Drug conviction impact on Citizenship qick question please help

[Artem Ustimenko]

deleted

 

[Artem Ustimenko]

Also I was in a state park so all of the state laws do not apply and I think it will be more strict to me when i got to court if I do. What do you guy think will it be better if I fight it or if I just pay the ticket? Also if I will go to court i will get public defender, I don't have money for an attorney
My main concern now is if I should fight the ticket or just pay it, I don't want to do anything worst then it already is and right now just confused on what to do(
If anyone have any advices or opinions please post it, it will be greatly apreciated
Artem

 

[Jackolantern]

Arrange a one-time consultation with an immigration lawyer who is familiar with criminal law to explain your situation and find out whether the weight amount and other circumstances (i.e. make sure you are only charged with possession, and not distribution) makes it a deportable offense in your case. That's like a one-hour consultation, a couple hundred bucks. Then use the public defender to fight it or plea bargain.

 

[Al Southner]

Eat the nuts, count your lucky stars..

Also I was in a state park so all of the state laws do not apply and I think it will be more strict to me when i got to court if I do. What do you guy think will it be better if I fight it or if I just pay the ticket? Also if I will go to court i will get public defender, I don't have money for an attorney
My main concern now is if I should fight the ticket or just pay it, I don't want to do anything worst then it already is and right now just confused on what to do(
If anyone have any advices or opinions please post it, it will be greatly apreciated
Artem

Dude,

You live in a fantasy land. Who told you that state law don't apply in state parks? Do you realise there is a reason laws are called state laws? Don't you get irony here...state laws and state parks...It is intended to apply anywhere in that state, including parks. You have limited understanding of the law, which means when you appear in court, you are better of keeping your mouth shut and have a lawyer enter a plea for you. Don't be misguided about the notion that it was an illegal search, all of the people who claim that somehow the evidence will be thrown out because it was an illegal search are wrong and have limited knowledge of evidentiary law. A good law will need to file a motion with the court for evidentiary hearing in which a judge will decide whether a particular evidence is admissable in court. Since you don't have any money, no public defendant is going to file such a motion, the likely outcome and advise will be for you accept a plea and walk into the sunset. In your case, I willing to bet a monkey that a judge will rule to uphold the evidence against you.

You provided reasonable suspicions to the police officer and it was proven by finding of weed on your person. So, how could a court dismiss the charge because the officer didn't have a warrant of arrest? Remember this simple premise: You are the person who has the burden of proof to show that the officer acted improper and you didn't allow him to search you. On the latter part, you have no leg to stand on because his suspicions is within acceptable means. For example, if the officer had stopped you as part of a routine traffic stop, upon approaching you car he smelled weed in your car, he doesn't need a search warrant to do "conduct an investigation" as to where the smell is coming from. There is also a plain view rule, if he saw the bottle and suspected that it contained weed, he acted within the law confiscating the bottle and charging you with the crime. I am certain my post aren't going to make you happy because you are looking for people to agree with your already made-up mind: fight this charge and run your way to naturalization. I am sorry, I am clear minded and will give you the unvarnished truth, even if bitter...

 

[eltoro]

For example, if the officer had stopped you as part of a routine traffic stop, upon approaching you car he smelled weed in your car, he doesn't need a search warrant to do "conduct an investigation" as to where the smell is coming from.

Yes, he does. To perform a search without a warrant he needs a defendable probable cause, like "plain view rule" you describe. Try defending "I smelled pot" probable cause in court.

 

[Al Southner]

Understand the key point...

Yes, he does. To perform a search without a warrant he needs a defendable probable cause, like "plain view rule" you describe. Try defending "I smelled pot" probable cause in court.

Eltoro,

I am certain you missed the key point in my post. The irony which is inescapable is that if the officer indicated to the court he smelled pot in the car and proceeded to search the car or person without a warrant, and found some weed in a bottle with the OP's name on it, guess what? His suspicion was proven true by finding the key evidence. The law views police officers as objective person who have no ulterior motive to make-up stories to nab the OP while enjoying the state park. On ther other hand, the OP has a motive to lie to the court in order to extricate himself from his crime and from paying the penalty. If the officer smelled alcohol in your breath, isn't he allowed to investigate that further? Unfortunately, there is no "breathalyser or weedthalyser" yet. I am planning to develop one to catch weed mowers... The plain view view isn't limited to containers in the cars, but to persons who might be carrying concealed weapons which officers suspects are legal or illegal. If the weapon being carried is legal, then the person need to produce a permit and the officers will leave the person along. Police officers are empowered to investigate those issues to ascertain that people aren't breaking the laws.

Lastly, if a police officer came to your house to check where the noise disturbance if coming from, and upon you opening the door is met by a cloud of weed hovering in your home, is he supposed to go to court at 2am to obtain a warrant? You will be surprised to learn that he isn't required to obtain a warrant, "you have provided reasonable suspicions that your are breaking the law" by having pot in your home, and he's able to enter your home and conduct a search for where the cloud is coming from... The OP is from Eastern Europe, which will clearly raise the stakes, read the latest FBI report on regarding crimes against the US govt agencies from eastern europe, especially cyber crimes. I am in no way making his crime a cyber crime...

 

[Jackolantern]

Eltoro,

I am certain you missed the key point in my post. The irony which is inescapable is that if the officer indicated to the court he smelled pot in the car and proceeded to search the car or person without a warrant, and found some weed in a bottle with the OP's name on it, guess what? His suspicion was proven true by finding the key evidence.

A suspicion being proven true after the fact doesn't mean the search was legal. For an unconsented search to be legal, the officer must have a valid reason (probable cause or a warrant) before the search.

Numerous drug and gun cases get thrown out because the search was illegal. Which is something I don't really like about the system, because it makes both the guilty officer (i.e. guilty of searching illegally) and the guilty civilian go free. If I were to redesign the legal system, the result of an illegal search would be that the officer is fined, suspended, or even locked up for their part in violating the law, while the illegally-obtained evidence would still be used against the individual (unless the method of obtaining the evidence indicates the evidence is probably tainted or planted).

 

[eltoro]

Lastly, if a police officer came to your house to check where the noise disturbance if coming from, and upon you opening the door is met by a cloud of weed hovering in your home, is he supposed to go to court at 2am to obtain a warrant?

If I let him in the house then he doesn't need a warrant, courts have established that long time ago. However, if I step out of my house and lock the door behind me he will be required to obtain a warrant regardless of any clouds my house is emitting.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Sounds familiar?

 

[WBH]

Dude,

You live in a fantasy land. Who told you that state law don't apply in state parks?

Maybe he means a national park. That is worse. The same act can be considered two offenses, one under both federal law and and one under state laws

 

[WBH]

and USCIS would have no basis for calling it a conviction if the individual didn't admit to having it.

Can USCIS IO simply ask: "Did you really do it?"

 

[ganjik]

Can USCIS IO simply ask: "Did you really do it?"

He would simply answer "No"

 

[WBH]

He would simply answer "No"

I don't know what a real IO would think. But I honestly think the OP
really did it (he did not deny it either) I just can imagine an IO
would reach the same conclusion.

 

[Jackolantern]

Can USCIS IO simply ask: "Did you really do it?"

If they ask that, and the individual answers "the case was dismissed and I have given you the court disposition" I don't think they have the right to prod any further.

 

[WBH]

If they ask that, and the individual answers "the case was dismissed and I have given you the court disposition" I don't think they have the right to prod any further.

There is his question on N400:"Have you ever commited a crime or an offense
for which you were not arrested?" That means USCIS have right to ask about anything beyond conviction in court. I wonder if one has a drug record, can USCISD assume you must have used drug not just once. And if you are arrested for using drug they can also assume you must have bought drug illegally before otherwise where did you get the drug?

Someone once post here about his DV charge. I remmeber he said during the interview IO asked :"Did you beat her?".
The applicangt said he answered "No".

 

[Jackolantern]

There is his question on N400:"Have you ever commited a crime or an offense
for which you were not arrested?" That means USCIS have right to ask about anything beyond conviction in court.

However, if you did something and were arrested for it but not convicted, you can answer NO to that question, because that question asks about when you were not arrested.

That's why it is important to have an attorney present if you don't have a clean record ... even if the attorney doesn't say anything, their presence can influence the IOs into being less invasive about the questioning.

 

[Al Southner]

However, if you did something and were arrested for it but not convicted, you can answer NO to that question, because that question asks about when you were not arrested.

That's why it is important to have an attorney present if you don't have a clean record ... even if the attorney doesn't say anything, their presence can influence the IOs into being less invasive about the questioning.

You are clearly confusing issues here. The US Congress empowered USCIS with powers to conduct the immigration business to the latter of the law. There is a reason why people are sworn to tell the truth before IO for N400 and other proceedings, failure to provide truthful answers is punishable by denial of benefits sought. The presence of a lawyer is in NO way going to influence the IO and keep him or her from asking probing questions... Your lawyer can be present, to ensure the IO isn't doing anything improper, like asking or wife out in a date... The law clearly states that if immigrants interviewed for particular benefits, and during the interview the IO learns information which could be referred to law enforcement authorities, they are required to turn over that information for additional investigation. So, if you tell the IO that you never smoked weed and the police was wrong, he has a right to demand you provide a court documentation backing up your case.

 

[Jackolantern]

So, if you tell the IO that you never smoked weed and the police was wrong, he has a right to demand you provide a court documentation backing up your case.

If you see my postings above, I assumed that the court documentation was already provided to them. I was referring to a situation where you provided the documents and then interviewer wants to go above and beyond that and essentially retry you again for the offense, asking probing questions to extract additional information about the case on top of the official documents.

If you refused to answer those probing questions, and they denied your case for not answering them, the court would very likely overturn the denial when appealed. IOs don't like having their decisions overturned (it reflects badly on their performance review), so they would usually avoid asking such questions in the first place if a lawyer is present, as the presence of the lawyer indicates you probably will appeal if denied. And if they ask it anyway, the lawyer could intervene and tell you not to answer.

The law clearly states that if immigrants interviewed for particular benefits, and during the interview the IO learns information which could be referred to law enforcement authorities, they are required to turn over that information for additional investigation.

Sure, if you reveal self-incriminating information it can be referred to law enforcement and used against you. But that doesn't mean you have to reveal such information in the citizenship interview.

 

[Al Southner]

Guys,

All of you who claim the OP will be able to sail through the N400 process, maybe you will think again after coming across this posting this morning. See the link and read what the wife said about her husband with a drug possession of 3/4 of weed from 1987 or so. (I might be incorrect about the time frame).

http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=303151

 

[WBH]

Guys,

All of you who claim the OP will be able to sail through the N400 process, maybe you will think again after coming across this posting this morning. See the link and read what the wife said about her husband with a drug possession of 3/4 of weed from 1987 or so. (I might be incorrect about the time frame).
http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=303151

It is 1 and 3/4 oz not 3/4 oz.

The OP said he possessioned less than 1 oz and this other poster's husband possessed 1 and 3/4 oz which exceeded the deportation threshold 30 grams

 

[WBH]

they are required to turn over that information for additional investigation.:

For many such offenses, they are way out of statute of limitations so that
there is no risk for further crmininal prosecutution. The only thing left
is immigration consequences for which there is no statute of limitation