ASG Law

Tag: Dangerous Drugs Law

  • Reasonable Doubt Prevails: Safeguarding Individual Rights in Drug Cases

    In the Philippine legal system, the prosecution bears the crucial responsibility of proving a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is especially critical in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, where the stakes are high and the potential penalties severe. The Supreme Court emphasizes that when the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the constitutional presumption of innocence must be upheld, even if it means acquitting individuals accused of serious drug offenses. This principle protects individual liberties and ensures that justice is administered fairly and equitably.

    Unraveling Conspiracy: Were Two Accused Truly Partners in a Drug Deal?

    The case of People of the Philippines vs. Gatudan Balag-ey and Edwin Aliong (G.R. No. 141532, April 14, 2004) revolves around two individuals, Gatudan Balag-ey and Edwin Aliong, who were accused of conspiring to possess and sell marijuana. The prosecution claimed that Balag-ey and Aliong were caught in a buy-bust operation attempting to sell twenty bricks of marijuana to a poseur-buyer. However, the defense argued that the testimonies of the arresting officers were inconsistent and that Aliong was merely present at the scene without any knowledge of the drug transaction. This discrepancy raised a fundamental question: Did the prosecution adequately prove the existence of a conspiracy and the guilt of both accused beyond a reasonable doubt?

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, delved into the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged buy-bust operation. The Court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the location of Balag-ey’s arrest and Aliong’s involvement in the drug transaction. Witnesses presented by Balag-ey testified that he was arrested at a different location than what the police claimed, casting doubt on the veracity of the police account. The taxi driver also stated that Balag-ey wasn’t Aliong’s companion, further undermining the prosecution’s case.

    Building on this, the Court also highlighted a crucial violation of Balag-ey’s constitutional rights. He was not provided with legal counsel during his custodial investigation, which is a clear breach of Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution. This provision ensures that individuals under investigation have the right to an independent and competent counsel at every stage of the process. As a result, any alleged extrajudicial admission by Balag-ey, such as claiming ownership of the seized marijuana, was deemed inadmissible as evidence.

    The prosecution had charged the accused with conspiracy, alleging that Balag-ey and Aliong had an agreement to possess and sell marijuana and that they decided to execute this agreement. According to the Court, “Having charged the accused with conspiracy, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that Balag-ey and Aliong had come to an agreement concerning the possession and the sale of marijuana and had decided to execute the agreement.” However, the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish this agreement, especially in the case of Aliong.

    Regarding Aliong, the Court pointed out that he was not identified as one of the individuals who offered to sell marijuana to the poseur-buyer. There was no prior contact between Aliong and the poseur-buyer, and it was not established that Aliong knew the contents of the cigarette box were prohibited drugs. The taxi driver testified that it was someone else, not Aliong, who loaded the box into the taxi. “Hence, except for the fact that Aliong was on board the taxi from where the box of marijuana was seized, and that he was the one who paid extra fare to the driver while they waited for the return of the former’s companion, there is no evidence that Aliong conspired with Balag-ey and attempted to sell the prohibited drugs. The rule is settled that, without any other evidence, mere presence at the scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy.”

    The Court also noted that the police officers initially cleared Aliong of any complicity in the crime. This further weakened the prosecution’s case against him. SPO1 Natividad, one of the arresting officers, even testified that Aliong claimed he was merely accompanying Balag-ey. Considering these factors, the Court found that the evidence against Aliong was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The Court also scrutinized the alleged buy-bust operation itself. Both appellants argued that it did not take place, citing the prosecution’s failure to present the police informant and the marked money used in the operation. The Court acknowledged that while the presentation of a confidential informant is not always required, it becomes necessary when the appellant denies selling drugs and when there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers. In this case, the inconsistencies and the absence of the buy-bust money raised doubts about whether a genuine buy-bust operation occurred.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence. Quoting from the decision: “While courts are committed to assist the government in its campaign against illegal drugs, a conviction under the Dangerous Drugs Law will prosper only after the prosecution discharges its constitutional burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, this Court is likewise duty-bound to uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence.”

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, Gatudan Balag-ey and Edwin Aliong, conspired to possess and sell marijuana.
    Why were the accused acquitted? The accused were acquitted due to inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, a violation of Balag-ey’s right to counsel during custodial investigation, and a failure to adequately establish a conspiracy between the two.
    What is the significance of the right to counsel in this case? Balag-ey’s right to counsel was violated during his custodial investigation, rendering his alleged extrajudicial admission inadmissible. This violation weakened the prosecution’s case against him.
    What role did the inconsistencies in the testimonies play? The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the location of the arrest and Aliong’s involvement cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s version of events.
    Why was the absence of the buy-bust money significant? The absence of the buy-bust money, combined with the inconsistencies in the testimonies, raised reasonable doubts about whether a genuine buy-bust operation occurred.
    What does it mean to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt means presenting enough credible evidence to convince the court that there is no other logical explanation for the facts except that the accused committed the crime.
    Can someone be convicted of conspiracy based solely on their presence at the scene of the crime? No, mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish conspiracy. There must be evidence showing that the person knowingly participated in the agreement to commit the crime.
    What is the importance of the presumption of innocence in this case? The presumption of innocence dictates that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must overcome this presumption with sufficient evidence, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding individual rights and ensuring that the prosecution meets its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlights the significance of credible evidence, constitutional rights, and the presumption of innocence in the Philippine legal system. This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding justice and fairness in the face of serious criminal accusations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Balag-ey, G.R. No. 141532, April 14, 2004

  • Entrapment vs. Instigation: Safeguarding Rights in Drug Sale Cases

    In People v. Corpuz, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Teresa Corpuz and Marcy Santos for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Court emphasized that a buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment, is a valid method for apprehending violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law, provided it does not constitute instigation. This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between permissible entrapment and unlawful instigation, ensuring that law enforcement efforts do not overstep constitutional boundaries and respects the rights of the accused. It clarifies the evidentiary standards required to prove illegal drug sales and reaffirms the judiciary’s reliance on trial court assessments of witness credibility.

    The Fine Line: Valid Entrapment or Unlawful Instigation?

    The case began with a confidential informant notifying the police about Teresa Corpuz and Marcy Santos’s plan to sell 300 grams of shabu. A buy-bust operation was set up, during which PO3 Albert Colaler acted as the poseur-buyer. The transaction occurred near a Jollibee outlet in Malabon, where Corpuz and Santos delivered three plastic bags of shabu in exchange for ₱300,000. The police officers then arrested the appellants. The defense argued that the buy-bust operation was tainted with abuse, claiming that Corpuz was asked to identify someone from a list in exchange for freedom, a scheme known as palit ulo. The Regional Trial Court found Corpuz and Santos guilty, leading to their appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the buy-bust operation constituted valid entrapment or unlawful instigation. The Court reiterated that entrapment, when properly executed, is a legitimate method for apprehending drug offenders. The key elements required for a conviction in illegal drug sale cases are (1) the identification of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. These elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused. The prosecution must also present the corpus delicti, which includes proof of the occurrence of a certain event and the person’s criminal responsibility for the act.

    In determining whether entrapment is valid, the focus is on whether the police induced the accused to commit the crime or merely provided the opportunity for them to do so. If the accused already had the predisposition to commit the crime, then the police action is considered entrapment. However, if the police instigated the crime by inducing an otherwise innocent person to commit it, then it is considered unlawful instigation. Entrapment is valid; instigation is not.

    “Many times, this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust operation is ‘a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.’ The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.”

    Building on this principle, the Court relied on the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Albert Colaler, whose account of the transaction was clear and consistent. Colaler narrated the events leading to the arrest, detailing how the transaction was arranged, the exchange of money for the drugs, and the subsequent arrest of the appellants. The credibility of the witnesses is paramount in drug cases. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and assess their credibility, and the Supreme Court gives great weight to these assessments, absent any clear indication of misapprehension or misapplication of facts. The Court found no reason to deviate from this rule.

    In contrast to the prosecution’s evidence, the defense presented a denial, which the Court found to be weak and unsubstantiated. Appellant Corpuz claimed she was merely accompanying a new acquaintance and was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Appellant Santos claimed he was simply helping Corpuz bring her son home. The Court noted the inconsistencies in their stories, undermining their credibility. The Supreme Court has consistently held that denial is a weak defense, particularly when it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

    The claim of abuse of authority by the police officers was also dismissed by the Court. The appellants alleged that Corpuz was pressured to identify someone from a list in exchange for her freedom, but they failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. The Court reiterated the presumption that police officers perform their duties regularly and in accordance with the law. This presumption stands unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, which the appellants failed to provide. Thus, the Court found the testimonies of the police officers to be credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.

    Based on these findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Corpuz and Santos. The Court held that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been sufficiently established, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was credible and convincing. The appellants were caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. The Supreme Court modified the fine to ₱500,000, aligning it with the provisions of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by RA 7659. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug enforcement operations and respecting the rights of the accused.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the buy-bust operation conducted by the police constituted valid entrapment or unlawful instigation in the arrest of Teresa Corpuz and Marcy Santos for the illegal sale of shabu. The court had to determine whether the police merely provided an opportunity for the crime or induced the accused to commit it.
    What is a buy-bust operation? A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment where law enforcement officers act as buyers to catch individuals selling illegal drugs. It is a legal and commonly used technique to apprehend drug offenders, as long as it does not involve instigation.
    What is the difference between entrapment and instigation? Entrapment occurs when the police provide an opportunity for someone already predisposed to commit a crime. Instigation, on the other hand, involves inducing an innocent person to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit.
    What evidence did the prosecution present to prove the crime? The prosecution presented the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Albert Colaler, who described the transaction in detail. They also presented the testimonies of the back-up police officers and the chemistry report confirming the substance sold was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
    What was the defense’s argument in this case? The defense argued that the buy-bust operation was tainted with abuse and that the police had attempted to pressure Corpuz into identifying another individual in exchange for her freedom. They also presented a denial, claiming they were merely present at the scene and not involved in any drug transaction.
    Why did the Supreme Court reject the defense’s argument? The Supreme Court rejected the defense’s argument because it was unsubstantiated by any evidence and contradicted by the credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The Court also noted inconsistencies in the appellants’ testimonies, weakening their credibility.
    What is the significance of the ‘corpus delicti’ in drug cases? The ‘corpus delicti’ refers to the body of the crime, which must be proven to establish the guilt of the accused. In drug cases, this includes proof of the occurrence of the illegal sale and the person’s criminal responsibility for the act.
    What was the penalty imposed on Corpuz and Santos? The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and modified the fine to ₱500,000 each, in accordance with Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by RA 7659, due to the quantity of shabu involved.

    This case illustrates the delicate balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of proper procedures in buy-bust operations and the need for clear and convincing evidence to support a conviction for illegal drug sales. By upholding the conviction, the Court reaffirmed the validity of entrapment as a tool for combating drug trafficking while cautioning against unlawful instigation.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERESA CORPUZ Y VARGAS AND MARCY SANTOS Y JAVIER, APPELLANTS., G.R. No. 148919, December 17, 2002

  • Navigating Buy-Bust Operations in the Philippines: Rights and Repercussions

    When is a Buy-Bust Legal in the Philippines? Key Takeaways from Boco v. People

    n

    A buy-bust operation is a common tactic used by law enforcement in the Philippines to apprehend individuals involved in illegal drug activities. But what exactly constitutes a legal buy-bust, and what are your rights if you find yourself caught in one? This case sheds light on the crucial elements of a valid buy-bust operation, emphasizing the importance of entrapment versus instigation, the burden of proof in drug cases, and the severe penalties associated with drug offenses in the Philippines.

    nn

    G.R. No. 129676, June 23, 1999

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine being suddenly surrounded by police officers, accused of selling illegal drugs in a sting operation you never saw coming. This scenario, while alarming, is a reality for many in the Philippines due to buy-bust operations targeting drug offenders. The case of People v. Boco delves into the legality of such operations and the defenses available to those accused. Carlos Boco and Ronaldo Inocentes were arrested in a buy-bust and charged with attempting to sell shabu. The Supreme Court, while ultimately upholding their conviction, clarified crucial aspects of drug enforcement and the application of the Dangerous Drugs Law.

    nn

    At the heart of this case lies the question: Was the buy-bust operation conducted legally, and did the prosecution sufficiently prove the guilt of Boco and Inocentes beyond reasonable doubt? This analysis will unpack the legal intricacies of People v. Boco, providing clarity on the nuances of buy-bust operations and their implications under Philippine law.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: ENTRAPMENT VS. INSTIGATION AND THE DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW

    n

    Philippine law, particularly Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (the Dangerous Drugs Law), strictly prohibits the sale, delivery, and distribution of dangerous drugs. Central to cases arising from drug arrests is the distinction between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment, a legally accepted tactic, occurs when law enforcement creates an opportunity for someone already predisposed to commit a crime to act on that inclination. In contrast, instigation, which is unlawful, happens when law enforcement induces an innocent person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.

    nn

    The Supreme Court has consistently differentiated these concepts. Entrapment is valid and often employed in buy-bust operations, which are defined as “the employment of strategies or ways to trap a criminal in flagrante delicto.” The key is that the criminal intent must originate from the accused. If the intent originates from the police, it becomes instigation, effectively exonerating the accused. Section 21 of RA 6425, pertinent to this case, states:

    nn

    “SEC. 21. Attempt and Conspiracy. — The same penalty prescribed by this Act for the commission of the offense shall be imposed in case of any attempt or conspiracy to commit the same in the following cases: (b) Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs;”

    nn

    This section clarifies that both attempted and consummated drug sales carry similar heavy penalties, ranging from reclusion perpetua to death, depending on the quantity of drugs involved. For methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, the critical threshold for the most severe penalties is 200 grams or more.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE BUY-BUST AND ITS CHALLENGES

    n

    The narrative of People v. Boco unfolds with a confidential informant tipping off the Eastern Police District about Carlos “Caloy” Boco’s drug dealing activities. A buy-bust team was formed, with SPO1 Emmanuel Magallanes designated as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to the target location in Mandaluyong City.

    nn

    Here’s a step-by-step account of the buy-bust operation:

    n

      n

    1. Informant Tip: Police received information about Boco selling shabu.

      2. n

    2. Team Formation: A buy-bust team was assembled, including SPO1 Magallanes as poseur-buyer.

      3. n

    3. Meeting at Martinez St.: Magallanes and the informant went to the designated meeting place.

      4. n

    4. Arrival of Suspects: A car with Boco and Inocentes arrived.

      5. n

    5. Drug Transaction: The informant introduced Magallanes to Boco as a potential buyer. Magallanes asked for shabu, showed P20,000 buy-bust money, and requested to inspect the drugs. Boco instructed Inocentes to retrieve shabu from the glove compartment.

      6. n

    6. Arrest: After examining a sachet of suspected shabu, Magallanes signaled the team, and Boco and Inocentes were arrested. Further search revealed more shabu taped to Boco’s leg and in Inocentes’ pocket.

      7. n

    7. Evidence Seizure and Testing: The seized substances tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

      8. n

    nn

    In court, Boco and Inocentes denied the charges, claiming frame-up and extortion. They alleged that they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, having been accosted by armed men and falsely accused. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with the prosecution, finding them guilty and sentencing them to death, citing the positive testimonies of the police officers and the presumption of regularity in their duties. The RTC reasoned:

    nn

  • Buy-Bust Operations: When is a Warrantless Arrest Valid in Drug Cases?

    The Validity of Warrantless Arrests in Buy-Bust Operations

    G.R. No. 104378, August 20, 1996

    Imagine a scenario where police officers, acting on a tip, set up a sting operation to catch a drug dealer. Is it legal for them to arrest the suspect without a warrant? This question lies at the heart of many drug-related cases in the Philippines. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Juatan y Capsa, the Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which a warrantless arrest is valid during a buy-bust operation, providing critical guidance for law enforcement and individuals alike. The case revolves around Danilo Juatan’s arrest for selling shabu, and the legality of that arrest given the lack of a warrant.

    Legal Context: Entrapment and In Flagrante Delicto

    The legality of a warrantless arrest hinges on several key legal principles. The Philippine Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, generally requiring a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause. However, there are exceptions to this rule, one of which is an arrest made in flagrante delicto – meaning “in the act of committing an offense.”

    Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court outlines the instances when a warrantless arrest is lawful:

    1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
    2. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
    3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

    A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which is a valid law enforcement technique used to apprehend individuals already engaged in criminal activity. It differs from instigation, where law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t. In a buy-bust, the police merely provide the opportunity for the crime to occur.

    For example, if a police officer poses as a buyer and purchases illegal drugs from a seller, the seller is caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless arrest is then justified because the crime is being committed in the officer’s presence. However, if the police officer persuades someone who has no prior intention of selling drugs to do so, that would be instigation, and any subsequent arrest would be unlawful.

    Case Breakdown: The Arrest of Danilo Juatan

    Danilo Juatan was arrested as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Western Police District Command in Manila. The police had received information that Juatan was dealing in prohibited drugs and conducted a week-long surveillance that confirmed the information.

    Here’s a breakdown of the events leading to Juatan’s arrest:

    • Surveillance: Police received information about Juatan’s drug dealing and conducted a week-long surveillance.
    • Buy-Bust Operation: A police team organized a buy-bust operation. Pat. Ernesto Yamson acted as the poseur-buyer.
    • The Transaction: Yamson, with the help of an informant, met Juatan and purchased shabu with a marked P500 bill.
    • The Arrest: After the transaction, Yamson signaled his team, and Juatan was apprehended. The marked money was found in his pocket.

    During the trial, Juatan argued that his arrest was unlawful because the police did not have a warrant. He claimed he was merely at his house when the police arrived and arrested him without cause. His wife corroborated his testimony, stating that armed men forcibly entered their house and arrested Juatan without a warrant.

    However, the Supreme Court sided with the prosecution, emphasizing the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. The Court quoted, “A buy-bust operation is far variant from an ordinary arrest; it is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.“

    The Court further explained, “In a buy-bust operation the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.“

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed Juatan’s conviction but modified the penalty to align with the quantity of drugs involved, reducing it from life imprisonment to a prison term within the range of arresto mayor to prision correccional.

    Practical Implications: What This Means for You

    This case highlights the importance of understanding the limits of warrantless arrests, especially in the context of buy-bust operations. While law enforcement has the authority to conduct these operations, they must adhere to strict legal guidelines to ensure the validity of any resulting arrest. For individuals, knowing your rights during an encounter with law enforcement is crucial.

    Key Lessons:

    • A warrantless arrest is valid if an individual is caught in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto).
    • Buy-bust operations are a legal form of entrapment, allowing police to apprehend drug offenders.
    • Even in a buy-bust, police actions must be lawful; evidence obtained through illegal means may be inadmissible in court.
    • It is important to know and exercise your rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel.

    Hypothetical: Imagine a situation where police officers receive an anonymous tip that someone is selling drugs from their home. They set up a buy-bust operation, but instead of buying drugs, they simply barge into the house and arrest the suspect based on the tip. In this scenario, the arrest would likely be deemed unlawful because the suspect was not caught in the act of committing a crime, and the police did not have a warrant.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is a buy-bust operation?

    A: A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment where law enforcement officers pose as buyers to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal activities, such as selling drugs.

    Q: Is a warrant always required for an arrest?

    A: No, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as when an individual is caught in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto).

    Q: What should I do if I am arrested without a warrant?

    A: Remain calm, exercise your right to remain silent, and request the presence of a lawyer. Do not resist arrest, but make sure to note any irregularities in the procedure.

    Q: Can evidence obtained during an illegal arrest be used against me?

    A: Generally, no. Evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is inadmissible in court under the exclusionary rule.

    Q: What is the difference between entrapment and instigation?

    A: Entrapment is when law enforcement provides an opportunity for someone already predisposed to commit a crime. Instigation is when law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t.

    Q: What are my rights during an arrest?

    A: You have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to be informed of the charges against you.

    Q: What if the police planted the drugs on me?

    A: This is a serious allegation. Document everything, including witnesses. Immediately contact legal counsel who can investigate and defend you.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and drug-related cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.