Stun gun possession and HS 11550

[Triad]

I have a question for you legal eagles.

Lets say hypothetically I stop a guy and hes on probation for dope (no felony convictions) and he has a stun gun on his person. He is also 11550. Per PC 22610(b) is he arrestable? Or does the person need to be a narcotics registrant per 11590?

22610. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person may
purchase, possess, or use a stun gun, subject to the following
requirements:

- (b) No person addicted to any narcotic drug shall purchase,
possess, or use a stun gun.

[CinnamonBear723]

From my understanding of the law, it depends on their probation conditions. Sometimes people can be on unsupervised probation. Some get more stringent supervised probation. Hopefully someone with more experience will answer this question as I am brand new to the job. Generally persons on parole or probation are not allowed to carry any type of weapon. Not allowed access to guns and knives have to be under 2 inches. Being a narcotics registrant is different than being on probation for narcotics. Their probation terms will dictate what they can and cannot do.

[Triad]

I don't know why I included probation information. Absent probation, possession and being high...arrestable or not is the question

[CinnamonBear723]

Well you can make the arrest just based on the 11550(a) alone, regardless of the possession of the stun gun. I couldnt find anything that specifically states that being high and having a stun gun elevates the 11550, or makes possession of the stun gun illegal. Hopefully someone with more experience will chime in, in the event that i am mistaken.

[Eikbyrnir]

I have a question for you legal eagles.

Lets say hypothetically I stop a guy and hes on probation for dope (no felony convictions) and he has a stun gun on his person. He is also 11550. Per PC 22610(b) is he arrestable? Or does the person need to be a narcotics registrant per 11590?

22610. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person may
purchase, possess, or use a stun gun, subject to the following
requirements:

- (b) No person addicted to any narcotic drug shall purchase,
possess, or use a stun gun.

The way I've done it, and I would talk to your DA and/or Sergeant and see what they say, I put the 11550 as the first charge, and then if they have a history of 11550 charges, 11370 and so on then I'll add on the 22610. I just show in the report that they have a history of narcotics charges and use that as my basis. If the DA doesn't want it they can drop the charges. It might depend on what kind of DA you have though. I've never used the narcotics registry as a basis for that though, as some addicts slip by it or just don't do it.

[hbm4]

I agree with Eikbyrnir about consulting your local Deputy DA/ or WC regarding legalities and or departmental policies. It all comes down to the circumstances of the contact and "based on your training and experience." The suspect having prior hooks for narcotics violations does not necessarily make him/her an addict. Unfortunately I have come across a few Public Defenders who have pulled out the medical books to define an "addict". Luckily "based on my extensive my training and experience" I always testify to my knowledge of an addict being that medically, drug addiction is a chronic condition that cannot be cured, but can be controlled and managed. So, once a person is an addict, he'll always be an addict. If you are hooking someone up for 11550 that has priors for the same, you can argue that they have a pattern of drug use which indicates addiction. Also my experience with Public Defenders/ Retained Counsel regarding charges is how many arrests for specific narcotics violations you have under your belt ( 11550, 11377, 11350, etc). They love it when you can't give an exact number. It doesn't hurt when you have a quick comeback with an exact number or tell testify that every single one of your 11550 hooks has come back positive. Hope this helps. Sorry for the long response. Stay safe.

[Ron-Solo]

Hook for the 11550, Mirandize him/her, and get into their drug habit. Many will sing like a bird and lay out that they're addicted. Then you have your add charge.

Or, if they are an IV user, chatting their track marks will establish their addiction. Then you clearly have the add charge.

[DriftinG Z32]

Like many have stated, I would initially hook for 11550. I would then run a criminal and/or local agency history check, in an effort to find multiple prior convictions/arrests/contacts for H/S related offenses. If multiple H/S related contacts/offenses are found during your inquiry, it may show a pattern of abuse/addiction. I would also document any physical evidence recovered from the arrest, such as paraphernalia or syringes. Only addicts run around town geared up and prepared for their next hit.

[CBR_rider]

I agree with the above, you are going to need to do as much as you can outside of simply the 11550 to prove the addiction. Statements, past contacts, your experience, statements of your suspects buddy, etc will all be key.

[IA300]

I agree with Eikbyrnir about consulting your local Deputy DA/ or WC regarding legalities and or departmental policies. It all comes down to the circumstances of the contact and "based on your training and experience." The suspect having prior hooks for narcotics violations does not necessarily make him/her an addict. Unfortunately I have come across a few Public Defenders who have pulled out the medical books to define an "addict". Luckily "based on my extensive my training and experience" I always testify to my knowledge of an addict being that medically, drug addiction is a chronic condition that cannot be cured, but can be controlled and managed. So, once a person is an addict, he'll always be an addict. If you are hooking someone up for 11550 that has priors for the same, you can argue that they have a pattern of drug use which indicates addiction. Also my experience with Public Defenders/ Retained Counsel regarding charges is how many arrests for specific narcotics violations you have under your belt ( 11550, 11377, 11350, etc). They love it when you can't give an exact number. It doesn't hurt when you have a quick comeback with an exact number or tell testify that every single one of your 11550 hooks has come back positive. Hope this helps. Sorry for the long response. Stay safe.

On that note, I keep a running log of every person I chart and those I deemed 11550 and even those I didn't. I follow up on the one's I did arrest to determine how many come back positive. The numbers are always there for testimony, if you need them. What's another small spiral notebook?

[RickD427]

Hook for the 11550, Mirandize him/her, and get into their drug habit. Many will sing like a bird and lay out that they're addicted. Then you have your add charge.

Or, if they are an IV user, chatting their track marks will establish their addiction. Then you clearly have the add charge.

I'll second Ron on this one.

There is an alternate strategy, in the event the subject is not under the influence at the time of the contact (Please note the elements of the offense only require the subject to be an "addict", they do not require that the subject be "under the influence" at the time of the arrest.)

You can emphasize to the subject they are not under arrest, or in custody (removing the need for Miranda), or you can opt to Mirandize.

Inform the subject of your conclusion that he is not presently under the influence. Ask "When was the last time that you used?" Then follow up with a series of questions establishing the frequency of use and supporting the conclusion of addiction.

The same strategy works for the making of 23152(c) CVC arrests.

[IA300]

There is an alternate strategy, in the event the subject is not under the influence at the time of the contact (Please note the elements of the offense only require the subject to be an "addict", they do not require that the subject be "under the influence" at the time of the arrest.)

You can emphasize to the subject they are not under arrest, or in custody (removing the need for Miranda), or you can opt to Mirandize.

Inform the subject of your conclusion that he is not presently under the influence. Ask "When was the last time that you used?" Then follow up with a series of questions establishing the frequency of use and supporting the conclusion of addiction.

The same strategy works for the making of 23152(c) CVC arrests.

This is something I do, prior to charting, while they are merely detained. Works well during a consensual encounter too, as you are obs'ing the POS of their use. Miranda doesn't apply at that point, so fire away, then once you have your answers and you've noticed the symptoms, chart away...