Judge Dismisses Possession For Sale Charges Due to Lack of Evidence After Prelim

by Abigail Soler

On Thursday afternoon, January 21, 2016, Jacklyn Patrick was brought before Judge Paul Richardson in Department 13 for a preliminary hearing on a seven-count complaint. There was one witness to testify, Officer Nathann Ogden of the West Sacramento Police Department.

On January 1, 2016, in West Sacramento, Patrick was pulled over by Officer Ogden at 8:53 pm for failing to use a signal when making a right turn. Patrick was the driver and she had two male passengers in the car with her.

Officer Ogden asked all passengers to identify themselves, to which they complied. Patrick had a felony warrant, apparently from a probation violation, for her arrest. The front seat passenger had a $75,000 warrant and was on searchable probation. The other passenger, who had a $400 warrant, was soon dismissed from the scene. Patrick and the front-seat passenger were handcuffed and placed in separate police cars.

The officer questioned whether the defendant possessed any drugs, to which Patrick responded affirmatively. Officer Ogden searched Patrick after she revealed that she had pipes and “dope” on her. He found 0.2 grams of a white crystal substance and three glass pipes in a pink bag, in her pocket. He did not show her, nor verbally tell her what he had found.

Upon searching the vehicle, 193 grams of marijuana were found in various places and in packaging. Most notably, some of the marijuana was tightly packed in 1-inch by 1-inch baggies, alongside a box of empty sandwich bags. The marijuana was a mixture of stems, leaves, “bud” and “shake.”

Inside the vehicle, Officer Ogden also recovered a purse that had in it a prescription bottle with the label torn off, containing 15 pills inside. There were three different types of pills, for which no prescription was written: hydrocodone, acetaminophen, and oxycodone. Found inside of a separate purse in the vehicle was a white crystal substance, later revealed as methamphetamine. Ogden did not ask to whom the two purses belonged.

The two people in handcuffs, Patrick and her passenger, were taken to West Sacramento for pre-booking. There, Ogden searched Patrick a second time, this time finding nothing. Patrick gave a statement saying that all the drugs and marijuana were hers. She said that the “shake,” or marijuana, was not intended for sale because it “wasn’t even sellable.” Patrick also said that the marijuana was given to her in the same way it was found by the officer.

It was then time to transport the defendant to Yolo County Jail for booking. He informed her of the felony charge for bringing drugs or paraphernalia into the jail, and asked again if she had any drugs on her, to which she responded negatively.

Upon arriving at the Yolo County Jail, a final search was done by a female officer as part of the booking process. The unnamed officer found a bag inside Patrick’s jacket with 1.0 gram of the same white crystal substance and two glass pipes.

The questioning of Officer Ogden went back and forth between the DDA and the Deputy Public Defender, Martha Sequeria, for two rounds.

When Ms. Sequeria, on cross-examination, questioned Officer Ogden a second time, she asked him, “Earlier, what made you think the purse was [Patrick’s]?” In Ogden’s first response, he had claimed that he assumed the purses were Patrick’s because she was the only female in the car. He later said, after reading his report, that he thought the purses were Patrick’s because of her statement, when she declared that all the pot and dope was hers. This recant made the witness appear less credible

Ms. Sequeria asked Officer Ogden if he had ever explicitly asked Patrick to whom the purses belonged. His response was no. The witness, Officer Ogden, was shortly after excused from the stand.

Sequeria had attempted to get an expert witness to testify at the hearing. However, he was busy testifying in Department 7 on that afternoon. Both the defense and the prosecution agreed to submit on what they already had.

The prosecution asked the court to strike counts 3 and 4 from the charge. The DDA decided to charge counts 1 and 2, intent to sell drugs and transportation of drugs with intent to sell. This was based on three facts: that there were 193 grams of marijuana in the vehicle, that the marijuana was in peculiar packaging, and that more packing materials were found with the marijuana.

The prosecution also wanted to charge a misdemeanor for Health and Safety Code section 11350, having possession of a controlled substance. This was based on the fact that Patrick had the pills in an unmarked prescription bottle, with no written prescription.

The defense attorney argued that count 5, bringing illegal drugs and paraphernalia into the jail, was not Patrick’s fault. Ms. Sequeria disputed that Patrick was uncooperative with Officer Ogden, and pointed out that he did not reveal to the defendant what he had found on her. Thus, the defense saw that Patrick had no way of knowing what she was still in possession of, and wondered why, after two searches, Officer Ogden was unable to find the substance and contraband.

Judge Richardson ruled no holding for counts one through five. Richardson stated that there was nothing to give the court the idea that the marijuana was for sale, rather than for personal use. Counts three and four had no holding as found by the People. Richardson ruled no holding for count five because he believed Patrick would not be under suspicion of bringing contraband into jail after two previous searches.

For counts six and seven, Patrick will change her plea to a “no contest” plea for Proposition 36 probation. The defense, prosecution, and judge found her eligible for Proposition 36 probation. The judge sentenced Patrick to three-years Prop. 36 misdemeanor probation, with a $150 restitution fee. Patrick will also be required to submit to any search or drug test requested of her from an officer, without a warrant.

Categories:

Tags: