Monday, August 06, 2007

Why Do You Think They Call It Crack part one

State v. Robertson, No. 06-1263 (Iowa Ct. App, July 12, 2007).

Robertson sold drugs to an informant and a subsequent deal was arranged. Robertson was watched as he came out of an apartment complex and entered the informant's car. A stop was initiated. Although the initial search of the vehicle and the other two occupants turned up nothing, a drug dog was called out and gave positive auguries. The informant also stated that the drugs had to be in his vehicle or on Robertson's person. Robertson was arrested.

During a strip search a large quantity of crack cocaine was located in a place that makes you wonder what the hell the people who smoke the stuff thought about the aroma. At this time a key to an apartment in the complex Robertson had been seen leaving was taken and a warrant was obtained. A search of the apartment produced cash, a weapon, cocaine, marijuana, packaging materials, pictures of Robertson, documents in his name and the hood from the jacket he was wearing. Robertson was convicted of numerous charges and sentenced to a mandatory fifty year term for possession with intent while in possession of a firearm.

Robertson filed a motion to suppress evidence which alleged that there was insufficient probable cause to arrest him. The court found that the informant had been a reliable source of information and had bought drugs from Robertson two days previously, and alleged that the drugs that had been contracted for were in his truck or on Robertson's person. Based on this a reasonable and prudent person could believe Robertson had drugs on his person at the time he was arrested.

There are a couple of important points to take from this. First, crackheads have no sense of smell because if they did, they'd never smoke the stuff after knowing how it was transported. Second, a motivated and reliable informant can supply probable cause but it's best to have a track record.


Post a Comment

<< Home