Two Crisp County Men in Jail Following Drug Sweep

Four months after a multi-agency investigation began, authorities arrested two men on various drug trafficking-related charges.

GBI Southwestern Regional Drug Enforcement Office, Crisp County Sheriff’s Office, and the Drug Enforcement Administration all collaborated on the drug trafficking investigation, which targeted a 26-year-old Cordele resident, who was an alleged drug lord. At the end of the investigation, a search warrant was executed at the man’s apartment. a Glock 19 9mm handgun, a Smith and Wesson .22 handgun, authorities arrested the investigation’s target, along with his alleged sidekick. Officers also had a warrant for a nearby apartment.

A consent search was also executed at 603 E 1st Avenue in Cordele.

Multi-Agency Investigations

These investigations, which are quite common in extensive, multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, and other such offenses, are a bad news/good news thing for criminal defendants.

Large investigations enable multiple agencies to pool their financial resources. These investigations mean the same thing for human resources.

Crisp County is a good example. This small jurisdiction in South Georgia, which has fewer than 23,000 residents in the county and is the proud home of country music legend T. Graham Brown, doesn’t have the money to fund a large investigation. Furthermore, its law enforcement officers are very adept at making DUI arrests, handing out speeding tickets, and breaking up fights. However, they don’t have the human resources to investigate large-scale drug crimes.

Now for the good news. As the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. Multiple people from multiple places with multiple agendas often don’t work together very well. They especially don’t communicate with each other very well.

Additionally, multi-agency investigations have lots of moving parts. So, it’s easier for a Marietta criminal defense lawyer to find and exploit a procedural issue, like one of the ones discussed below.

Search Warrants

As hinted above, multi-agency investigations consume massive amounts of resources. After all this investment of money and manpower, authorities are anxious to make a headline-grabbing arrest that caps the investigation. As a result, they bring as many charges as possible against as many defendants as possible.

Once again, this story is a good example. The alleged ringleader was charged with fifteen criminal offenses, many of them technicalities. One such charge was using a communication facility during the commission of certain crimes. Quite frankly, we’re not sure what this offense is, at least of the top of our heads.

To make such arrests, many officers take shortcuts during the search warrant process. A rush to judgment and over-reliance on paid informers are two of the most common illegal shortcuts.

One sign of a drug house is people who go enter and exit almost immediately. If one person comes and goes quickly, that is unusual. If two or more people come and go quickly, that indicates criminal activity. If a judge signs off on a single incident warrant, the affidavit may lack probable cause, which makes the warrant illegal.

As for paid informants, there’s very little honor among thieves. Drug mules and other low-level operatives often roll over on their superiors if investigators promise them immunity. Even though money changes hands, immunity is a form of payment. Most people will say pretty much anything to avoid criminal prosecutions. So, an informant’s uncorroborated testimony usually isn’t probable cause.

Warrantless Searches

Apparently in the above story, investigators had warrants for two drug houses, but not for a third one. Warrantless searches could be okay if a narrow exception applies, such as:

• Consent: Generally, consent is a voluntary and affirmative agreement to allow an immediate property search. Voluntary usually means entirely voluntary. Coerced consent, even if the coercion is subtle, is arguably not consent. Similarly, affirmative agreement is usually an entirely affirmative agreement. “Okay, but I’m calling a Marietta criminal defense lawyer” arguably isn’t pure affirmative consent.
• Exigent Circumstances: These searches are basically implied consent searches. If officers reasonably believe someone might be in trouble, they may enter a building without a warrant and conduct a safety security sweep. These searches are limited. Officers can look in the kitchen, but they can’t open the pantry. If they see contraband in plain view, they may seize it.
• Plain View: This doctrine, which often comes up in traffic stops, is also a standalone doctrine. Guns, drugs, and any other contraband in plain view is subject to immediate seizure, warrant or no warrant. Partial plain view seizures, like a pistol’s barrel protruding from under a seat, are in a gray area.

Many searches and seizures, especially the aforementioned automobile stops, happen so fast that there’s not time to get a warrant. Furthermore, most officers have little inclination to swear out affidavits in these situations.

Resolving Drug Charges

When they appear at staged press conferences, officers usually lay out all the guns, drugs, and everything else seized at a house or apartment on one table, as if they were all together in one place. Frequently, however, that’s not the case. A handgun in the living room might have little or nothing to do with a drug stash in the bedroom.

Prosecutors don’t care if they’ll have a hard time connecting the dots at trial. At this stage, authorities want to convey the message that your tax dollars were well spent and a dangerous drug dealer is now behind bars.

This over-aggressiveness makes it easier for a Marietta criminal defense lawyer to negotiate a favorable plea bargain, especially a charge reduction. If the defendant pleads guilty to reduced charged, like drug possession instead of trafficking, prosecutors at least obtain a partial victory. They also avoid social media backlash over wasted resources and racial profiling. These accusations might or might not be true, but no one wants to deal with them.

Attorneys must often deal with civil forfeiture charges in drug cases, along with criminal charges. Authorities have broad powers to seize any property, even cash, which they believe is related to criminal activity. Even noted conservatives, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have spoken out against this controversial practice. This can of worms is the subject of a different blog.

There’s a difference between a criminal charge and a criminal conviction. For a free consultation with an experienced Marietta criminal law attorney, contact The Phillips Law Firm, LLC. Convenient payment plans are available.