whole ordeal. Is this a possibility, and what do I need to do now?

 

[tranquility]

Go on about your life.

The police had probable cause to believe you were in possession in violation of the law. That they were wrong is unimportant. What would a reasonable person have thought? There is no way you would get past qualified immunity in this arrest.

 

[busybeaver85308]

Best advice yet. I have been to move past it. These questions are to appease my girlfriend and mother. Your answer backs up what I have been telling them, I really don't have a case. Life sucks sometimes, but the best thing to do is learn from it. Any other input is still welcomed.

 

[busybeaver85308]

So, you wrote the post just to appease your mommy and your girlfriend. You weren't the victim of an injustice as you wanted people to believe.

Are you proud of yourself?

Trolls like you are the reason I tend to shy away from forums. I stated every bit of my case as short and concise as I could, bringing up only parts that I thought would be relevant to an attorney, not a troll. The title to the post is a question. So in short yes I am proud. I was not trying to make myself look like a victim, I was just asking a question. And since you have no answer but to be an ass, take your comments elsewhere. I have called several law offices and none will give me advice for free. So I came here looking for advice for free not to be berated by some forum troll. Freeadvice.com is the name after all.

 

[Dillon]

Go on about your life.

The police had probable cause to believe you were in possession in violation of the law. That they were wrong is unimportant. What would a reasonable person have thought? There is no way you would get past qualified immunity in this arrest.

what kind of possession? constructive or actual ?

---------------

its my understanding, the police didnt have problabe cause to believe a crime was committed by the OP, as nobody complained their legal rights were violated nor were there damages to property.

the prosecution should have known the State lacked standing to bring this issue before a court of record.

---------------

i like, "what would a common man or woman think", instead of "what would a reasonable person think".

(if the common people cant understand a law, its not a law.)

---------------

government officials dont need qualified immunity, but liability insurance, like the rest of us. (we are all equal under the law)

qualified immunity is unreasonable, therefore unnecessary.

---------------

 

[ecmst12]

You need to stop posting misleading, incorrect drivel.

 

[CdwJava]

and how is it even possible to commit a crime against the People (the organic State) , if nobodys legal rights or property were damaged?

i am waiting for your legal response...

-----------------

its my understanding this law may be void for its vagueness.

I don't know what "the organic state" is, but here is what a crime is per the Arizona Revised Statues:

ARS 13-105
7. "Crime" means a misdemeanor or a felony.
25. "Misdemeanor" means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment other than to the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state.
18. "Felony" means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state.​

So, if there is such a penalty associated with the possession of the substance, then it would be a crime. One does not need to prove injury for there to be a crime. That argument is fallacious, wrong, and without legal merit.

Oh, and your "understanding" of the law's vagueness needs some work. It's probably pretty clear - if you possess a substance regulated by law, it is a crime. If you'd care to read the definitions for yourself, go here:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00105.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

 

[busybeaver85308]

You will have to forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference in constructive and actual. If it helps any, the chemicals banned are lumped together with meth in the state bill.

I had three sealed containers and one open. All labeled as not containing the chemicals banned. I also had a glass pipe. Turns out the product I was arrested with (Handy Spice) is actually manufactured and distributed out of Tucson AZ.

 

[Dillon]

I don't know what "the organic state" is, but here is what a crime is per the Arizona Revised Statues:

ARS 13-105
7. "Crime" means a misdemeanor or a felony.
25. "Misdemeanor" means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment other than to the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state.
18. "Felony" means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state.​

So, if there is such a penalty associated with the possession of the substance, then it would be a crime. One does not need to prove injury for there to be a crime. That argument is fallacious, wrong, and without legal merit.

Oh, and your "understanding" of the law's vagueness needs some work. It's probably pretty clear - if you possess a substance regulated by law, it is a crime. If you'd care to read the definitions for yourself, go here:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00105.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

FOR THE STATE TO HAVE LEGAL STANDING IN A COURT OF RECORD

The legal right to initiate an action. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for US CONSTITUTION, Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected rights that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury/damage and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury/damage fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury/damages will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury/damage as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party (plaintiff) (the government) invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each and every one of these elements. Id.

I HOPE THIS HELPS YOU

--------------

 

[ecmst12]

Please don't listen to Dillon. He is not posting anything helpful or correct. He's just making up things that he would LIKE to be true about the law/the state.

 

[LillianX]

What in the world are you talking about Dillon? I don't see any connection between the laws you're citing and CdwJava's post.

 

[Dillon]

possession defined

in Bouvier's law dictionary possession means

POSSESSION, property. The detention or enjoyment of a thing which a man holds or exercises by himself or by another who keeps or exercises it in his name. By the possession of a thing, we always conceive the condition, in which not only one's own dealing with the thing is physically possible, but every other person's dealing with it is capable of being excluded. Thus, the seaman possesses his ship, but not the water in which it moves, although he makes each subserve his purpose.

2. In order to complete a possession two things are required. 1st. That there be an occupancy, apprehension, (q. v.) or taking. 2dly. That the taking be with an intent to possess (animus possidendi), hence persons who have no legal wills, as children and idiots, cannot possess or acquire possession. Poth. h. It.; Etienne, h. t. See Mer. R. 358; Abbott on Shipp. 9, et seq. But an infant of sufficient understanding may lawfully acquire the possession of a thing.

3. Possession is natural or civil; natural, when a man detains a thing corporeal, as by occupying a house, cultivating grounds or retaining a movable in his custody; possession is civil, when a person ceases to reside in the house, or on the land which he occupied, or to detain the movable he possessed, but without intending to abandon the possession. See, as to possession of lands, 2 Bl. Com. 116; Hamm. Parties, 178; 1 McLean's R. 214, 265.

4. Possession is also actual or constructive; actual, when the thing is in the immediate occupancy of the party. 3 Dey. R. 34. Constructive, when a man claims to hold by virtue of some title, without having the actual Occupancy; as, when the owner of a lot of land, regularly laid out, is in possession of any part, he is considered constructively in possession of the whole. 11 Vern. R. 129. What removal of property or loss of possession will be sufficient to constitute larceny, vide 2 Chit. Cr. Law, 919; 19 Jurist, 14; Etienne, h. t. Civ. Code of Louis. 3391, et seq.

5. Possession, in the civil law, is divided into natural and civil. The same division is adopted by the Civil Code of Louisiana.

6. Natural possession is that by which a man detains a thing corporeal, as by occupying a house, cultivating ground, or retaining a movable in his possession. Natural possession is also defined to be the corporeal detention of a thing, which we possess as belonging to us, without any title to that possession, or with a title which is void. Civ. Code of Lo. art. 3391, 3393.

7. Possession is civil, when a person ceases to reside in a house or on the land which he occupied, or to detain the movable which he possessed, but without intending to abandon the possession. It is the detention of a thing, by virtue of a just title, and under the conviction of possessing as owner. Id. art. 3392, 3394.

8. Possession applies properly only to corporeal things, movables and immovables. The possession of incorporeal rights, such as servitudes and other rights of that nature, is only a quasi. possession, and is exercised by a species of possession of which these rights are susceptible. Id. art. 3395.

9. Possession may be enjoyed by the proprietor of the, thing, or by another for him; thus the proprietor of ahouse possesses it by his tenant or farmer.

10. To acquire possession of a property, two things are requisite. 1. The intention of possessing as owner. 2. The corporeal possession of the thing. Id. art. 3399.

11. Possession is lost with or without the consent of the possessor. It is lost with his consent, 1. When he transfers this possession to another with the intention to divest himself of it. 2. When he does some act, which manifests his intention of abandoning possession, as when a man throws into the street furniture or clothes, of which he no longer chooses to make use. Id. art. 3411. A possessor of an estate loses the possession against his consent. 1. When another expels him from it, whether by force in driving him away, or by usurping possession during his absence, aud preventing him from reentering. 2. When the possessor of an estate allows it to be usurped, and held for a year, without, during that time, having done any act of possession, or interfered with the usurper's possession. Id. art. 3412.

12. As to the effects of the purchaser's taking possession, see Sugd. Vend. 8, 9; 3 P. Wms. 193; 1 Ves. Jr. 226; 12 Ves. Jr. 27; 11 Ves. Jr. 464. Vide, generally, 5 Harr. & John. 230, 263; 6 Har. & John. 336; 1 Har. & John. 18; 1 Greenl. R. 109; 2 Har. & McH. 60, 254, 260; 3 Bibb, R. 209 1 Har. & McH., 210; 4 Bibb, R. 412, 6 Cowen, R. 632; 9 Cowen, R. 241; 5 Wheat. R. 116, 124; Cowp. 217; Code Nap. art. 2228; Code of the Two Sicilies, art. 2134; Bavarian Code, B. 2, c. 4, n. 5; Prus. Code, art. 579; Domat, Lois Civ. liv. 3, t, 7, s. 1; Vin. Ab. h. t.; Wolff, Inst. §200, and the note in the French translation; 2 Greenl. Ev. §614, 615; Co. Litt. 57 a; Cro. El. 777; 5 Co. 13; 7 John. 1.

----------------

if me, i would not admit to actual possession of any illegal substance to police or in court, since i am not the legal owner.
with all due respect to the police and the judges. ( l dont actually possess illegal substances of any kind and no one else should either...)

----------------

 

[Dillon]

s

I don't know what "the organic state" is, but here is what a crime is per the Arizona Revised Statues:

ARS 13-105
7. "Crime" means a misdemeanor or a felony.
25. "Misdemeanor" means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment other than to the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state.
18. "Felony" means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state.​

So, if there is such a penalty associated with the possession of the substance, then it would be a crime. One does not need to prove injury for there to be a crime. That argument is fallacious, wrong, and without legal merit.

Oh, and your "understanding" of the law's vagueness needs some work. It's probably pretty clear - if you possess a substance regulated by law, it is a crime. If you'd care to read the definitions for yourself, go here:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00105.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

ARIZONA STATE CONSTITUTION SEC #2

2. Political power; purpose of government

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people (the people are the organic state), and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

-------------------

whose individual legal rights, did this OP violate?

I hope this helps you...

 

[Dillon]

You will have to forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference in constructive and actual. If it helps any, the chemicals banned are lumped together with meth in the state bill.

I had three sealed containers and one open. All labeled as not containing the chemicals banned. I also had a glass pipe. Turns out the product I was arrested with (Handy Spice) is actually manufactured and distributed out of Tucson AZ).

the state of AZ can only license the sale of lawful substances, as you know, that and other reasons is why they dropped the charges...

these officers had a duty/obligation to know this, but failed to understand it.


-----------------

 

[busybeaver85308]

So, what you are saying is that I may have a case? It's my understanding there is a packet I have to fill out and send to the county, and they will tell me if I'm going to be able to take it to court. Is it wise to just do this and see for sure before putting down a retainer on an attorney?