Sheriff's Dept. Charges Man With No Drugs With 'Intent To Distribute Counterfeit Controlled Substances'

from the if-you-don't-like-punishment,-don't-not-break-the-rules dept

Live a clean life and the cops should leave you alone, right? RIGHT?!? Harvey Silverglate wasn't being facetious when he wrote "Three Felonies A Day." There are all sorts of laws waiting to be broken, laws that boggle the mind in their insipidity.

As we covered recently, the FBI arrested one of its own handcrafted "terrorists" for "conspiring" to materially aid a terrorist organization. This "conspiring" apparently took the form of the suspect talking about possibly joining a terrorist group and, with undercover agents' urging, traveling to Canada to fill out some sort of terrorist job application. He was arrested at the border, having really done nothing more than talk big and wear the "rube" label really well.

More recently, Techdirt covered Judge Otis Wright's beration of the ATF for setting up stooges to pull off a fake crime -- a conspiracy to rob a "stash house." Of course, the stash house didn't exist, but this didn't stop the government from bringing criminal charges against the "criminals" and seeking sentences based on the entirely fictional contents of the fictional house. The ATF told its stooges that the house contained 20-25 kilos of coke in the house. Judge Wright asked why not just say 10, or 100 or 1,000, as long as the government's just making up numbers? No crime here because said "stash house" simply didn't exist and yet, people were arrested and put on trial.

Here's another case of no criminal activity somehow turning into a crime in the hands of zealous law enforcement officers who apparently couldn't handle not getting the drug bust they were obviously seeking. (via Reason)

Deputies said they stopped Delbert Dewayne Galbreath at NW 10th Street and Interstate 44 for a broken brake light. The deputy said Galbreath admitted he did not have a license to drive. Two deputies asked to search his car and he agreed.

A deputy found a cigarette pouch that had 16 pieces of a rock-like form, which authorities generally associate as crack cocaine. The deputies said they also found a digital scale.

Authorities tested the rocks and said they did not contain cocaine. When they asked Galbreath what the rocks were, he said they were Scentsy.
Galbreath was arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to distribute imitation controlled dangerous substance (CDS), possession of drug paraphernalia, driving under a revoked license and defective equipment.
Read that again: a man was arrested for not possessing drugs. Note the oddly specific denial. The man said they were "Scentsy." This doesn't sound like someone just blurting out the first thing that came to mind when deputies searched his vehicle.

If you're not familiar with Scentsy, it's a direct marketing company that specializes in "wickless candles," which are scented wax cubes that are warmed on its proprietary warmers. (All images taken from Scentsy's catalog unless otherwise noted)

Here's how the process works.


Here's a shot of a couple of Scentsy cubes sitting in a warmer with a vaguely scale-like shape.


Here's some more scale-esque warmers Scentsy offers.


And here's another scale-like warmer that's included in every Scentsy starter kit.


And here's some vaguely crack-colored wax sitting in a Scentsy warmer.


And for comparison's sake, here's a DEA file photo of crack cocaine.


So, this seems like an entirely plausible explanation. The plausibility factor shoots way up when you factor in the negative test results. But rather than investigate whether Galbreath's claims were accurate after the "NOT COCAINE" determination, the deputies ran with their original plan: nail Galbreath for drug dealing. Instead of dealing drugs, Galbreath was trying to sell fake drugs, which is completely indistinguishable from actual criminal activity when you're sitting in a jail cell.

Maybe the Sheriff's Dept. is hoping to sweat out some more info from the jailed "dealer," like who his pissed off customers are or who's further up the chain supplying him with fake drugs and taking a percentage of each sale he makes. (My hunch? A regional director in Oklahoma as well as any number of intermediaries along the direct marketing food chain.)

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time," they say. But they somehow fail to add, "Don't NOT do the crime if you can't do the time," because everyday citizens like you and me might find that statement baffling, horrifying and complete bullshit.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:37am

    You know what's worse? These cops, instead of being severely punished will get a wrist slap and move on. At worst if they are fired they can go to the courts and get back in no time.

    Justice could prove me wrong though. I would gladly bite my tongue if that happens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Groaker, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      No, the cops won't get a slap on the wrist. The standard practice is to give them promotions and/or commendations. This is done so that when the civil case comes to trial, the defense can point to an outstanding record on the part of the cop(s) involved. See what a wonderful cop he was -- he got two promotions and four commendations after this trivial error. Helps to keep jury verdicts low.

      Military frequently does the same thing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:51pm

      Re:

      Excuse me, but why should the cops be arrested? He did have what looked like cocaine, and I doubt they had the means to test it on the spot. Plus he was already driving on a suspended license - they had every right to bring him in. If he's being charged with too much, that's on the DA, not the cops.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Phoenix84 (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re:

        If COPS has any truth, they in fact CAN test for drugs on the spot. So they would know before they arrest him if it's drugs or not.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sure, there are field tests. Conveniently for the cops, all those field tests are prone to lots and lots of false positives. Instant probably cause!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Just like the Officers in K-9 units that will get their drug sniffing dog to bark when they need the dog to alert that there are drugs whether any are there or not.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:09pm

        Re: Re:

        You are so damn right... we don't need Officers of the law to know what the hell is and is not an illegal substance or how to do their jobs by observing the situation! They just need to say your shit looks like drugs and arrest people on the spot then throw them in jail left and fucking right so the DA can sort it out later, while people potentially lose their jobs and experience necessary trouble.

        Brilliant idea assclown! Should save assloads of taxes and help keep those 'real' criminals off the streets right?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:25pm

        Re: Re:

        From the article: "Authorities tested the rocks and said they did not contain cocaine. When they asked Galbreath what the rocks were, he said they were Scentsy."

        I assume that meant they tested it at the scene, but the wording is unclear. However -- if the "rocks" were indeed Scentsy, that means they were scented wax. It doesn't take a lab test to determine if a hunk of something is made of scented wax (and therefore is not cocaine). It takes a scratch and sniff.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 12:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think the point here is that the intent to distribute is a bullshit charge anyway unless they actually observed him trying to pass it off to someone as crack. Even if it had been crack. Simply because he had a quantity in a form that could have been easily distributed doesn't do anything to prove that he intended to do so. People buy lots of things in large quantities that they never intend to resell to anybody else. It's all bullshit.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Derek, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:56pm

        Re: Re:

        Just about all cops have field test kits for cocaine. Which they used, and it tested negative. As the article says.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Urgelt (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:05pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Derek, of course they do. The point of the article is that even when the so-called drugs aren't drugs, they can press charges anyway, if they feel like it. There are enough vague statutes on the books to let them do that.

          So if you stay clean of illegal drugs, you can be snared anyway if the authorities decide they want you to take a fall.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Ninja (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 4:20am

        Re: Re:

        I never said they should be arrested. I said severely punished. It's no small thing to keep a person in jail for unjustified reasons. The guy could have lost his job and have his life jeopardized. So the punishment should fit the transgression committed by the cops.

        But maybe they should. Maybe they should face jail time for the same length they kept the guy locked for no reason.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        BuzBee, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re:

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:45am

    Tisk tisk...

    He committed the worst crime of all, making a cop look stupid and/or exposing a cop's stupidity, no wonder they threw him in a cell.

    Had the cops been wearing their big-boy pants, and the maturity to match, as soon as the test results came back negative they would have dropped the drug related charges altogether, but apparently admitting to being wrong is just too hard for some people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 12:40pm

      Re: Tisk tisk...

      Had the cops been wearing their big-boy pants, and the maturity to match, as soon as the test results came back negative they would have dropped the drug related charges altogether, but apparently admitting to being wrong is just too hard for some people.

      It's even more strange since they could still get him for driving on a revoked license (unsafe equipment sounds like more police-need-something-to-arrest-you-for bullshit). They could have dropped the drug stuff and still put him in jail anyway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:22pm

    So to make sense of it we all need to know what is the definition of an "imitation controlled dangerous substance" in OK? I can see why it could be a crime (eg sell 2kg of coke, but 1kg is fake, want to nail dealer for intent to supply on 2kg one way or another).

    Plus, I couldn't see it in the linked articles, but did they actually try warming one of these 'rocks' to see if it was a Scentsy? Did they do a chemical analysis, or does the defense have to put up the $$ for that? Was it waxy, like a Scentsy is supposed to be (never heard of them before this article) ? Need more info.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:47pm

      Re:

      The authorities tested the rock. They had to - the burden of proof is on them, after all. They can't just say "he had some rocks" and assume they are or are not cocaine when trial time comes around. But, hmm... you're right, the articles said tests found the substance was "not cocaine" but didn't say that they WERE Scentsy. If they weren't, that changes the whole case. And did the digital scale count as the "paraphernalia" or did they find something else? If he really only had Scentsy and a digital scale - or worse, Scentsy and a Scentsy warmer, but the police couldn't be THAT dumb, right? - then they should let him go.

      The shakiest part here is the "intent to distribute" when they only found one cigarette pouch worth of them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 12:10pm

        Re: Re:

        Who cares what it was. If it wasn't a controlled substance it doesn't matter. All they need to know is it isn't an illegal substance that he was in possession of. Unless they actually saw him attempt to sell it as crack, then the possession with intent to sell charge is bullshit speculation. It's even bullshit speculation that he intended to sell it even if it HAD been crack, if they didn't see him try to sell it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DCL, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      I guess I should stop carrying around bags of oregano for my pizza.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 12:16pm

        Re: Re:

        Actually that is EXACTLY what people should do. It would be nice to see someone set up a case for that sort of thing to challenge these sorts of laws by properly documenting their intended purpose and methods beforehand, then putting themselves in a place to encounter a police officer who would find the "stash" of non-illegal material simply as a matter of making a legal case to challenge these sorts of statutes in court.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2014 @ 10:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          putting themselves in a place to encounter a police officer who would find the "stash" of non-illegal material


          Then they arrest you for obstruction of justice, because you made them find fake evidence.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dave, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:30pm

    Meh

    The arrest strikes me as legitimate. There's no argument that the man was driving on a suspended license.

    The drug charges are worrisome, but drug dealers do distribute "drugs" that are in fact poisonous substances if some rube ingests them, so I'm not surprised that "possession with intent to distribute imitation controlled dangerous substance (CDS)" is an offense. (Is that a good idea? Different question, and it probably is open to abuse.)

    If the substance actually is Scentsy and the man's still prosecuted for it, the DA is an asshole, no question. But the cops already had him on an arrestable offense, so adding the potential drug charge when it actually might be legit (even if that's unlikely) doesn't strike me as an abuse of power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:40pm

      Re: Meh

      -so adding the potential drug charge when it actually might be legit-

      IT'S A CHUNK OF FREAKIN' WAX.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:46pm

      Re: Meh

      I'm guessing that under your analysis one should be careful taking their freshly picked, dried and chopped oregano and basil over to their friends house, as they might be pulled over and arrested for intent to distribute imitation controlled dangerous substance's (CDS). Oh, and that digital scale you use for baking? Expect that to be considered drug paraphernalia when they search your house for more evidence.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Re: Meh

        "Oh, and that digital scale you use for baking? Expect that to be considered drug paraphernalia when they search your house for more evidence."

        This is a real concern. Although it's common in Europe (and most of the world, I assume) to measure certain ingredients such as flour by weight rather than volume, it's so rare in the US that my wife and friends tease me over the fact that I do so. I also occasionally take my scale to friends houses when I'm baking over there.

        I could easily see a cop assuming that my scale (which has a resolution of .1 grams) is intended for drugs.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 2:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Meh

          That is the right way to do it. Baking is more of a science than an art, in that your creation requires specific relationships of ingredients to achieve your artistic result. Flour, for example, can be packed or loose or sifted or not, making volume measurements inadequate. Professional bakers use scales, a lot, as they are much more accurate than measuring cups, and some recipes require that accuracy, as does repetition.

          Interesting note, sugar is considered a wet ingredient when toting up the balance of wet and dry ingredients, because it dissolves, whereas true dry ingredients absorb. But it gets weighed rather than measured as other wet ingredients do. In some commercial recipes I have read (and used) everything is by weight, even milk and water.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 4:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

            Yes, exactly. I am an excellent (although amateur) baker, but I didn't reach that level of ability until I realized that some things (pretty much anything that's a powder) really have to be measured by weight. Baking is more directly an exercise in chemistry than cooking is, and those measurements have to be pretty exact.

            Flour is the worst -- the amount of flour in a given volume can vary by a mind-boggling amount, and the US workarounds (sifting, stirring, etc.) don't go anywhere near close enough to resolving the problem. Sugar can vary quite a lot at well.

            I do tend to measure things used in smaller amounts with measuring spoons -- if I just need .5 teaspoons of something, the difference between weight and volume tend not to be enough to make any real difference. However, I do have some recipes where high accuracy in even these small amounts is critical, and I weigh for them.

            But all this is well and truly off-topic, and probably only interesting to the two of us.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 5:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

              The best pastry chef I ever met used neither weight or volume measures, but knew exactly what the consistency and feel of the dough should be. He would just through some ingredients together by eye, and adjust as he mixed. His pastries came out perfect every time.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 5:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

                This is true, when working with some doughs. Depending on the humidity, doughs can vary greatly, and the only way to tell is by feel. Of course, knowing what that feel is, and how to amend it is the trick, and that comes from training and experience.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                David, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 2:10am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

                Well, that's how it usually goes. You measure the liquid and stuff likes eggs (not per-piece, but rather by volume) and weigh some other substances. But flour is usually fine-tuned by the feeling of the dough.

                In industrial settings, everything goes by weight, but that requires determining the water content of each batch of flour in the lab in advance. I kid you not.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 8:45am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

                "but knew exactly what the consistency and feel of the dough should be"

                Yes, I've been baking bread three times a week for over a decade now, and can do this by feel just as you describe. Other things, though, I need to measure for.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 5:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

              "But all this is well and truly off-topic, and probably only interesting to the two of us."

              This may very well be true. Ha, a Techdirt cooking class, who wudda thought?

              A suggestion. Try a .01 capable scale. You may find the difference astonishing for very small amounts. Think spices. I had one salesman put a crumpled dollar bill on the .1 scale to show it off. I had him put the same dollar bill on the .01 scale, he was amazed.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 8:56am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

                You are correct. I was actually simplifying so I didn't seem to be as much of a scale freak as I am. I own three scales in three different, err, scales. I have one that weighs up to five pounds at a time with a resolution of an eighth of a pound, one that weighs up to a kilo with a resolution of .1 grams, and one that weighs up to 10 grams with a resolution of .01 grams.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 8:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

              But all this is well and truly off-topic, and probably only interesting to the two of us.

              I don't know. I found it very fascinating and I'm the one who wrote the post currently not being discussed.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 10:10am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

                "the post currently not being discussed"

                Um, er, sorry Tim. I started out trying to lay a foundation...yeah, that's it, a foundation for legitimate uses of scales. After all, you can't ice the cake until you bake it.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                nasch (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 12:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

                I found it both interesting and very nerdy, which you don't get a lot when discussing cooking (using a broad definition of the term to include baking, flame away).

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Rose M. Welch (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 5:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

            Weight is for large batches. Measuring cups are for smaller commercial batches. Including flour, which we just handle a little differently with the same measuring cups. I'm currently a baker in a bakery.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Mr. Applegate, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 3:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

              Certainly measuring by weight is more critical in larger batches. When baking however, measuring by weight will always provide a superior result. Measuring by volume is for speed and convenience, not accuracy.

              I imagine this is true even in a bakery where the amount of time required to measure the ingredients is of great interest to management as it has an impact on their profit margins. Just because you have been told to measure by volume for small batches doesn't mean it is the 'best way', it means it is the most efficient (from a profit prospective) way.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 4:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Meh

          Great now I can't buy a kitchen scale or pressure cooker without looking suspect...

          Here is an Alton Brown video to refer to when selecting your scale. I do like the home verification test he did. It is probably something to refer the arresting officer to.

          http://www.foodnetwork.com/videos/altons-kitchen-tools-scales-0186745.html

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:50pm

      Re: Meh

      so adding the potential drug charge when it actually might be legit
      The cops are trying to add potential charges so he will cop a plea and serve the time in jail that they think he should.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Man from U.N.C.L.E, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:53pm

      Re: Meh

      Dave is the most retarded person on the internet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bergman (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:16pm

      Re: Meh

      So you'd be okay going to prison yourself for possessing quantities of a lookalike substance that suggest you might at some point distribute them?

      Flour, sugar, talcum powder and salt all look like cocaine. Most spices you'd add when making spaghetti or pizza resemble marijuana at least a little. And that ignores real chemicals that people get high on, that most people have in their house -- cleaning supplies, for example.

      Even the gasoline in your car could be used (by huffing the fumes) to get high. It could also be used as an accelerant in an act of arson or terrorism.

      Perhaps you should turn yourself in? You're obviously guilty of something, with all that stuff in your possession.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mr. Applegate, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 4:18am

      Re: Meh

      One can only hope that you are one day faced with a similarly absurd situation and end up in jail on 'trumped up' charges (which is exactly what these were).

      At least where I live, you don't go to jail for driving on a suspended license. You are issued a citation, your car is towed and you pay a fine. Bottom line is the cop(s) had a hard on for this guy and they screwed him.

      I had a situation years ago where I was pulled over in my own driveway and issued a citation for speeding (52 in a 30, more than 20 over was reckless driving). I challenged the officer because I had lived in the same place for more than 20 years and knew that the speed limit was not posted (in my state that makes the speed limit 50). I told the officer he was making a mistake and that I would be glad to show him where the 'Begin 30' sign was a couple of miles up the road on the way into town. He very nastily told me I was wrong and wrote me up anyway.

      I went in my house, ate lunch, grabbed my camera and took pictures of the road all the way to town. I then got a map of the area and marked the location of the 'Begin 30' sign and took that along with the photos to the prosecutor. I explained what had happened and that there was no way I was going, more than 1 - 2 MPH over the speed limit. I further told him I was not paying this citation and would be taking it to court. He reviewed my evidence, shook his head and said he would take care of it (the citation never made it to the BMV). About 2 or 3 months later that officer was pulled off the streets, I was not the first or last person to report the abusive nature of this officer.

      The point of the story is cops do 'go to far' and think they have to win at all costs. The problem is, in a lot of areas, this is actually encouraged. There are a lot of Barney Fifes in this world, but not a lot of Andy Taylors. We need more Andy Taylors to be police officers and a lot less Barney Fifes.

      As another short story when I was 16 I was out screwing around when an off duty officer I knew well, in fact was friends with, stopped me and started reading me the riot act for chirping my tires in a local stores parking lot. I had friends with me and told him "Your off duty and you can't touch me", I then sped off. My friends were impressed...

      The next day I was driving to school and got pulled over 2 MPH over the speed limit. Later that same day driving home from work, I got pulled over "Rolling Stop". The next day I got pulled over again "Unsafe Start". These were all by different officers working for different departments. I quickly figured out that I could no longer drive my Jeep, not because I was driving poorly (I wasn't) but because it had been flagged by my 'friend' the cop. I saw him a few weeks later and he said something like "Do you think I can touch you now?" Message received, and understood.

      For those playing at home, at least in my state, Police officers now always have arrest powers, regardless of if they are on or off duty. I wouldn't try this today (even if I was 16 again).

      Here is hoping you run into a Barney Fife and get hauled into jail inappropriately. When that happens we will watch you sing a very different tune.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re: Meh

        I saw him a few weeks later and he said something like "Do you think I can touch you now?"

        What an asshole. I figure lots of cops would do that to someone they don't like, but to a friend? Or should I say former friend? Wow.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Mr. Applegate, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 6:03pm

          Re: Re: Re: Meh

          Well I was an asshole to him too, and did disrespect him in front of my friends. I don't really blame him, he was teaching me a life lesson. This was also before computerized records... so it isn't like my insurance rates went through the roof or anything.

          That same act today would have had a lot more detrimental effect on me.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), Apr 1st, 2014 @ 6:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

            I don't really blame him, he was teaching me a life lesson.

            Kind of sad that the lesson is that any police officer can make your life hell for personal reasons and without any repercussions.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Mr. Applegate, Apr 2nd, 2014 @ 2:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh

              Like I said it was a different time. The effect was not as long lasting, or detrimental as it would be today.

              I think the message was more about disrespect can go both ways than "I can make your life hell for personal reasons and without any repercussions".

              As the old song goes "If your going to play the game boy, you better learn to play it right"

              He was a good guy overall and while our friendship waned after that I never thought of him as a bad guy or anything. There wasn't an on-going vendetta or anything. Sadly his life was taken early in the line of duty.

              Now the cop from the first story was definitely an ass.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    David, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:30pm

    Uh oh.

    Plus, I couldn't see it in the linked articles, but did they actually try warming one of these 'rocks' to see if it was a Scentsy?

    More likely one of the cops tried smoking it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bt Garner (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:45pm

    Scentscy should come to this guy's aid and turn this into a freaking genius PR campaign.

    "Scentscy: So good it should be illegal."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:05pm

      Re:

      Cop: Whats this?
      Dude: Scentscy
      Cop: Ecstasy! Dude your going down!

      Later back at the precinct....
      Sargent: Um, this is just some wax
      Cop: What? guy said it was Ecstasy!
      Sargent: Better get your hearing checked, its Scentscy, I know cause my wife has been spending a fortune on this crap.
      Cop: Ok, I'll change the charges to distributing imitation drugs!
      Sargent: Great! Need to keep those drug bust numbers up for the Mayors upcoming election!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:53pm

    Hope those cops never visit my house, too much technical stuff going on for them to comprehend....

    Constructing an ultralight airplane (airplanes, terrorist!) and I use a small digital scale to measure part A and B of epoxy accurately. (airplanes, scales, terrorist AND drug trafficker!) and lots of zip lock baggies to organize various nuts and bolts used on the airplane. (Intent to distribute!)

    But when they see the box for my airplane's ballistic parachute (safety device) that has a giant orange sticker stating "Explosives" (rocket fuel to launch the parachute) I am assured to be taken down fast and my neighbourhood evacuated for three months.

    The various arduinos, circuit boards, chips, wires and other electronic crap will surely be taken for evidence labelled 'bomb making supplies'

    I'll let you know if the NSA shows up at my house for post#!#$FW#f2!#$ --Carrier Lost

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mcinsand, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:10pm

    paraphernalia?

    Pipes and bongs make sense as paraphernalia, but we've let this definition get way too broad. Maybe, back when digital scales cost $1000, they could have been probable cause... under the right circumstances. Today, though, anyone can afford a small, accurate digital scale for any purpose for $20-30. At this pricepoint, an item can even become a whim purchase, rather than an investment in making sure that high value transactions are accurate.

    I have one of those scales. It's about the size of a deck of cards, cost about $25, and I have been very happy with its accuracy and precision (if you don't know the difference... nevermind, different topic). They don't go in the car, though. Yes, drug users and dealers use scales, but so do people weighing packages for postage.

    They've never been used for anything remotely questionable, but today's anything-goes culture of reasons to suspend the fourth amendment scare me. Along the same lines, I'm into electronics, but I'm also careful to keep test leads out of the car. At one point in time, having alligator clips visible counted as probable cause.

    I hope this guy's case gets thrown out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Paul Reid, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:33pm

      Re: paraphernalia?

      My wife was a mystery shopper and was required to carry a digital scale around in the car to weigh purchases.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 4:30am

      Re: paraphernalia?

      You can get a free digital scale included with a stamps.com account. I guess that means the post office is affiliated with a large drug paraphernalia ring.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:41pm

    If you have done nothing wrong, you have more to fear

    I bet Delbert had no idea what crack cocaine looks like.

    If he were a drug trafficker, he'd know that his scented wax looked like a drug, and would know that he should either hide it, or make it obvious what it was (like keeping it on its original packaging). He'd know having a small digital scale can be considered suspicious.

    Since he weren't a drug trafficker, he probably thought white wax stones were something perfectly innocent, and thought nothing of carrying a digital scale (or something which looked like it).

    He was more at risk because of his lack of knowledge. He lacked the knowledge because he wasn't a criminal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:41pm

    He ended up in jail for violating rule number 1 of how to interact with police officers. Whenever an officer asks you for permission to search your vehicle, you answer "no officer, i'm asserting my 4th amendment rights, am i free to go". this is usually followed shortly by "i'm asserting my 5th amendment rights, am i free to go" If they really don't want to do the paperwork (which they could have done when they seized his car), atleast make them offer clearly, not imply, that in exchange for the search, they won't give you a ticket.
    See this video for a complete set of guidelines for how to deal with the police. Always be polite, and clear.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

    Finally, if you are arrested: SHUT THE HELL UP until you have a lawyer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:51pm

      Re:

      "atleast make them offer clearly, not imply, that in exchange for the search, they won't give you a ticket."

      And then be sure that you still refuse to consent to a search.

      Rule #1: Don't talk to the police to any degree greater than you are legally obligated to.

      Rule #2: Never give the police consent to anything whatsoever.

      Rule #3: Be polite and, if possible, friendly and charming.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        David, Mar 28th, 2014 @ 8:06am

        Re: Re:

        And don't forget your "Allahu Hoover" if you want to avoid getting shot on the spot.

        There is not really much of a difference between how you should behave in the presence of police force and in the presence of terrorists in the U.S.A.

        Except that terrorists can't rescind your citizens' rights and put you in the slammer by inventing bullshit stories.

        And that you are less likely to encounter one of them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 2:44pm

    Don't get caught with this stuff kids. You'll go to jail.


    (It's frankincense)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Feldie47 (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 3:13pm

    What's missing here? A lawyer taking a wrongful arrest case? Can it be that no enterprising legal eagle sees a totally winnable case here? I'm a bit confused.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 3:40pm

      Re: 'enterprising legal eagle'

      It's Oklahoma. Tough gig in some towns. That said, one might wonder how well known the suspect was to the local po-leese.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 4:01pm

    That is not Scentsy even by the wildest of imaginations and that makes him guilty of lying at the very least and trying to cover something. I have four Scentsy burners going at this time and the burn all day long everyday without exception, I know Scentsy and that is not even remarkably close. Scentsy is nothing other than scented soft melt wax. It does not crumble in the manner this has, it is also smooth to the texture rather than gritty and it certainly does not come in odd looking crack rock likeness. What this is I don't know, it is obviously not crack as it was tested but neither is it Scentsy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 6:22pm

    Before I forget...

    Just had to get this out, but how is 'Intent to distribute counterfeit controlled substances' even a charge?

    The substance/item itself is completely legal, for the simple fact that it's not the real thing, so how, exactly, is 'intending to distribute' a perfectly legal anything considered a crime?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Eponymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 7:15pm

      Re: Before I forget...

      It applies if you try to sell me imposter drugs and I'm an undercover officer... here, on the other hand, it doesn't since the defendant didn't demonstrate any intent (it's conjecture on the part of the arresting officer). If it did though that would mean anything on your person, when searched by police, that looks remotely drug-like could therefore be "intent to sell" and used against you, which is an insanely low bar to be arrested over.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That One Guy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:39pm

        Re: Re: Before I forget...

        I guess I didn't eat enough wall candy as a kid or something for 'logic' like that to make sense.

        If selling fake drugs is a crime equal, even partially, to selling the real thing, then what's illegal isn't the substance itself, but rather the idea of it, where simply giving something a different name from what it actually is changes what it is in the eyes of the law.

        Who'd of guessed it, alchemy is alive and well in the legal system, and all it takes is words to change one substance into another.

        Personally, far as I see it, if someone's out there selling fake 'drugs'(as long as it's not a harmful substance), then good. They get easy money, the buyer gets some harmless stuff, and nothing dangerous actually changed hands, so I'd say that would be a win situation all around(though the buyer would likely disagree).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: Before I forget...

          It should be illegal. Whether it needs its own separate crime is something I'd have to think about.

          If you're selling someone fake drugs, you're guilty of fraud, and I don't think just because the targets are drug users that that makes it OK. If the "drugs" are harmless, then that's less serious than selling them drugs, but I don't think that should be legal. You're also almost certainly not paying sales tax or income tax on the sales or revenue generated.

          But you seem to assume that a random substance that looks like drugs is usually going to be harmless. I'm not convinced that's the case. When you sell fake drugs, whatever you sell them is likely going to be snorted, smoked, ingested, or injected. This can cause a normally "harmless" substance - like candles - to do harm.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            That One Guy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Before I forget...

            So treat it as fraud then, not anything drug related.

            Doing so would have a two-fold benefit of both being more accurate, and, since it would no longer be a drug related charge, likely be treated as far less of a crime, with a decreased penalty to match.

            Basically, if the substance involved isn't a drug/'controlled substance', the charges involving it should in no way be based upon, or related to, charges dealing with actual drugs.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Eponymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 7:15pm

      Re: Before I forget...

      It applies if you try to sell me imposter drugs and I'm an undercover officer... here, on the other hand, it doesn't since the defendant didn't demonstrate any intent (it's conjecture on the part of the arresting officer). If it did though that would mean anything on your person, when searched by police, that looks remotely drug-like could therefore be "intent to sell" and used against you, which is an insanely low bar to be arrested over.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 7:32pm

    The Anti-Sherlock approach.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:44pm

    Zero SELF-Incrimination Policy

    "On advice of counsel, I do not answer questions, and I do not consent to searches." Practice saying it until it rolls trippingly from the tongue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Urgelt (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:45pm

    Imitation Drugs

    In an authoritarian state, the law is whatever the authorities say it is. This is aided by the existence on the books of laws so vague, they can mean anything.

    If the authorities decide they want you, they'll get you. Trumping up charges is easy.

    Many of us have substances in our homes which *could* be mistaken for illegal drugs. I certainly do. I've got an eight-ounce package of a fine, white, odorless powder secured in an ammo can (to protect it from stray bugs). I use a tiny amount in my tea several times every day. What is it?

    Stevia extract powder. Not a controlled substance. It's a natural, no-calorie, non-toxic sweetener.

    But it *looks* like a controlled substance. So any time the authorities decide to put me away for fifteen years, they can do it.

    Intent to distribute? Check. A few years ago I gave my neighbor a package of it.

    The authorities aren't currently after me. But if they decide I'm a nuisance, they'll have no difficulty finding something to charge me with. If not fake drug dealing, something else. They can make up any charge. Vague statutes will back them up.

    Welcome to America.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 7:40am

      Re: Imitation Drugs

      Welcome to Canada.

      If you are a gardener, you have bomb making material.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        G Thompson (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 9:05pm

        Re: Re: Imitation Drugs

        Luckily I'm not a gardener and all I have in the back shed is some chlorine for the pool and brake fluid for the car.


        oh wait...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        David, Mar 28th, 2014 @ 8:19am

        Re: Re: Imitation Drugs

        As a gardener, you have a lot of access to poisonous stuff as well.

        A castor bean bush will provide you with the raw material for producing Ricin. Taking a look at the Wikipedia article is information enough to give you a good clue how to extract it using just material from an average kitchen cupboard (no need to visit a drugstore).

        There is no protection from terrorism except sanity and education.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    My Name Here, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 6:06am

    the law

    This story shows a very clear misunderstanding of the law, and what the term "intent" means.

    If you are planning to kill someone, but some smart ass gives you a fake fun (say one with a *bang* flag in it) and you use it to try to kill someone, you had intent. It doesn't matter if the underlying crime could not happen for technical reasons, the intent was there.

    With drugs, it's the same thing. You don't actually have to have real drugs in your possession to be arrested for intent to traffic or intent to distribute, because the intent is still there. The FBI setting up a sting like this isn't worrisome, because the guys still had the willingness an intent to commit the crime, they were trying to obtain drugs to redistribute for money.

    It's why "intent to distribute narcotics" is a different crime than "distributing narcotics". The latter is the actual act, the former is what you were planning, taking steps to do, or actually though you were doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 7:21am

      Re: the law

      Yes, but "non-intent to not sell non-fake non-narcotics"?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 7:49am

      Re: the law

      "The FBI setting up a sting like this isn't worrisome, because the guys still had the willingness an intent to commit the crime, they were trying to obtain drugs to redistribute for money."

      Wrong story. Link for that one is at top of page. Forth or fifth link into post.

      This guy was stopped for a broken taillight.
      "Deputies said they stopped Delbert Dewayne Galbreath at NW 10th Street and Interstate 44 for a broken brake light."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 9:16pm

      Re: the law

      Intent is the mens rea of the action yes but it still requires the actus reus for a crime to have either occurred or for a REASONABLE person to believe that a crime is IMMINENTLY about to occur (and even then it is fraught with problems)

      Though possession does come into your (USA) criminal laws (nowhere else in the common law world though) as a voluntary act so meets the actus element in some instances. Though only as a possession charge NOT as anything else.

      Though in the above instance INTENT has to be proved and that's going to be hard especially if it was a non common obvious substance (ie: wax) they are trying to prove was being passed off as an illegal substance like crack cocaine.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MrColdWaterOfRealityMan (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 8:34am

    The drug laws are having their intended effect

    They are providing a flimsy excuse to bust anyone at any time for anything. Evidence can now literally can be in the eye of the beholder, and not exist in any objective sense at all. Evidence no longer needs to be planted. All you need is the opinion of a cop who may, or may not, have finished college.

    In states where the civil confiscation laws are sufficiently draconian, charges don't even need to be filed, allowing the confiscation of one's car and any money you happened to be carrying during the non-bust.

    When a civilian does this, it's called fraud, or theft. When a cop does it, he either goes back to work, or gets a promotion to protect himself from prosecution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    limbodog (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 8:57am

    So the "intent to sell" was based entirely off the fact that he possessed the items, and the items themselves were not illegal.

    It is now, apparently, illegal to own legal items because that is intent to sell fake illegal things.

    Example: If I have an iPhone, I am guilty of an attempt to sell fake counterfeit iPhones. Not *real* counterfeit ones, no.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ruki, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 11:28am

    It only takes two people talking about something to constitute a conspiracy. No actual action has to take place.

    Selling fake drugs is fraud and in the eyes of the law pretending that you're selling real drugs is as good as the real thing.

    How it all holds up in court is up to the judge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 9:20pm

      Re:

      Yes but if one of the persons (the cop) is only dumb enough to think the fake product is drugs (even after testing it) and the other person in the conspiracy is actually stating that it is NOT drugs the two person test for conspiracy fails.

      Though the one person test for "is this LEO a complete moron in a hurry" absolutely checks all the boxes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Mar 28th, 2014 @ 8:39am

        Re: Re:

        "if one of the persons (the cop) is only dumb enough to think the fake product is drugs"

        I seriously doubt the cop actually thought it was drugs. I suspect that they were just looking for something they could pin on him. Maybe the cops had a stick up their ass, maybe the guy was rude, maybe he was a known person of ill repute, whatever. This looks like an attempted railroading to me.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jimbo, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 8:45pm

    Fake legal system

    Is it vigilante time yet? Just asking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 28th, 2014 @ 5:27am

    I figured out the problem.

    Buddy said "scentsy" the cops heard "sensi" as in sensimilia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John85851 (profile), Mar 28th, 2014 @ 1:52pm

    Two quick points:

    First- how is anyone supposed to avoid getting into trouble when police can charge you with "suspicion of intent to posses and distribute". How do you even fight a charge of "suspicion" or "intent to possess"?

    Second- can anyone get in trouble for having a digital scale? My wife makes cookies and the digital scale is great for converting ounces to grams.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kerron Brown, Jul 18th, 2014 @ 9:34pm

    Almighty.....COP

    On jan19,2014... The bouglasville ga police department was called to my former home for a domestic dispute between 2 woman.. They had a comando type of knife slashing at and punching each other...when the racist police officers got there they fucosed all of there attention on me the only black man they could leagaly question and they asked to search me not wanting them to beat me or hurt me I agreed knowing I was not in possession of any illegal items.....However I was incarcerated for possession of 72 grams of meth and 29 grams of extacy " the feild test was poss...3 months later I was released the GBI lab said it was vitamins. B12 and niacin lost my house my job and my kids. THATS THE KIND OF RECEPTION A NAVY WAR VET GETS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.