ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Rashee Rice suspected in connection with major accident in Dallas

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Rashee Rice suspected in connection with major accident in Dallas (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=352900)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2 (Post 17473112)

Lol you’re still upset I exposed you to the tin foiler you are it’s ok

Continue to think that… ROFL

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88 (Post 17473115)

Continue to think that… ROFL

I will because it’s the truth. Again it’s ok

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2 (Post 17473117)

I will because it’s the truth. Again it’s ok

Reality > Your “truth”

Continue to embarrass yourself in yet another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief (Post 17472941)

rewatch that... they are talking about felony levels of drugs and traffickers who rent cars to drive drugs to other states. You know, a sizeable, noticeable amount. They aren't talking about .38 of an ounce/1.3 tablespoons found in the car which easily could belong to anyone. No way they charge him, but if they do, no way it sticks.

I can't say how it works in Texas. But if weed is found in the car in Kansas. No matter the amount. It is the driver that gets charged.

Unless someone steps up and claims it as there's. The driver will take the rap. No matter who's weed it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88 (Post 17473121)

Reality > Your “truth”

Continue to embarrass yourself in yet another thread.

You are tin oiler. You did get exposed. Everyone saw it. You got exposed. Yes you’re the one embarrassing you’re self. Again you’re loving that tin foiler reality but not the truth. It’s ok

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2 (Post 17473123)

You are acting oiler. You did get exposed. Everyone saw it. You got exposed. Yes you’re the one embarrassing you’re self. Again you’re loving that tin foiler reality but not the truth. It’s ok

You can’t even type a semi-coherent comeback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana58 (Post 17473122)

And that’s what he’s not understanding.

A routine traffic stop. Anytime weed is found in a car it’s the drivers responsibility

[QUOTE=KCChiefsFan88;17473121]Reality > Your “truth”

Get over yourself tin foiler

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2 (Post 17473126)

And that’s what he’s not understanding.

A routine traffic stop. Anytime weed is found in a car it’s the drivers responsibility

I understand fine. I doubt they charge him with that small amount depending on where it was found. If it was in his backpack with his playbook in the Lambo, maybe. If it was under the seat I doubt the prosecutor charges for that small amount with a rental car that was just picked up. If it was found in the corvette, not him. If it was in the Lambo, one of the friends could take the blame. If they do charge him, it most likely won't stand up in court. So flame away and we will see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2 (Post 17473114)

Doesn’t matter. It’s in his name. He’s the one responsible

If it was bundled in with his personal property or he claims it as his. If it’s free in the car, it’s the owner of the car

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2 (Post 17473127)

Get over yourself tin foiler

Learn how to use the quote feature, “tin foiler”.

Your typing dexterity is almost as bad as your laughably wrong and amateur understanding of legal principles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by threebag (Post 17473133)

If it was bundled in with his personal property.

It's called constructive possession. Doesn't even have to be near him or his possessions.

Not sure how it works with a rental car or Texas. But in Kansas they will charge your ass.

I know this for a fact as I got charged for a passenger who hid his shit in my car when the cops pulled us over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana58 (Post 17473137)

Your car… The stash in the Lambo unless tied to the renter is the property of the vehicle/business. Once reasonable doubt is established a prosecutor would be a dumb shit to proceed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana58 (Post 17473137)

In Texas the prosecution has to prove knowing possession, specifically was the defendant aware of the controlled substance in their vehicle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana58 (Post 17473137)

Here you go, as I have said:

https://cejalawfirmtx.com/2023/08/07...-car-in-texas/

Quote:

Every year in the Houston area, hundreds of defendants are charged with the possession of a controlled substance. The most commonly abused controlled substances in the Houston area are marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and prescription pills like Xanax or Oxycodone. Almost all drug possession cases involve the search of a person, home or vehicle. But what happens if you have been arrested for possession of controlled substance after drugs were found in a car? What if the drugs were not physically on you but were found in the trunk of under a seat? Does it matter if the car belonged to you?

In Texas, all of these questions depend on whether the State has evidence to prove knowing possession. As can be imaged, the element of knowing “possession” in a controlled substance case is the element that is most frequently disputed. Under Texas Health and Safety Code 481.002, possession is defined as the actual care, custody, control or management of the controlled substance. In order to prove possession, the State of Texas needs to have evidence that a person was aware of the existence of a substance, not necessarily that that the person had direct control over the substance at the time of the arrest. It is important to remember that although the State must prove knowing possession, it does not need to prove ownership of a substance.

Whether or not the state can meet the element of knowing possession in a case where drugs are found in a vehicle depends on the particular facts of a case. There are no special rules that dictate what happens when drugs are found in a vehicle. For example, if cocaine was found in the trunk of a car, or in the center console of a car, the State must present evidence that affirmatively links the defendant to the cocaine in such a way that a reasonable conclusion could arise that the defendant knew of its existence and exercised control over it. Such an affirmative link could be established by relying on the circumstances and facts indicating knowledge that the cocaine was in the vehicle and by eliminating the possibility that someone else could have left it there.

In the example of cocaine, a police officer might ask a defendant whether or not anybody else recently had access to the car or had been in the car (to eliminate the possibility that someone else might have left the cocaine there) and rely on a defendant’s reactions to learning that the cocaine was in the vehicle. Evidence that a defendant had recently used cocaine (or any other drug) could also be evidence that would tend to show knowledge of the existence of the drug. For example, if a police office finds methamphetamine in a car that smells like methamphetamine smoke, that could raise a reasonable inference that the driver of a car was aware of methamphetamine found under the driver’s seat.

It can become especially difficult for the State to prove knowing possession of a controlled substance if there were multiple people in the car. In the absence of a confession by one of the occupants, the mere fact that someone is present in a location where a controlled substance is discovered is not enough to prove possession, particularly if there are other people present.

A drug possession attorney should aggressively challenge the existence of knowing possession wherever possible. In Texas, many courts have held that several situations where a controlled substance was found in a vehicle do not amount to knowing possession. Some examples of situations where Texas courts have said that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of knowing possession where there was no other evidence to support possession include:

-Defendant was a passenger in a car containing a large amount of marijuana but there was no other evidence of guilt

-Defendant entered a vehicle just before and arrest and cocaine was found near where the defendant was seated

-Defendant was a passenger in the back seat and cocaine was found on the dashboard

-Methamphetamine found in an unzipped gym bag

Due to the challenges that can arise when attempting to prove knowing possession of a controlled substance in a vehicle, police officers will attempt to get incriminatory statements from the car’s occupants and also be observant of their reactions when the controlled substance is found. For this reason, it is always a bad idea to talk to the police or make any statements if you are stopped in a car where drugs are found.