Expired, Illegible, Unauthorized 215s and 27 Bundles O’ Bud – October 22, 2012

Monday, October 22, 2012

Michael Blake Hoskin

HCSO Press Release

SR 299 – On Friday, Oct. 19, a Humboldt County Sheriff’s Deputy patrolling in a marked patrol car near Titlow Hill Road, Berry Summit, was driving eastbound on State Route 299 when he smelled the strong odor of green marijuana. The deputy noticed the smell right after a Blue Chevy Pickup truck with several tarps over the bed passed him.

The deputy turned his patrol car around and followed the vehicle. The deputy initiated a traffic stop on the truck after determining the smell appeared to be coming from the truck. The deputy contacted the driver and two other occupants and told them why he stopped them.

Jason Michael Shockley

The deputy searched the bed of the truck and located 27 large bundles of green budding marijuana plants that had just been harvested.

The deputy interviewed the driver and occupants and they all told them him they were transporting medical marijuana for a medical marijuana collective in Orange County, California. They provided the deputy with several marijuana recommendations.

The deputy determined several of the recommendations were expired or some were not legible. Based upon the deputy’s investigation, the deputy determined the marijuana being transported was not covered by the Compassionate Use Act.

Brittany Anne Hawkins

The deputy arrested the three occupants of the vehicle for felony transportation of marijuana. Arrested was Michael Blake Hoskin, 23, from Blue Lake, California, Jason Michael Shockley, 24, from Westminster, California, and Brittany Anne Hawkins, 26, from Atlanta, Georgia.

They were all transported and booked into the Humboldt County Correctional Facility. Hoskin and Shockley’s bail was set at $75,000.  Hawkins was booked and released on her own recognizance.

The investigating deputy called some of the medical marijuana cardholders that the suspects provided to the deputy.  Some of the cardholders told the deputy the collective was shut down, others said they never authorized their card to be used in the cultivation of marijuana by the suspects.

Tags:

4 Responses to “Expired, Illegible, Unauthorized 215s and 27 Bundles O’ Bud – October 22, 2012”

  1. well, I suppose if the police called to ask about a recommendation, the first thing that should be expected would be denial. I do question whether or not the reporter ever questioned the officer about his ability to sniff out other crimes. Or, did the reporter just print the press release as god-given proof and leave it at that?

    I mean, if there are questions about the veracity of drug sniffing dogs I wonder what a decent defense attorney would do with a mere human.

    I wonder if there isn't a fair amount of profiling occurring. With profiling comes a host of problems not the least of which includes violating the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion clause. That is to say, if I determined from my experience or studies that trucks driving 101 in the Titlow Hill area are largely transporting illegal marijuana then there is good case to be made that any truck that I pull over will have some marijuana aboard. Since there is no reasonable suspicion beyond the general rule that is arbitrarily created for the express purpose of searching vehicles without meeting generally accepted levels of proof, then that evidence should really be excluded because even a broken clock is right twice a day and that is no justification for violating the public's right to free travel without the fear of government intervention and interference. Simply because a target is found to be transporting does not justify the larger question of the search. Far too often, we will hear of the arrests and the bookings, but what we don't hear about are the failures in what could very well be the systematic search of arbitrary vehicles.

    #64435
  2. well, I suppose if the police called to ask about a recommendation, the first thing that should be expected would be denial. I do question whether or not the reporter ever questioned the officer about his ability to sniff out other crimes. Or, did the reporter just print the press release as god-given proof and leave it at that?

    I mean, if there are questions about the veracity of drug sniffing dogs I wonder what a decent defense attorney would do with a mere human.

    I wonder if there isn't a fair amount of profiling occurring. With profiling comes a host of problems not the least of which includes violating the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion clause. That is to say, if I determined from my experience or studies that trucks driving 101 in the Titlow Hill area are largely transporting illegal marijuana then there is good case to be made that any truck that I pull over will have some marijuana aboard. Since there is no reasonable suspicion beyond the general rule that is arbitrarily created for the express purpose of searching vehicles without meeting generally accepted levels of proof, then that evidence should really be excluded because even a broken clock is right twice a day and that is no justification for violating the public's right to free travel without the fear of government intervention and interference. Simply because a target is found to be transporting does not justify the larger question of the search. Far too often, we will hear of the arrests and the bookings, but what we don't hear about are the failures in what could very well be the systematic search of arbitrary vehicles.

    #66254
  3. well, I suppose if the police called to ask about a recommendation, the first thing that should be expected would be denial. I do question whether or not the reporter ever questioned the officer about his ability to sniff out other crimes. Or, did the reporter just print the press release as god-given proof and leave it at that?

    I mean, if there are questions about the veracity of drug sniffing dogs I wonder what a decent defense attorney would do with a mere human.

    I wonder if there isn't a fair amount of profiling occurring. With profiling comes a host of problems not the least of which includes violating the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion clause. That is to say, if I determined from my experience or studies that trucks driving 101 in the Titlow Hill area are largely transporting illegal marijuana then there is good case to be made that any truck that I pull over will have some marijuana aboard. Since there is no reasonable suspicion beyond the general rule that is arbitrarily created for the express purpose of searching vehicles without meeting generally accepted levels of proof, then that evidence should really be excluded because even a broken clock is right twice a day and that is no justification for violating the public's right to free travel without the fear of government intervention and interference. Simply because a target is found to be transporting does not justify the larger question of the search. Far too often, we will hear of the arrests and the bookings, but what we don't hear about are the failures in what could very well be the systematic search of arbitrary vehicles.

    #66255
  4. well, I suppose if the police called to ask about a recommendation, the first thing that should be expected would be denial. I do question whether or not the reporter ever questioned the officer about his ability to sniff out other crimes. Or, did the reporter just print the press release as god-given proof and leave it at that?

    I mean, if there are questions about the veracity of drug sniffing dogs I wonder what a decent defense attorney would do with a mere human.

    I wonder if there isn't a fair amount of profiling occurring. With profiling comes a host of problems not the least of which includes violating the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion clause. That is to say, if I determined from my experience or studies that trucks driving 101 in the Titlow Hill area are largely transporting illegal marijuana then there is good case to be made that any truck that I pull over will have some marijuana aboard. Since there is no reasonable suspicion beyond the general rule that is arbitrarily created for the express purpose of searching vehicles without meeting generally accepted levels of proof, then that evidence should really be excluded because even a broken clock is right twice a day and that is no justification for violating the public's right to free travel without the fear of government intervention and interference. Simply because a target is found to be transporting does not justify the larger question of the search. Far too often, we will hear of the arrests and the bookings, but what we don't hear about are the failures in what could very well be the systematic search of arbitrary vehicles.

    #67841

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.