Cleve Blunt: Case Study

Use of a controlled substance by a caregiver that impairs the caregiver’s ability to adequately care for the child.

In Benters a reliable source told Detective J. Hastings there was an indoor marijuana growing operation at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North Carolina, and Glenn Benters owned the property but was not living there. Benters at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596 (2014). Hastings obtained a subpoena to look at the utility use for the property and discovered that it was indicative of a marijuana growing operation. Id. Hastings and Officer Joseph Ferguson traveled to Benters’ property and saw tools used for marijuana growing outside the premises. Id. After that observation, they conducted a knock and talk on the back door. Id. at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596-597 (2014). After no answer, Ferguson walked to a building where music was playing and smelled

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

The police found a bag of marijuana, a grinder, and a joint. Both Dedwin Shelling and Chester George were detained and read their Miranda rights. Mr. George was charged with possession of marijuana 2nd offense, as well as possession of drug paraphernalia.

Facts: In a New Jersey high school, two freshman girls were caught smoking in a bathroom. When taken to the Assistant Vice Principal, the first student admitted to smoking while the second, designated T.L.O due to her age, denied smoking in a restricted area. The VP proceeded to take student into his private office and searched her purse and discovered a pack of cigarettes. However, as he was searching, he also identified a stack of rolling papers, which led to a more thorough search of the purse which produced a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money, as wells an index card with names of various people who owed T.L.O money. This evidence implicated that the student was dealing, and T.L.O admitted to selling marijuana. The authorities were called and T.L.O was arrested.

Facts: At a New Jersey High School, a fourteen year old girl and her companions was caught in the bathroom smoking cigarettes by a teacher. The girls were taking to the Principal’s office. In response to the Vice Principal’s questioning, the girls denied that they had been smoking. Upon demanding to see the girl’s purse, he found a pack of cigarettes and then noticed a rolling paper associated with marijuana. After a thorough search, the Vice Principal found some marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, and other items associated with drug dealing. Delinquent proceedings were

United States, 784 F.3d 1213 (2015), Dorian Ragland was previously convicted and sentenced for distribution of heroin resulting in death in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (prohibiting distribution of controlled substances), and (b)(1)(C) (if death or serious bodily injury results from use of substance, defendant shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years or more than life). This was decided prior to the clarification of the language “results from” in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2010). In Ragland v. United States, 756 F.3d 597 (2014), the case was remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of Burrage v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 881, 187 L.Ed.2d 715

On the day of October 21, 2015 the accused, Johnny Joshua Uy was nearing the end of his trial. Mr. Uy's case was presided over by Madam Justice Power and was tried on the Supreme Court Criminal level; Mr. Uy also elected to be tried by judge and jury. Mr. Uy was charged with three serious indictable offences. The charges laid against the accused was importing/exporting a controlled substance, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance. All three charges can be found under the Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The first charge importing/exporting a controlled substance can be found under section 6(1) of the act. Section 6(1) states: “Except as authorized under the regulations, no person

1. Manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance. This charge is leveled against defendants suspected of having a role in the production and/or delivery of a drug. Drugs that are commonly manufactured for delivery include methamphetamine, crack cocaine and

Conclusion: In : Eckhart v. Com., Com v. Ahart, and U.S. v. Abdulle all of the defendants were found guilty due to “evidence in addition to the drugs themselves which was susceptible of an inference of the intent to distribute and which was inconsistent with the notion of personal use.” In this case, there is evidence that there may have been intent to distribute. The fact that the small amount of marijuana was in a large baggie coincides with the possibility that there may have been more marijuana and the large amount of money also points to the possible truth of that claim. Com. v. Ahart, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 413 (2005). This case is strong due to other evidence that was found. However, there is the counter argument that there was a small amount and a pipe, thus, it may show that it was only for personal

Elliott Watson was arrested for the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute said illegal drug. Elliott Watson was stopped by Officer Timothy Johnson because of faulty mechanical problems of Elliot Watson’s vehicle, which was sputtering and stalling out, and the vehicle also fit the description of a vehicle, a sports coupe, that had earlier, was used to kidnap a three year old young girl, Wanda Jones,

adheres to a strict policy and administers jail time to anyone caught in possession of the

Laws that prohibit the possession and use of street drugs are important as their aim is to protect the user, those around them, and society in general from undue harm. There has been a great push during the last 10 years to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs such as cocaine and heroin on the basis that the recreational user, and even the hard-core addict, may not be causing significant harm to anyone, beyond their own personal health. In this sense, drug use is viewed as a personal choice and drug laws trample on personal freedoms without sufficient reason. Additionally, minorities are found to be arrested and convicted of drug crimes at disproportionate rates when compared to the demographics of those who use illegal drugs, which some see these type of laws as a tool of legal oppression, instead of a valid punitive function. Still, there remains sufficient reasons to maintain laws against the possession and use of controlled substances, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin; though there is a compelling argument for the lessening of the amount punishment of the majority of users that are caught with small amounts of street drugs. This paper seeks to put forward valid reasons for the continued prohibition of drugs, while also making a case for the softening of incarceration policies.