Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
If I throw something out the window and they pick it up they have evidence, if I eat it or they just out right fabricate something, they have no evidence.
And a drug test would only prove I had some pot at some point but not necessarily when they pulled me over, anything else and they could simply drug test me at any time and say I was driving stoned, when I was really just home watching the races stoned.
The cops also know it is illegal,that is what counts the most....
You were breaking the law in the first place by possessing it.
Cops seen you with it,you destroyed it by eating it in a rolling paper (it doesn't matter what is going through your head or what you thought).
And admitting you were driving stoned is like admitting you were in possession of marijuana,it isn't gonna help the case any,prolly get you another charge.
Most sane people on a Jury know you do not wrap weed in rolling papers before you eat it.
You also would have no argument til you were in-front of a jury at trial,or a bench trial.
Well unless you argued with yourself in front of a mirror stoned.
Evidence: everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
You're better off not eating your joint and just hand it over....
A simple possession ticket is a field trip compared to getting hauled off to the slammer and going through the legal process for a much worse charge.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
What I'm getting at is this, I think you have to know it's evidence. It's illegal but if I'm unaware of any investigation it's just my illegal weed, not evidence I'm flushing.
If you're saying a cop blue lighting you makes you aware of an investigation and everything in the vehicle becomes evidence at that moment, that would also include items he has no knowledge of himself so how can it be evidence if the cop doesn't even know you have it, just as you don't know what he wants yet?
Back to the lights, what if someone other than leo called the cops and they pulled him over anyway, just on suspicion. Would hiding it in luggage be tampering then also?
Your second question...
Sure it is tampering with evidence ,because someone saw you use the lights.
It's like saying if you shoot someone and I see you do it.
I call the cops on you (without your knowledge), while in the meantime you run off and give the gun to a friend and he hides it in a dumpster.
That is tampering with evidence and your buddy could/would be arrested for it (even if you planned on giving the gun to a friend to throw away 6 months before hand).
Even if you shot someone and there was a witness standing there that seen you.
And let's say you threaten the witness ,saying "if you tell anyone I will kill you".
Even though the cops haven't been called yet or had no contact with the witness yet (investigation has not started)...they could still charge you with tampering of evidence ,because the witness is evidence that the crime took place.Or even if you tried to bribe the witness to not to say anything.
Now if you were riding down the street on your CR 125 with a joint in your ear and a cop seen you and started chasing you and the joint came out of your ear by accident from the wind. They more then likely wouldn't charge you with tampering.
Hey also, try this.
Get a small bag of weed and drive up next to a cop and wave it at him.
Just look forward after that and eat the bag of weed really fast and let us know how your theory works or how you make out when the cop stops you.
Get some to video it.
That's not what James did but it could happen and a law that allows a tampering charge in that scenario would be hard to overcome. It would seem like it's just an additional FU on top of what you already have, esentially for not serving yourself up to the state uncontested. In many cases the tampering charge would be more serious than the initial charge.
In my weed analogy, what if I were smuggling it. Unless it's laid out in plain view wouldn't that also be tampering? It's illegal and I'm hiding it so there should be an automatic tampering with evidence charge.
If i ate a bag of weed as you describe, I think there would be no evidence to prove I was eating weed and if they can't prove I'm eating a bag of weed they can't prove I was tampering with evidence unless it's also a crime to eat something that could be mistaken for weed. parsley.
If he has a clean record, his attorney will get it knocked down to a misdemenor, small fine, short probation &/or community service.
A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he:
(1) Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any article, object, record, document or other thing of physical substance with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation
Before [defendant] can be found guilty of violating this statute, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that [ ] [defendant] believe[d] that an official proceeding or investigation was pending or about to be instituted. Second, that [defendant] altered, destroyed, concealed or removed any article, object or other thing of physical evidence. Specifically, it is alleged that he emptied a package of white powder substance into the air. And, third, that the purpose was to impair its availability in such proceeding or investigation.
W]e conclude that a person who possesses drugs may not be found guilty of tampering with evidence simply because he discards or hides the drugs upon the approach of a police officer. Persons who possess criminal contraband generally seek to keep it hidden from others, especially the police. It is common, for example, for drug dealers to maintain their supply of drugs someplace other than on their persons. It is also common for persons who possess criminal contraband to discard it upon the approach of the police. Consequently, if such conduct were held to constitute tampering with evidence, any person in possession of contraband who took any steps to prevent the police from discovering the contraband could be charged not only with the possessory offense but also with tampering with evidence. Absent a clearer indication that this was the Legislature's intent in enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6, we decline to reach this conclusion.
Yes it can be....
But it can also help them get a stiffer/solid conviction/sentence when it goes to trial.
What I have see in some cases where two (multiple) people are arrested at the same time (similar to James & Rado arrest).
Sometimes the State will put them on trial at the same time (Co-Defendants),with different charges.
The morning before trial what the prosecutor will do is......add the other ones charge on to each of them.
Like James would be charged with not only impersonation but also tampering.
Rado would not only be charged with tampering but also impersonation.
They can legally do that at the last minute.
That way if Rado says, "James handed me lights and I put them in my luggage"....or James told me to hide them etc..
Or if James says Rado wanted me to pull these guys over with the lights and he turned them on and then told them to slow down as we went by them etc...
The prosecutor will hope that they slip and say similar things like that at trial.
And some times this works well for them and helps them get a stiffer sentence when one or both of them are found guilty of both charges.
It's an old trick.
"If i ate a bag of weed as you describe, I think there would be no evidence to prove I was eating weed and if they can't prove I'm eating a bag of weed they can't prove I was tampering with evidence unless it's also a crime to eat something that could be mistaken for weed. parsley."
It may be hard to prove,but that would be for a Jury to decide,if the prosecutor went forward with the case based on what the cop saw .
They can charge you with all sorts of shit,it doesn't matter.....the State plays god in these matters,it is all up to them.
But they have to prove you ate it and that it was weed to convict you.
It would be your word against the cops word......and it can go either way.
It all would boil down to what the Jury believed,mainly based on the cops statements & your history if any.
You may also be drug tested and even if you refuse ,the state has tricks to get you to take them (if you tested dirty,it would help their case).
Like if you were booked into jail,drug testing could & would more likely be part of your conditions of release,requested by the prosecutor.If you don't pee in a cup first....they wont release you (you get one chance-and if you deny it,they will use that in court against you). And it could be 4 months or so that you would have to sit in jail before going to trial (to where even if you lost,they may just give you time served).
They get you one way or the other.
If you won,so be it....good luck on finding a lawyer that will handle a false arrest in these type of matters and be prepared to fork out some serious cash up front.
Because with the cops word or anyone's word for that matter,that is enough to arrest you on,therefore it isn't a false arrest.
You should go down to your local court house and sit through some criminal trials,it will blow your mind....seeing how it all works.
I seen a defendants witness (dui case) once get taken into custody for contempt & perjury for the simple fact his hands were shaking & moving fast while he was talking and he was acting hostile(they claimed that was enough evidence he was not being honest under oath). Prosecutor called him out and he flipped out and the Judge supported the prosecutor.
The state can pretty much do what they want and they often get away with anything.
Pit Row
It is a gamble.
If they want to charge you with anything,they have to prove it to convict you.
Your fate will lie in 6 or 12 peoples hands (depending on the case).
And if they believe the States side of the case,you are screwed.
The judge reads the law to the Jury.
The state presents their case against you.
You present your defense.
And it is up to 6 to 12 people to decide if you are innocent or not.
Every case is different....
People have been convicted of murder and also tampering before when they never even found a dead body or a weapon.
For the state,it all boils down to getting the Jury to believe their side. (hence -tampering even if no evidence/weapon/body was found)
People have beaten murder charges even when a weapon was found in their possession and a body laying next to them.
It is up to a jury to decide.
Post a reply to: James Bubba Stewart "Just the (legal) facts"