Busted Letter #109 – In Need of Advice
Fri, Mar 23, 2007 3:39 pm
They then proceeded to enter my house to make sure it was clear and found in my basement my one un-flowered plant and four recently rooted clippings. I have never sold or entertained the idea of selling my personal use weed.
I had to admit ownership so as to protect my wife from prosecution, and was charged with possession, cultivation, and intent to sell. The police were actually very respectful towards me and my property and I was equally respectful towards them.
I am 25 years old and my record is spotless but I really don't know what to expect. I never even smoke out of my basement, and my plant was in a closed off and latched room.
My first appearance in court is on Friday. Does anyone know of any other cases that are similar to mine? A very small amount of grown plants but the same charges as bigger growers? I'm just trying to gain perspective on what might happen at my court date.
I have heard only horror stories about public defenders but I’m not sure if I will be able to afford my own lawyer. I’m quite desperate for help so, if anyone can, please comment with advice.
Thanks.










» add a comment
Lemonhead
May 21 2009, 11:05 am
I believe that after 9/11 there were laws/acts/policies put in place that effectively allow entry into homes without a search warrant. So, if the house itself was unlocked, they could legally go in, and because of the circumstances (said alarm, access to a locked room would not be out of the question since "lookingf for break-in perps would be looked at as reasonable in a court of law.
Having said that, I'd like to point out that I am NOT a lawyer and am, to be honest, likely talking out my ass. But that is my understanding at any rate.
Good luck y'all!!!
anonymous
Feb 16 2009, 11:33 pm
busted 2
Dec 13 2008, 5:49 pm
mamaredd22
Sep 8 2008, 1:56 pm
anonymous
May 29 2008, 3:29 am
SLICK!
May 19 2008, 8:34 pm
dalebud
May 10 2008, 10:05 am
Bean
Jan 31 2008, 1:17 am
knowing
Jan 9 2008, 11:20 am
unkowen
Sep 11 2007, 12:38 am
justin
Sep 9 2007, 5:02 pm
snowman
Jun 19 2007, 10:50 pm
Kermit the Frog
Jun 3 2007, 1:19 am
sir smokes a lotz
May 31 2007, 2:50 pm
ur mom
May 29 2007, 12:46 pm
Charlie Loves Valerie
May 21 2007, 2:20 pm
c
May 18 2007, 1:16 pm
a friend
May 16 2007, 5:28 am
a friend
May 16 2007, 5:12 am
manditory5
May 14 2007, 11:35 pm
str8pimpinb*i*t*c*h
May 14 2007, 7:39 pm
darrin
May 13 2007, 10:20 pm
special k
May 13 2007, 9:40 pm
Tim
May 13 2007, 7:26 pm
steve
May 9 2007, 7:26 pm
captn420
May 9 2007, 7:09 pm
Helpful stoner
May 7 2007, 9:12 pm
calihorsegirl
May 6 2007, 9:26 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
May 6 2007, 1:23 pm
da kine
May 5 2007, 8:20 pm
da kine
May 5 2007, 8:20 pm
da kine
May 3 2007, 1:59 pm
wh
Apr 27 2007, 4:33 pm
Spence from OC
Apr 26 2007, 3:37 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 25 2007, 3:32 pm
river runner
Apr 23 2007, 4:27 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 23 2007, 1:20 pm
iloveearth
Apr 23 2007, 12:45 am
huh?
thanks for listenin!
wh
Apr 22 2007, 4:13 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 22 2007, 1:19 pm
wh
Apr 21 2007, 10:36 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 20 2007, 6:13 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 5:41 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 20 2007, 3:28 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 20 2007, 3:28 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 2:05 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 2:02 pm
Charlie/midnight toker
Apr 20 2007, 1:37 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 1:15 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 12:06 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 12:04 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 12:03 pm
wh
Apr 20 2007, 11:56 am
wh
Apr 20 2007, 11:53 am
wh
Apr 20 2007, 11:28 am
wh
Apr 20 2007, 11:17 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 20 2007, 10:30 am
river runner
Apr 20 2007, 3:20 am
wh
Apr 20 2007, 2:24 am
wh
Apr 20 2007, 2:20 am
You guys are retards
Apr 19 2007, 2:32 pm
dopeheadh8r
Apr 19 2007, 1:57 pm
dgaf
Apr 19 2007, 1:36 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 18 2007, 12:26 pm
da kine
Apr 18 2007, 8:02 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 18 2007, 1:28 am
river runner
Apr 17 2007, 10:25 pm
88mm
Apr 17 2007, 7:25 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 17 2007, 1:35 pm
And if you are Jimmy, the guy I called an idiot on March 29th on this page, I really apologize for hurting your feelings. I just thought it was bad advice to try and take a plea deal. Anyway, I apologize if that is what pisse you off. If not, I don't know what to say cause I haven't done anything wrong to anyone. So peace, love and potato salad, Bro!
FUCK THE NOR-CAL SMOKER!
Apr 17 2007, 1:12 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 17 2007, 12:04 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 16 2007, 11:43 pm
88mm
Apr 16 2007, 11:19 pm
Corporate Nagra
Apr 16 2007, 7:37 pm
Nappy Hoe
Apr 16 2007, 7:17 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 16 2007, 2:30 pm
Hey, Da Kine, I hope you are doing okay, I know the weather is awful out there.
Take care guys, and thanks for supporting me, I really appreciate it. It does give me faith that there are still some good souls left out there in this big, mean, ugly world.
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 16 2007, 2:04 pm
its me
Apr 16 2007, 2:01 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 16 2007, 1:23 pm
da kine
Apr 16 2007, 8:25 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 15 2007, 11:09 pm
haystacked
Apr 15 2007, 11:02 pm
its me
Apr 15 2007, 10:28 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 15 2007, 8:50 pm
its me
Apr 15 2007, 6:55 pm
bob
Apr 15 2007, 2:08 pm
Welcome to the age of the "Wage Slave". Our new masters may not be able to beat us but they sure can pull a pscylogical number on you with threats of unemployment loss of medical care and an and ever increaseingly unceartin finical further. They want more for less from us and if we refuse to accept they hire two illegals to take our spot our outsource the whole operation.
Michael Munoz
Apr 15 2007, 5:14 am
All i have to say is spark up like 5 blunts and smoke them all so u can forget about all that shit for a while.....I would!
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 15 2007, 12:20 am
The High Canadian
Apr 14 2007, 9:08 pm
i'll be back again,
Always,
THC
wh
Apr 14 2007, 9:06 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 14 2007, 7:36 pm
wh
Apr 14 2007, 7:32 pm
wh
Apr 14 2007, 7:19 pm
da kine
Apr 14 2007, 6:30 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 14 2007, 12:03 pm
You are probably right though, it probably is VASH or maybe that other guy Eddie but, maybe they are one in the same. Who knows? Not me and truthfully I don't care, I just don't think it is polite to threaten someones life. Talk all the shit you want, but don't threaten me.
its me
Apr 14 2007, 1:12 am
Now Thats GOOD Oil.............Whew.............
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 14 2007, 1:05 am
its me
Apr 14 2007, 12:41 am
semit hgih
Apr 13 2007, 11:58 pm
donald degroot
Apr 13 2007, 11:56 pm
its me
Apr 13 2007, 11:30 pm
And Yes Nor-Cal Smoker,SALVIA SUCKS!!!!!! Tell Your Hubby I Think Throwing That Shit Out Was A GREAT Idea.....How In The FUCK Could Anybody Use That Shit For Meditation Beats Me???????? See You at 10 Nor-Cal Smoker....Cough,COugh,Cough,Cough,Cough,Cough
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 13 2007, 11:10 pm
By the Way, I will be posting at 10pm pacific coast time while I'm smoking a joint, laughing my ass off about this punk who keeps threatening me. Bring it on. Remember, if you were able to figure out who I was, someone will be able to figure out who you are through the postings you've made, so.......I'm waiting!!
jointtoker024
Apr 13 2007, 10:40 pm
its me
Apr 13 2007, 4:56 pm
DONT WORRY MAN
Apr 13 2007, 4:33 pm
wh
Apr 13 2007, 4:02 pm
its me
Apr 13 2007, 2:51 pm
wh
Apr 13 2007, 2:03 pm
Nor-Cal Sm,oker
Apr 13 2007, 11:33 am
da kine
Apr 13 2007, 8:48 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 12 2007, 11:57 pm
I personally would never voluntarily quit smoking, I don't ever NOT smoke, sometimes I reduce the amount I smoke but, only because it is stonier than what I'm used to smoking.
its me
Apr 12 2007, 11:47 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 11:15 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 11:00 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 9:51 pm
its me
Apr 12 2007, 9:36 pm
its me
Apr 12 2007, 9:00 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 12 2007, 8:46 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 8:42 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 8:38 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 8:36 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 8:26 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 8:22 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 8:18 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 8:06 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 12 2007, 8:04 pm
So, come on and tell us, we're waiting.
its me
Apr 12 2007, 7:05 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 4:11 pm
wh
Apr 12 2007, 4:10 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 12 2007, 11:33 am
Hey, Da Kine, we miss you!
wh
Apr 12 2007, 10:22 am
wh
Apr 12 2007, 12:20 am
wh
Apr 12 2007, 12:14 am
It had been ten years,to the day when horses family recieved the sad news.As the border ran north to south and his father was killed in the southern part,there was no way for them to view the remains as they quickly putrified. That was ok by him as the memories of his dad were good ones. Now for some time he had a notion to go to school and learn how to be a healer,medicine giver,but the journey was far,and food was scarce,and had to be collected and preserved for the journey.While he was out one day doing just that he came across a farmers field of marajauna,he thinked they called it,he recalled how his grandfather said that was one of the reasons for the war that divided america,weed.The western part was where horse was from,the eastern part was a nice place to visit now that the border had been stablized and the war was long over. Of course the two sides were friendly now and travel was permited,but never the less the two sides were apart,and kept there borders heavily gaurded.
Horse was frustrated,it was hard to find the small game and mine the salt to preserve it as the sale of salt ileagle,for that matter selling anything was forbiden as there was no such thing as money,he would have to trade for it and no one was willing,it was just easier to make it or mine it himself,as he bent down to sharpen his spear,he noticed somthing red in the dirt beside a rock. He picked it up,yep he recognized it!it was a sacred mushroom with white spots!He k
wh
Apr 11 2007, 11:08 pm
wh
Apr 11 2007, 9:23 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 11 2007, 7:16 pm
wh
Apr 11 2007, 6:02 pm
its me
Apr 11 2007, 5:04 pm
wh
Apr 11 2007, 4:13 pm
wh
Apr 11 2007, 4:10 pm
wh
Apr 11 2007, 10:51 am
its me
Apr 10 2007, 9:01 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 10 2007, 8:12 pm
its me
Apr 10 2007, 7:30 pm
its me
Apr 10 2007, 6:44 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 10 2007, 1:48 pm
Nor-Cal Smoler
Apr 10 2007, 1:47 pm
its me
Apr 10 2007, 2:25 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 9 2007, 11:52 pm
its me
Apr 9 2007, 7:38 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 9 2007, 1:17 pm
mendomaddness
Apr 9 2007, 12:31 pm
SorToro Times
Apr 8 2007, 10:45 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 8 2007, 11:35 am
smokey m3
Apr 8 2007, 10:13 am
da kine
Apr 8 2007, 8:39 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 7 2007, 11:31 pm
88mm
Apr 5 2007, 11:59 pm
The night had started off reasonable enough, inhaling some smoke with the friend of a friend.
With clouded judgment that was obscured by the buzz, we decided to go North for a night on the town.
Being told to pull over and come inside to talk to the Border Patrol was the jolt that we should have seen coming. At any rate, everyone was too high to come down for any reason at all. Still, we kept our cool.
After background checks were completed on everyone, and a cursory interview recorded with each individual, we were granted permission to enter the country.
Throwing caution to the weed, most smoked up as we reached our destination. The night of a life happened for some.
As we crossed the border later to go back home, all of us were pulled out of the car and strip searched while they found the bud, the weapon, and the pipe. You haven't lived until you have had a cop grab your nuts at 2 in the morning.
Lessons were learned that night, the most important one being this: No matter how high you get, keep your composure and you may get out of it yet.
mendomaddness
Apr 5 2007, 3:13 pm
da kine
Apr 4 2007, 9:35 pm
SPIKE
Apr 4 2007, 6:44 pm
wh
Apr 4 2007, 4:42 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 4 2007, 2:23 pm
wh
Apr 4 2007, 2:03 pm
Andrew
Apr 3 2007, 5:44 pm
important question
Apr 3 2007, 5:36 pm
kopkilla
Apr 3 2007, 5:34 pm
The High Canadian
Apr 3 2007, 3:00 am
Finally my planning is soon under way to reap the rewards of the long wait, getting the posters made on the weekend most likely, got some donations going from some local headshops and the like, things are looking good.
What have ya's been up to these days?
in my off time when im not studying or trying to organize this stuff, i've been drawn to the "conspiracy" of 9/11. I have watched several documentaries and picked up this book, and its very interesting, have any of you read about the 9/11 conspiracy? I was a little scared when i first watched the documentaries, its crazy that this could very well be.
well have a good night all,
Always,
THC
wh
Apr 3 2007, 12:20 am
wh
Apr 3 2007, 12:17 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Apr 2 2007, 6:26 pm
da kine
Apr 2 2007, 9:07 am
wh
Apr 2 2007, 2:19 am
Smokin In MN
Apr 1 2007, 4:26 pm
DCfromNJ
Apr 1 2007, 12:07 pm
Those public pretenders work for the prosecutor's office and will make sure you get time and alot of it.
You need to find a big time pot attorney in your area and maybe he will not charge you so much because of the love of the herb.
Do not use a public pretender or you will get hard time and stiff fines , so your gonna pay either way make sure it is to a good lawyer!!
wh
Mar 31 2007, 4:39 pm
river runner
Mar 31 2007, 1:49 pm
wh
Mar 31 2007, 12:06 pm
da kine
Mar 31 2007, 10:03 am
88mm
Mar 31 2007, 2:42 am
da kine
Mar 30 2007, 8:42 pm
its me
Mar 30 2007, 5:13 pm
Nor-Cal Smoker
Mar 30 2007, 4:04 pm
somthingIfoundsurfinEnet
Mar 30 2007, 2:39 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:35 pm
[7] As noted above, see supra p. 4, Tibolt not only challenges the pretrial determination that Palazzola's warrantless search was valid, but cites Franks v. Delaware as authority for a direct challenge to the subsequent search warrant , which was premised entirely on the fruits of the earlier warrantless search. A defendant is not entitled to a Franks evidentiary hearing, however, absent a "substantial preliminary showing (1) that a false statement [or material omission] in the affidavit [supporting the search warrant application] has been made knowingly and intentionally, and (2) that the false statement [or material omission] is necessary for a finding of probable cause." United States v. Scalia , 993 F.2d 984, 987 (1st Cir. 1993) ( citing United States v. Rumney , 867 F.2d 714, 720 (1st Cir.), cert. denied , 491 U.S. 908
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:34 pm
[5] Although the Dombrowski residence bore a "JK Security" sticker, and the Tibolt residence an "ADT Security" sticker, there was no evidence that Palazzola had been informed by the dispatcher that JK Security had reported the alarm. Further, while dispatchers sometimes write the name of the reporting security company on the incident cards, see infra Section II.B., the investigating officers do not receive these cards for completion until after their investigation of the alarm report. In any event, Tibolt has not raised this matter. See supra note 3.
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:34 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:33 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:33 pm
[1]
The warrant application related the following grounds: (1) an intrusion alarm was reported by J.K. Systems to the Gloucester Police Department; (2) Officers Palazzola and Williams responded to the alarm report and found a door open; (3) the officers entered the home to check the premises for intruders; and (4) a marijuana-growing facility was found in the cellar.
[2] The government would have us characterize this warrantless entry as a so-called "community caretaker" search, a warrant exception applicable to searches "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433, 441 , 447-48 (1973). In light of our alternative disposition, we need not consider the "community caretaker" exception. But see id. at 439 (noting "constitutional difference" between search of home and search of automobile); see also United States v. Bute , 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir. 1994) (reading Cady as applying only to searches of automobiles, not homes); Erickson , 991 F.2d at 532 (same); United States v. Pichany , 687 F.2d 204, 209 (7th Cir. 1982) (same).
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:31 pm
The district court judgment is affirmed .
________________________________________
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:31 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:27 pm
We cannot say that the district court ruling constituted a manifest abuse of discretion. The district court found, inter alia , that the police incident reports would not suffice to undermine Officer Palazzola's credibility; hence, were not likely to result in an acquittal. Tibolt , 868 F. Supp. at 382. Nor are we persuaded that Palazzola perjured himself at the suppression hearing. Rather, he testified simply that he could not remember having been at the Dombrowski residence prior to July 27, 1992. In fact, the incident cards show that he was sent there on but one occasion -- three years before the pretrial suppression hearing. Further, this incident card did not even compel the conclusion that Palazzola went to, or secured, the Dombrowski residence on that prior occasion . Thus, the district court was entitled to find that the incident cards did not undermine Palazzola's claimed lack of memory. Cf. Natanel , 938 F.2d at 313 (noting somewhat lesser burden on new-trial movant where evidence shows witness's prior testimony was "deliberately false"). Given their marginal direct probative value, we cannot say that the incident cards alone were sufficient to generate a "reasonable" probability that Tibolt would be acquitted upon retrial. Cf . Sepulveda , 15 F.3d at 1220 n.5 (noting that newly discovered evidence pertaining exclusively to a government witness's credibility rarely warrants new trial). 4. The Lemieux Affidavit
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:26 pm
The denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed only for manifest abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wright , 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir. 1980). The instant motion for new trial triggers a two-tier inquiry. First, to the extent the "new" evidence pertains to the disposition of the pretrial motion to suppress financial records, wherein the district court was the trier of fact, Tibolt confronts the daunting task of demonstrating that the district court committed clear error in determining that the "new" evidence would not have altered its pretrial factual findings. Zapata , 18 F.3d at 975 (noting that factual findings and credibility determinations relating to suppression issues are normally for the trier of fact). Second, Tibolt must show that the "new" evidence would so undermine the government's case as to give rise to a "reasonable" probability of acquittal upon retrial. Sepulveda , 15 F.3d at 1220. [6]
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:04 pm
United States v. Sepulveda , 15 F.3d 1216, 1220 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 2714 (1994).
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:03 pm
A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence will not be allowed unless the movant establishes that the evidence was: (i) unknown or unavailable at the time of trial, (ii) despite due diligence, (iii) material, and (iv) likely to result in an acquittal upon retrial. United States v. Ortiz , 23 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Natanel , 938 F.2d 302, 313 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 1079 (1992). If, however, the "new" evidence was within the government's control and its disclosure was withheld, the third and fourth criteria are less stringent:
The usual locution, taken from Justice Blackmun's opinion in Bagley , [ 473 U.S. 667 (1985)], is that the nondisclosure justifies a new trial if it is "material," it is "material" only if there is "a reasonable probability" that the evidence would have changed the result, and a "reasonable probability" is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 682. . . . This somewhat delphic "undermine confidence" formula suggests that [a] reversal [and a remand for new trial] might be warranted in some cases
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:02 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:01 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 2:00 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 1:55 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 1:53 pm
As mixed questions of law and fact, the "probable cause" and "exigent circumstances" determinations require bifurcated review: whether a particular set of circumstances gave rise to "probable cause" or "exigent circumstances" is reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Goldman , 41 F.3d 785, 786 (1st Cir. 1994) (probable cause), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1321 (1995); United States v. Gooch , 6 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (exigent circumstances). Where, as here, there are no explicit factual findings, the record below is assessed in the light most favorable to the trial court ruling. See United States v. Baldacchino , 762 F.2d 170, 176 (1st Cir. 1985).
3. Application of Law
Tibolt does not challenge the factual findings implicit in the district court ruling, given that the evidence most central to the ruling -- the police descriptions relating to the alarm report, the locations of the mailboxes, the unlocked door -- is undisputed. [3] Moreover, these implicit findings unquestionably support the challenged legal conclusion that Officer Palazzola had probable cause to believe a breaking and entering had been or was being committed at the Tibolt residence.
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 1:53 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 1:52 pm
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 1:51 pm
A. Motion to Suppress
Tibolt first challenges the district court's pretrial denial of the motion to suppress the primary evidence of money laundering: the financial records seized from his residence on July 27, 1992. He contends that there was no objectively reasonable basis for believing that a life-threatening burglary was in progress, even assuming that Officer Palazzola reasonably had mistaken the Tibolt residence for the Dombrowski residence. But see infra Section II.B. And he argues that inspection of the exterior of the Tibolt residence revealed no signs of forcible entry, and no open windows or doors. See Brief for Appellant at 27-29 (citing United States v. Erickson , 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1993) (suppressing evidence seized in warrantless search of residence where officers investigating burglar alarm observed no indication of forced entry)).
1. Substantive Law
A warrantless search of a private residence is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980). The government therefore must prove that the initial search came within some recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. See United States v. Doward , 41 F.3d 789, 791 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1716 (1995). Generally speaking, absent probable cause and exigent circumstances the Fourth Amendment bars warrantless, nonconsensual entries of private residences. See United States v. Curzi , 867 F.2d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 1989). [2]
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 1:50 pm
But for the fact that it contains no indication as to the timing of the events described in it, the Lemieux affidavit might conflict with the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant application of July 27, 1992, see supra note 1, which described JK Security's call to the Gloucester Police Department, the police response, and the officers' unexpected discovery of marijuana in the Tibolt basement. After hearing, the district court denied the motion for new trial. United States v. Tibolt , 868 F. Supp. 380, 381-83 (D. Mass. 1994).
II
(cont)
Mar 30 2007, 1:49 pm
an informant-
somethinIfoundsurfinEnet
Mar 30 2007, 1:46 pm
Palazzola and Williams decided to make an immediate warrantless entry through the unlocked rear door, then looked about for possible explanations for the alarm (e.g., any occupants, a burglar, "whatever"). Their search was limited in scope, eschewing drawers, cabinets and containers. The officers "secured" each room, to rule out the presence of intruders, captives, or injured occupants. After sweep-searching the upper floors, the officers discovered a well-established marijuana growing facility in the basement, then left to obtain a search warrant. [1] Later, armed with a warrant, the officers searched the Tibolt premises and seized incriminating financial records which Tibolt subsequently sought to suppress on the ground that the search warrant was invalid because the evidence relied on in the supporting affidavit was itself the fruit of the earlier warrantless search. After hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress, without elaboration.
somethingIfoundsurfinEnet
Mar 30 2007, 1:44 pm
BACKGROUND
Around mid-morning on July 27, 1992, a security alarm activated in the Dombrowski residence located at 13 Old Salem Path in Gloucester, Massachusetts. As the security alarm company -- JK Security -- was unable to make telephone contact with the Dombrowski residence to determine whether the alarm had been set off accidentally, it telephoned the Gloucester Police to report the alarm. Officer Joseph Palazzola was dispatched to investigate the alarm report at the Dombrowski residence, which is next door to the Tibolt residence at 11 Old Salem Path.
Both residences are set well back from Old Salem Path and largely concealed from view. Two driveways -- separated by a tree and some shrubbery -- lead to the Tibolt home. The Tibolt mailbox -- bearing "11 Old Salem Path" -- is located immediately to the right of the first Tibolt driveway. The Dombrowski mailbox -- marked "dombrowski 13" -- is located a few feet left of the second Tibolt driveway, more than 60 feet before the driveway entrance to the Dombrowski residence at 13 Old Salem Path.
Upon observing the mailbox marked "13," Officer Palazzola mistakenly entered the second driveway to the Tibolt residence. He checked the exterior of the residence for signs of an attempted break, or burglary in progress. Although he noted no signs of forced entry, Palazzola found an unlocked door on the rear deck. He opened the door and called inside to alert any occupant, but received no response. Given that the police had been requested to investigate the alarm, that a door was unlocked, and that Palazzola had been unable to make contact with anyone inside the house, he reasoned that the alarm might not have been activated accidentally.
somethingIfoundsurfinEnet
Mar 30 2007, 1:40 pm
No. 94-2221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM R. TIBOLT,
Defendant, Appellant.
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on December 29, 1995, is amended as follows:
Page 10, line 6, should read: ". . . at the Tibolt residence."
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 94-2221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM R. TIBOLT,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge ]
Selya, Circuit Judge ,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge ,
and Cyr, Circuit Judge .
Anthony M. Cardinale , with whom Nicholas J. DiMauro and Law Offices of Anthony M. Cardinale were on brief for appellant.
William C. Brown , Attorney, Appellate Division, Department of Justice, with whom Donald K. Stern , United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
December 29, 1995
CYR, Circuit Judge . Following his conviction on a money laundering charge, 18 U.S.C. § 1956, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, William Tibolt appeals two trial court rulings relating to incriminating financial records seized from his residence in a warrantless search. Finding no error, we affirm.
Nor-Cal Smoker
Mar 30 2007, 11:01 am
river runner
Mar 30 2007, 10:01 am
river runner
Mar 30 2007, 9:55 am
river runner
Mar 30 2007, 9:53 am
bill
Mar 30 2007, 6:22 am
river runner
Mar 29 2007, 9:28 pm
its me
Mar 29 2007, 2:20 pm
jimmy
Mar 29 2007, 11:00 am
river runner
Mar 29 2007, 10:20 am
The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become
his enemy.
Those who are nearest and dearest to us may become traitors to their faith.
The people who are prone to fall on their knees when success is with us,may
be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles it's cloud upon our
heads.
The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world is
his dog.
A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty,in health and
sickness.
He will sleep on the cold ground when the wintry winds blow and the snow
drives fiercely,if only he may be near his master's side.
He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer,he will lick the wounds that come in encounters with the world.
He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a Prince. When all other
friends desert, he remains.
And when death takes the Master in it's embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the Noble dog be found,his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness,faithful and true even to death...........
river runner
Mar 29 2007, 9:36 am
yeahhh
Mar 29 2007, 8:36 am
da kine
Mar 29 2007, 7:53 am
its me
Mar 29 2007, 12:40 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Mar 28 2007, 11:40 pm
its me
Mar 28 2007, 10:35 pm
its me
Mar 28 2007, 10:29 pm
wh
Mar 28 2007, 9:49 pm
Will
Mar 28 2007, 9:10 pm
FUCK THE POLICE
Mar 28 2007, 5:32 pm
YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO!
wh
Mar 28 2007, 3:53 pm
yo
Mar 28 2007, 12:42 pm
riot smoker
Mar 28 2007, 12:34 pm
well smoke his ass!!!
Sky
Mar 28 2007, 12:36 am
ashleynicolle
Mar 27 2007, 8:50 pm
its me
Mar 27 2007, 7:01 pm
wh
Mar 27 2007, 3:19 pm
420 Celebrity
Mar 27 2007, 11:52 am
this is an experience for your ass to get smarter and know what to do when it comes down to grow some marijauana plants.........smoke safe :)
Nor-Cal Smoker
Mar 27 2007, 11:31 am
you
Mar 27 2007, 9:33 am
yo
Mar 27 2007, 9:02 am
B.Kind
Mar 27 2007, 7:47 am
its me
Mar 26 2007, 10:20 pm
88mm
Mar 26 2007, 8:52 pm
Highlight the fact that you do not currently have a criminal record of any kind, as well as the fact that you are a productive citizen (job, credit history, family, etc.)
Offer regret that the situation has occurred, and indicate that you understand that this is a "life changing" moment for you.
Indicate that you have started attending Narcotics Anonymous Meetings to change your behavior.
Finally, based on the above circumstances, as well as your reactions to those circumstances, ask for DEFERED PROSECUTION.
This means that they defer the prosecution for 6 months or a year or whatever, and if you don't get in trouble again, they drop the charges.
However, if you get in trouble again, they will charge you for everything.
After that, go back to doing whatever you want to do, but I wouldn't want to have to talk to that D.A. at any point down the line...
It's worth a shot at least...
da kine
Mar 26 2007, 7:45 pm
its me
Mar 26 2007, 7:40 pm
The206
Mar 26 2007, 5:32 pm
wh
Mar 26 2007, 3:31 pm
wh
Mar 26 2007, 3:30 pm
its me
Mar 26 2007, 2:46 pm
wh
Mar 26 2007, 2:28 pm
wh
Mar 26 2007, 2:26 pm
its me
Mar 26 2007, 2:12 pm
wh
Mar 26 2007, 2:07 pm
wh
Mar 26 2007, 2:00 pm
its me
Mar 26 2007, 1:50 pm
charles the toker!!
Mar 26 2007, 1:45 pm
its me
Mar 26 2007, 1:45 pm
wh
Mar 26 2007, 1:39 pm
if you have a previously
Mar 26 2007, 12:54 pm
get a lawyer from the norml listings if possible.
FIGHT IT!
Mar 26 2007, 12:13 pm
A PUBLIC DEFENDER WILL SURELY GET YOU FUCKED!
ACUSE THE COPS OF SETTING THE ALARM AND BREAKING IN! WHY WOULD THAY OPEN A LOCKED BASEMENT?!
wh
Mar 26 2007, 11:52 am
Nor-Cal Smoker
Mar 26 2007, 11:44 am
river runner
Mar 26 2007, 5:11 am
river runner
Mar 26 2007, 4:57 am
In the same boat.
Mar 26 2007, 12:42 am
its me
Mar 26 2007, 12:13 am
» add a comment