Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 8/22/2017 4:49:46 PM EST
Keeping your BIG MOUTH SHUT saves the day again.

Brando Clifton Carter, Appellant, against Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.


August 17 "unpublished" opinion of Virginia Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals of Virginia


"... The evidence was insufficient to establish that Carter had constructive possession"

“Roy was driving, Carter was in the front passenger seat…”

"Roy, who was visibly intoxicated, told the officer that his girlfriend had leased the
vehicle and that neither his name, nor that of Carter or Williams, was on the lease. The officer
placed Roy under arrest for driving under the influence."

"During the inventory of the vehicle, the officer searched the glovebox, a "standard"
glovebox with an opaque door that must be released in order to look inside. The glovebox
contained a semi-automatic handgun and a bag containing four individual smaller baggies, each
of which contained crack-cocaine."

“At trial, no responses to the officer's questions at the scene or any other statements made by Carter or either of the other defendants regarding the cocaine or firearm were offered or admitted into evidence.”

“Here, the Commonwealth had to produce evidence demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter knew the cocaine and firearm were in the glove compartment, and that those items were subject to his dominion and control. It failed to do so. The only circumstantial evidence that would support that finding is Carter's proximity to the glove compartment in which the items were found. That proximity is not sufficient.”

Link to opinion: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/orders_unpublished/161102.pdf

Generally on the topic of "unpublished" opinions: http://www.nonpublication.com/bullet/unimportant.html
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 9:08:01 PM EST
Cool. Rare. But it worked out in the end. Good discipline on his part.

Watch: Don't Talk to the Police (full vid w/ both lawyer & police officer)
Link Posted: 8/24/2017 11:07:54 AM EST
So what's the problem with the gun being in the glove box? I thought they made that legal, not considered to be concealed without a permit.
Link Posted: 8/24/2017 1:28:44 PM EST
It would be a problem if one of them was a prohibited person. And of course the drugs probably move it into another category.
Link Posted: 8/24/2017 9:01:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
So what's the problem with the gun being in the glove box? I thought they made that legal, not considered to be concealed without a permit.
View Quote
The gun wasn't the problem, the cocaine was and if he had said, "There's a gun in the glove box!" or, "Hey my gun is in the glove box" then that would likely have been enough to hammer him for illegal possession of the drugs and thus illegal possesion of the gun.

That's the way I take it at least.
Link Posted: 8/30/2017 1:45:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Carolina_K:
The gun wasn't the problem, the cocaine was and if he had said, "There's a gun in the glove box!" or, "Hey my gun is in the glove box" then that would likely have been enough to hammer him for illegal possession of the drugs and thus illegal possesion of the gun.

That's the way I take it at least.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Carolina_K:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
So what's the problem with the gun being in the glove box? I thought they made that legal, not considered to be concealed without a permit.
The gun wasn't the problem, the cocaine was and if he had said, "There's a gun in the glove box!" or, "Hey my gun is in the glove box" then that would likely have been enough to hammer him for illegal possession of the drugs and thus illegal possesion of the gun.

That's the way I take it at least.
A gun and illegal drugs is a really bad combination.

Both the State and Federal codes take a very dim view.
Link Posted: 9/5/2017 2:26:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2017 2:29:31 PM EST by pevrs114]
Possession of a firearm while in possession of a Schedule I/II drug (cocaine is a Sch II) is a Class 6 felony, regardless of whether the possessor is a prohibited person, and regardless of whether the firearm was concealed.

Here, it would have likely fallen under Subsection B, which provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of two years, in addition to any sentence for the drug possession.

§ 18.2-308.4. Possession of firearms while in possession of certain substances.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person unlawfully in possession of a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1 to simultaneously with knowledge and intent possess any firearm. A violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony and constitutes a separate and distinct felony.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person unlawfully in possession of a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) to simultaneously with knowledge and intent possess any firearm on or about his person. A violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony and constitutes a separate and distinct felony and any person convicted hereunder shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of two years. Such punishment shall be separate and apart from, and shall be made to run consecutively with, any punishment received for the commission of the primary felony.

C. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess, use, or attempt to use any pistol, shotgun, rifle, or other firearm or display such weapon in a threatening manner while committing or attempting to commit the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, or the possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, or distribute a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or Schedule II of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) or more than one pound of marijuana. A violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony, and constitutes a separate and distinct felony and any person convicted hereunder shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years. Such punishment shall be separate and apart from, and shall be made to run consecutively with, any punishment received for the commission of the primary felony.

1987, c. 285; 1990, c. 625; 1992, c. 707; 1993, c. 831; 1999, cc. 829, 846; 2003, c. 949; 2004, cc. 461, 995; 2011, cc. 384, 410; 2014, cc. 674, 719.
Link Posted: 9/5/2017 2:27:51 PM EST
Knowledge of, coupled with dominion and control over the handgun, as evidenced by any statement about it being in the glovebox, likely would have been enough to establish the same (knowledge/dominion/control) over the cocaine at the same time.
Link Posted: 9/6/2017 11:00:24 AM EST
Cocaine is a terrible drug.
Link Posted: 9/8/2017 9:26:54 PM EST
So I'm confused. Is VAHTF happy that a guy with a gun and cocaine in the car was found not guilty of possession of both? Personally I am happy that we can store guns in the glove compartment. That said, I'm not happy with people who get away with storing guns and cocaine in their glove compartment. I have yet to find good in a person in possession of both items. Maybe it is just me. I had a very long day at work today so if I didn't read this properly please inform me.
Link Posted: 9/10/2017 9:16:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tipsovr:
So I'm confused. Is VAHTF happy that a guy with a gun and cocaine in the car was found not guilty of possession of both? Personally I am happy that we can store guns in the glove compartment. That said, I'm not happy with people who get away with storing guns and cocaine in their glove compartment. I have yet to find good in a person in possession of both items. Maybe it is just me. I had a very long day at work today so if I didn't read this properly please inform me.
View Quote
I don't think anyone is celebrating this, I think they are just using it as an example of why you should never volunteer information to the police. The old anything you say can and will be used against you.
Link Posted: 9/10/2017 10:15:28 PM EST
I'm surrounded by "good people."

They all think they should answer any and every question a government agent asks.

I pray for them.

Occasionally I share little bits of information with them.
Probably a waste of time.

Pearls before swine as its said.
Link Posted: 9/11/2017 2:44:14 PM EST
It's also totally possible he didn't know either of those things were in the glove box. You can't blather on to the police if you didn't know.

Alas, DUI plus all that...
Top Top