home

Distributing Drugs to Create Snitches: Not a Problem in TX

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:02:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a pair of entertaining posts, Grits for Breakfast takes on "judicial activism" at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, deriding a decision that overturned a police officer's conviction for tampering with evidence because the appellate court majority accepted a defense that the jury didn't buy: the officer who returned part of the marijuana he had seized from the arrestee so she could get high wasn't tampering with evidence (despite knowing that he was making the returned evidence unavailable for a criminal prosecution), but was merely trying to "create a snitch."

Really? It's come to this? Cops can distribute illegal dope so they can recruit informants to catch people distributing illegal dope? What, exactly, is the point of that?

And why, exactly, would a police officer believe that he's entitled to distribute an illegal drug with knowledge that the recipient will illegally use it, even if he thinks the distribution might induce the drug user to become a snitch?

< Italia Federici Sentenced to 2.5 Months Halfway House in Abramoff Investigaton | Stupid Citation Dismissed >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Distributing Drugs to Create Snitches: Not a Problem in TX | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It's feeling awfully like... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    a Philip K. Dick novel around here.  Cops slinging drugs, drug users playing cop....

    Cops feeding rats with reefer..is it all that different than feeding rats cash, or reduced sentences?  It's all bribery...

    It's amusing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:03:03 PM EST
      and maybe moreso in that we have a Detective Weed (not the defendant) involved, but the basis for the reversal seems sound. from the decision:

      "A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence if, "knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he . . . alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding." **

    It is not enough that appellant knew that his action would impair the availability of the marihuana as evidence. He must have intended to impair its availability. That is, impairing the marihuana's availability as evidence must have been appellant's conscious objective or desire. The court of appeals erred in analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence for the culpable mental state of knowledge when the statute proscribes the higher culpable mental state of intent.

    Moreover, the evidence appears to be legally insufficient to show that appellant had the conscious objective or desire to impair the availability of the marihuana as evidence. The missing marihuana bud would not have changed the category of the offense, (5) and the remaining marihuana was certainly enough to convict Lavender, if the State was interested in pursuing a prosecution. Indeed, appellant's conduct appears to have been motivated by the belief that Lavender would escape prosecution by becoming an informant, and as a result, the entire quantity of marihuana would be destroyed anyway. That does not mean appellant did nothing wrong. At the very least, he appears to have committed the Class B misdemeanor offense of delivery of marihuana. (6) But that was not the offense he was charged with.

    by intentionally reducing the amount (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    intentionallyof the confiscated pot, he knowingly eliminated it's use as evidence, and knowingly and intentionally falsified official documents. unless, of course, he intended to collect the ashes, after the pot was smoked, and add them back to the evidence bag, to try and make up the missing weight.

    probably not.

    that there was already sufficient weight available, for the original prosecution, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. this officer did not turn in the actual amount that was confiscated, because he took it upon himself to knowingly and intentionally give it to someone else.

    frankly, what that someone else intended to do with it is also irrelevant, for purposes of prosecuting the officer. his actions, and by definition, his intent, were sufficient to find him guilty.

    unless, of course, the appelate court is suggesting that this officer is so intellectually challenged, that he was unable to recognize the absolute result of his knowing and intentional actions? certainly possible.

    do you think we could convince texas to secede again? maybe if we offered them a cash bonus?

    Distributing Drugs to Create Snitches: Not a Problem in TX | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment