Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
So I rationalize that it's like a bad habit that one doesn't share -- like the secret cigarettes or shots of heroin that some spouses hide from the other. Yeah yeah yeah, I know -- it's self-justifying rationalization.
|
Kafka-ette knows, has posted (once), and met several FBers. She recognizes that the FB and other chat boards I follow (e.g. hackers.com) are a good way to harmlessly blow off steam.
Speaking of heroin and sharing, here's another story liberated from (yet attributed properly to) CNN.com:
STAMFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- You have the right to remain silent, but what if you vomit evidence before police read you your rights?
Vincent Betances wants his drug-dealing conviction thrown out, arguing that eight bags of heroin he threw up after emergency medical treatment should never have been admitted into evidence.
He contends police illegally seized the evidence from an ambulance after asking him if he'd swallowed heroin -- but before reading him his rights.
The state Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Wednesday and is expected to issue a ruling this summer.
. . . .
While handcuffed and in a police cruiser, Betances began sweating profusely, turned pale and had difficulty breathing. Betances admitted he had swallowed four bags.
A paramedic gave Betances a medication to prevent the body's absorption of the drugs. A short time later Betances threw up eight bags of heroin, which an officer seized.
Assistant State's Attorney Toni Smith-Rosario argued that police should not be penalized for protecting the public, including defendants in their custody.
"Most defendants are grateful when police save their lives," Smith-Rosario said.
Suzanne Zitser, a public defender representing Betances, countered that exceptions to the Miranda warning must satisfy stringent requirements.
"It's not even a close call in this case," Zitser said. "There was no threat to the public or police officer safety."
Wouldn't this fall under the Plain View Doctrine?
Threaded Mode