According to Scheb & Scheb 2002) an individual is assumed to have committed an offense of possession of a controlled substance such as marijuana if the individual is knowingly or in an intelligent way possesses a quantity of marijuana that can be used. The police also cannot just search your vehicle, they require a legal reason for them to search the vehicle.
In regards to possession of a controlled substance, the police had no legal reasons to search the car and thus they contravened the right to privacy for Jerry. Jerry did not know the reason for the marijuana being in the vehicle as he had nothing to do with it and he did not know the reasons why the roommate had kept the marijuana in the vehicle. In addition, an individual can have the case dismissed if they plea for a lesser offense such as possession of paraphernalia which is a class C offense.
The crime of driving while under intoxication (DWI), if an individual is convicted in most states in the United States has serious repercussions that include fines, suspension of license, surcharges, testing for drugs and many more repercussions. Proper evaluation of cases that involve driving under the influence of intoxication makes the cases to be complex.
An individual is assumed to have committed the offense of driving while under intoxication if the individual while at the time of arrest was operating the vehicle in a public place such as a road. Jerry was not operating the vehicle at the time of arrest but was resting due to the alcohol he had taken. It is important to indicate to the court that the vehicle was not operating but Jerry kept the engine running as it was cold and he wanted to rest.
An attorney also in the analysis should consider the jurisdiction of the court. It is important for an individual to consider where the arrest took place to determine whether the area falls in the jurisdiction of the court. Additionally, the attorney should argue in regards to the search and the seizure of the marijuana in the vehicle.
The constitution contains serious restraints for law enforcement officers in regard to seizures. Also important is for the state to prove that Jerry was in possession of the marijuana at the time of the arrest. There is a specific definition for the word “possession” in the law, this introduces an issue that is hard to determine and needs a lot of facts to be raised by the state.
As a judge based on the facts presented, I have to consider the information and facts laid down by the state and consider the counterarguments raised by the defense. In regards to possession, the state must proof that Jerry possessed the marijuana at the time of the arrest and this include having the actual care, was in custody, control as well as management of the marijuana. I would permit the plea of possession of a paraphernalia and lower the charge to a less offense.
In regards to driving under the influence of intoxication, I would dismiss the charges as Jerry at the time of arrest was not driving but was resting. I would also consider the aspect of search by the police and whether it was within the legal definitions of a legal search.
References
Scheb, J. M. & Scheb II, J.M. (2002). Criminal law and procedure (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.