California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gentry, 7 Cal.App.4th 1255, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 742 (Cal. App. 1992):
[7 Cal.App.4th 1260] However, the police testimony contradicts the claim that appellant admitted ownership of the marijuana at this juncture. 1 The testifying officer stated that the police discovered the marijuana and formally arrested appellant and Dallas. After the arrest, one of the women occupants became upset upon being advised that Dallas was arrested and stated that the marijuana belonged to appellant and not Dallas. Although ambivalent on the point, the police effectively denied that appellant made any statement while at the apartment. According to the police, appellant was taken to the police station, advised of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), and then interviewed by two detectives. It was at the police station, for the first time, that appellant admitted that the marijuana was his. Appellant further stated that he purchased the marijuana for the purpose of selling it. The police dusted the plastic bags of marijuana and found appellant's fingerprint on one of the bags. The testifying officer did not know if the fingerprint comparison was made with appellant's fingerprints from this arrest or from fingerprints which may have been on file.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.