patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Cocaine, Marijuana Seized by Canton Police During Traffic Stop

The following information was provided by the Canton Township Police Department. Arrests do not indicate a conviction.

 

Canton Township Police were patrolling eastbound Michigan Avenue west of Interstate 275 when a dark green 1996 Ford Windstar was spotted that police believed belongs to a man with an outstanding child support warrant out of Oakland County, according to a police report.

Police stopped the vehicle when it traveled across the solid white lane marker to enter the southbound I-275 ramp, the report said. The man did not have a driver’s license and told police he was trying to get his license cleared up with the help of his lawyer.

Police handcuffed and searched the man and had his vehicle towed. Before towing, however, police gathered the man’s belongings and found a pill bottle lying on the floor between the two front seats of the vehicle. The man told police the medication was for his shingles, but told police he did not need it, the report said.

An officer took the pill bottle to place into inventory and noticed the bottle was filled halfway with blue pills, and on top of the pills were two clear plastic baggies, the report said. One baggie had a white powdery substance that appeared to be cocaine, and the second bag had what appeared to be a burnt marijuana joint, the report said. The man told police he had found the substances at a party the night before but denied ownership of the items.

The white substance tested positive as 2.4 grams of cocaine, the report said. The suspected marijuana also tested positive, with 1.2 grams reported.

Police will pursue charges against the man, but specific charges were not included in the report.

For questions about this crime report, email john.mckay@patch.com.

Related Topics: Crime Report

Malcolm Kyle

6:37 am on Sunday, September 9, 2012

Prohibitionists are neither civil nor productive members of society, they are soulless parasites—inhuman, oppressive criminals from whom protection is required.

Or maybe Prohibitionists did not really intend to kill hundreds of thousands worldwide, put 1 in every 30 American adults under supervision of the correctional system, and—exactly like their counterparts of the 1920s— destroy the economy?

Whatever way you look at it, Prohibitionists are overwhelmingly responsible for an immense increase in organized crime, international terrorism, rampant official corruption, a broken economy, mass unemployment and a serious undermining of international security and development.

If you sincerely believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy then you can stop helping to enforce it. You are entitled—required even—to act according to your conscience!

* It only takes one juror to prevent a guilty verdict.
* You are not lawfully required to disclose your voting intention before taking your seat on a jury.
* You are also not required to give a reason to the other jurors on your position when voting. Simply state that you find the accused not guilty!
* Jurors must understand that it is their opinion, their vote. If the Judge and the other jurors disapprove, too bad. There is no punishment for having a dissenting opinion.

We must create what we can no longer afford to wait for: PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!

Reply

thomas Hughes

10:14 am on Sunday, September 9, 2012

It is call "Fija". Fully informed jury association. You as a jurror have a right and obligation to judge the law as well as if the law was broken. Judges stopped informing jurror of this some time back so they could manipulate the process and get CONVICTIONS. If you disclose that you are a member or a supporter of FIJA you will be dismissed from jury duty.

Reply

delinquent

7:10 pm on Sunday, September 9, 2012

i tried once to tell them i was a racist it did not work . but when the judge said they only had to prove one of thier thoeries i said that no i was informed a long time ago that they have to prove on three seperate instances for thier theory and was dismissed . or all they had to do was ask the defandant his or her name and that was it proven on one instance .

Reply

Leave a comment