Regurgitated Heroin, not good evidence..

[Skeptical Greg]

Man who threw up wants conviction thrown out (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/24/offbeat.miranda.ap/index.html)

Upholding criminal's rights, no matter what, means not holding on to some of your brain. You decide.

[arcticpenguin]

There doesn't seem to be any controversy about the teen who dropped a joint in a courtroom (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=817&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030424/ap_on_fe_st/marijuana_courtroom)

[jj]

The regurgated evidence didn't require any search, any kind of confession, or anything of that sort other than observing the physical vicinity of someone already arrested.

So? What's the problem here?

My favorite "stupid criminal trick" goes to the individual who tried to rob a donut shop somewhere in NYC (not Manhattan or Staten Island, but I've forgotten where now). He got some press coverage, because he tried to rob the donut shop 20 minutes after shift change, and the local precinct was 1 door around the corner. The reply to his "hands up" was to have about 20 just-off-duty cops pull out their service revolvers and click off the safeties behind him. The counter guy just said "I think you'd better look behind you".

First time I heard about that, it sounded way too good to be true, but I did in fact find a NY Post article on it eventually.

I believe the police are not allowed to ask you any questions until you have been advised of your rights. So the legal question here might be around the fact the police asked him if he had swallowed any heroin prior to reading him his rights and prior to his vomiting.

I can see the police point of view in that they were trying to determine if he had swallowed any drugs so that they could ensure he didn't die from it. They were trying to ensure he got proper medical attention.

I do not see the public defenders point that this was not a case of a threat to the public. The defendant is a member of the public, and they were trying to medically assist him, looks to me.

Of course, they were also on the case of trying to arrest someone they suspected of dealing drugs. But the police nowadays have so many criminals' rights they have to worry about, they have to jump through all the right hoops in the right order. Seems to me they were jumping through them the right way.

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT
So the legal question here might be around the fact the police asked him if he had swallowed any heroin prior to reading him his rights and prior to his vomiting.


Indeed, but it seems to me that, then, it would only be an issue if they got him to boot FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE.

Now, if they did that, I have more problems than just evidentiary...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jj


Indeed, but it seems to me that, then, it would only be an issue if they got him to boot FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE.

Now, if they did that, I have more problems than just evidentiary...

Would you have a problem if they just let him die?

If a dealer was in the process of being arrested, and attempted to swallow the evidence, I would say his life was in serious danger. How much heroin are we talking about here? Eight bags? I don't know how much is in a "bag," but it can't be good to swallow eight of them. :D

There isn't enough in the story to know the full circumstances, but it sounds to me like they made him vomit to avoid poisoning.

[jj]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Woul you have a problem if they just let him die?

Quite obviously from what I've said, I'd have a great problem with the cops getting him to puke IN ORDER TO GET evidence. Is it legal to force someone to vomit up evidence without a court order?

Just as obviously, it would be wrong to NOT make him puke if he was going to die from what he swallowed. This is a medical issue, and urgent treatment has to happen.

I find the INTENT of the cops and paramedics in inducing to be the question here.

If they wanted to save his life, it wasn't unlawful search. It was necessary medical treatment. Now that I think of it, does this now get into medical privacy law? It could be that in fact this is inadmissable because of that, not because of illegal search based on Miranda.

If their intent was to find the heroin, it may be an unlawful search. I do wonder if "hot pursuit" may enter in here, it seems to me (as a layman, not a lawyer) that this would involve the same issues as a body cavity search. Still, the fact that they showed no concern for keeping him alive would be repugnant at best.

Further, if it was their intent to find the heroin, they were otherwise being reckless (because they weren't concerned with saving the patient), but I'm not sure that we can in fact take them to task for that in the present legal climate.

Yes, establishing intent in this case going to be hard, assuming that the cops and paramedics were perfectly well intentioned. :(

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT

There isn't enough in the story to know the full circumstances, but it sounds to me like they made him vomit to avoid poisoning.

Exactly, and urgent medical care does not require a lawyer and/or a warrant, right, only patient consent.

But it is an interesting question, what happens to the puke? It occurred to me just now that medical privacy issues may butt in.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jj


Is there a reason for your obviously dishonest interpretation, here?

I said Just as obviously, it would be wrong to NOT make him puke if he was going to die from what he swallowed. This is a medical issue, and urgent treatment has to happen.

There is nothing whatsoever ambiguous about that answer. Thanks for waking me up..

And for making the effort to answer my question....

I somehow missed the paragragh, in which I now see you clearly stated:....it would be wrong to NOT make him puke if he was going to die from what he swallowed.

I apologize for my oversight.. I have decided to delete the post (... in this thread ) in which I made an ass of myself. ( all other posts in which I made an ass of myself, will remain, for future consideration...)

Your quote from the post in question, will serve as testimony for anyone who is interested.

[jj]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Thanks for waking me up..

I honestly missed that paragraph..:eek: Guess I overlooked it in the clutter..

***WHAP*** Good Morning, Mr. Scout!:mad:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by jj


***WHAP*** Good Morning, Mr. Scout!:mad:

The cap is too tight. I keep telling him and telling him.