Michael Phelps -- Pothead!

[-Jrabbit]

Under South Carolina law, possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor that carries a fine up to $200 and 30 days in jail for the first offense. Possession of paraphernalia is a $500 fine.

The Richland County sheriff has long sought to fight drug crimes. He rose from patrol officer to captain of the narcotics division in the early 1990s, after the television series "Miami Vice'' made its splash.

Lott played the part well. He wore stylish suits and had long hair then. He drove a Porsche seized from a drug dealer and even worked undercover with federal agents in Florida.

For a misdemeanor? Please. Just another "public servant" doing his best to leverage a situation to his political advantage. This guy Lott is clearly an attention whore.

[Berzerker]

30 days in jail for a 1st offense?

I keep hearing prohibitionists deny people are jailed for pot

and does this mean the sheriff can go after anyone who admits past drug use within his jurisdiction? So if I drove drunk a month ago and tell someone and the sheriff finds out, he can "investigate" and have me prosecuted?

[Berzerker]

oh, and I'd love to see this clown go after Phelps and try to get him jailed. Since he built his career going after drug users its only fitting his downfall comes at the hands of a pothead.

[-Jrabbit]

Nothing will come of this. Sheriff Lott has gotten his ink and re-asserted his alpha-male tough-on-drugs cred; that's all he wanted.

[Berzerker]

then he'll make himself out to be a liar

[Darius871]

and does this mean the sheriff can go after anyone who admits past drug use within his jurisdiction?

No, since presumably that "admission" would be limited to inadmissible hearsay evidence, and even a taped admission (e.g. a comedian recounting recent drug experiences), though admissible, wouldn't suffice to convince a jury absent corroboration, especially where the defendant claims to have been joking. There'd probably be a 1st Amendment bar to prosecution to boot.

By contrast, in Phelp's case there's an actual videotape of the prohibited conduct, and under URE 901(b) video is incredibly easy to authenticate (in actual practice it's a slam-dunk with nothing more than a witness on the camera's recording process, a witness on the tape's chain of custody, and a witness who could attest to the fact that some - but not all - of a continuous video clip depicted events that said witness personally saw, all of which would be easy for a prosecutor with subpoena power to obtain), and Phelps' subsequent public apologies rule out a defense that there was tobacco or bunk buds in that bong, so at least legally he'd be cooked if any attention-whore prosecutor seriously wanted to waste any time on this. Odds are they won't though.

So if I drove drunk a month ago and tell someone and the sheriff finds out, he can "investigate" and have me prosecuted?

Again the hearsay would be inadmissible, and even if it weren't, there's no other corroborating evidence. They don't have a tape of you sucking down a liter of Wild Turkey and driving a car, and it's way too late to breathalyze you or conduct a field sobriety test, so you can basically tell the sheriff to go **** himself. Dolphinboy ain't so lucky.

[-Jrabbit]

Where did you read that there's videotape evidence?

[Darius871]

When I read an article a while back I got the impression the photos were cut from a short video clip. Even if I misread, photographs are equally easy (often easier) to authenticate under 901(b) and related cases, especially since the guy has already publicly admitted to their authenticity. I simply fail to see what his defense could be.

[-Jrabbit]

Well then, Lott should check out Facebook. He could half-empty the U. of South Carolina campus.

Here's Phelps' statement:

"I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment," the record-setting American athlete said in a statement issued Sunday.

"I'm 23 years old, and despite the successes I have had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner that people have come to expect from me," Phelps said. "For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public -- it will not happen again."

Not really an admission of pot usage per se. Seriously, I don't think there's a case here.

[Darius871]

Anybody knowing the circumstances would infer that he was referring to the weed photos, but anyway I never said there had to be an admission, only that it helps. A duly authenticated videotape suffices in itself, unless SC has a wacky statute. It doesn't matter though since no prosecutor would waste that much resources on piddly **** like this.

[Berzerker]

No, since presumably that "admission" would be limited to inadmissible hearsay evidence, and even a taped admission (e.g. a comedian recounting recent drug experiences), though admissible, wouldn't suffice to convince a jury absent corroboration, especially where the defendant claims to have been joking. There'd probably be a 1st Amendment bar to prosecution to boot.

The admission is coming from the criminal, that aint hearsay. The comedian has a great chance of getting off because they'd argue its their routine, but the rest of us dont have that luxury and a jury knows it.

By contrast, in Phelp's case there's an actual videotape of the prohibited conduct, and under URE 901(b) video is incredibly easy to authenticate (in actual practice it's a slam-dunk with nothing more than a witness on the camera's recording process, a witness on the tape's chain of custody, and a witness who could attest to the fact that some - but not all - of a continuous video clip depicted events that said witness personally saw, all of which would be easy for a prosecutor with subpoena power to obtain), and Phelps' subsequent public apologies rule out a defense that there was tobacco or bunk buds in that bong, so at least legally he'd be cooked if any attention-whore prosecutor seriously wanted to waste any time on this. Odds are they won't though.

If he admits it, dont matter if they got him on film.

Again the hearsay would be inadmissible, and even if it weren't, there's no other corroborating evidence. They don't have a tape of you sucking down a liter of Wild Turkey and driving a car, and it's way too late to breathalyze you or conduct a field sobriety test, so you can basically tell the sheriff to go **** himself. Dolphinboy ain't so lucky.

I already admitted it though...

[Darius871]

The admission is coming from the criminal, that aint hearsay. The comedian has a great chance of getting off because they'd argue its their routine, but the rest of us dont have that luxury and a jury knows it.

True, I just wasn't sure who was the recipient of the admission.

If he admits it, dont matter if they got him on film.

Not exactly, since you said "admits past drug use," which is too general to sustain a charge, particularly since it doesn't indicate in what jurisdiction it took place or whether the statute of limitations has run. A videotape, on the other hand, can specify an exact place and time where the offense occurred, which would be necessary. As jrabbit pointed out, his admission is too vague to stand on its own.

I already admitted it though...

Your hypothetical was "if I drove drunk a month ago and tell someone," not admitting it to the cop or court, so I took that one as hearsay.

[Berzerker]

oh, okay... Yeah, my admission is to the court and cops and DA.

We dont prosecute people for such admissions because we dont really consider it a crime, we just treat it like one when we catch people in the act. That says something about the (im)morality of punishing drug users. We'd be derelict if we let confessed murderers walk around free from justice...

[Felch]

Amen, Berz.

[DanS]

Good thing Oncle Boris say you didn't need that money, Phelps!

Kellogg to Drop Phelps Over Photo

The Associated Press
Thursday, February 5, 2009; 7:25 PM

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Cereal and snack maker Kellogg Co. said it won't renew its sponsorhip contract with Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps because of a photo that showed him inhaling from a marijuana pipe. The Battle Creek, Mich.-based company said Thursday that Phelps's behavior -- caught on camera and published Sunday in a British tabloid -- is "not consistent with the image of Kellogg."