There are too many variables here, about which no information is provided, to answer the question in any meaningful way.You seem to assume that second- or later-time offenders are more likely to get imprisonment as their sentence or as part of it. All other things being equal, you are right — but a very great deal hangs on the “all other things.”Because you ask about sentencing, you are also assuming a finding of guilt. Now, if you go to trial, whether it’s a bench trial (where the judge is the judge of fact) or a jury trial, you might be found guilty, and you might not be, depending on the evidence for and against, and the arguments made by the attorneys. (Pro tip: if you do decide to go to trial, note that judges acquit more often than juries do).But if you do go to trial, and you are found guilty, the penalties will probably be harsher than if you had come to a plea agreement. (That is called, somewhat cynically, the “trial tax.”)And if you come to an agreement with the prosecution, and the judge gives approval to that agreement, and if the agreed-upon penalties involve incarceration, you will certainly be incarcerated! And if the agreed-upon penalties do not involve it, you will certainly not be incarcerated!As an aside: that assumes you then fulfill the conditions of your sentencing order, whatever it might be (probation or day-reporting or home monitoring, or whatever), no matter what those conditions might be (monthly fees, community service, treatment programs, and so on). If you fail to fulfill those conditions, and especially if you fail to make good-faith, diligent attempts to fulfill those conditions, do not expect to stay out of the slammer!Keep in mind also that prosecutors rarely make plea offers which are not in proportion to the standard penalties for the crimes with which you are charged in your jurisdiction, when compared with other cases with similar evidence sets. Of course, they go for the high end of that range (to allow room for bargaining down), but the initial offer would probably be no worse than harsh; in any event, in keeping with the law’s permissible sentences.And even if they do make an offer that’s really way out of range, your attorney will advise you not to accept it. And even if your attorney fails to do so, the judge should not give approval. (The judge is impartial, and is on the side of justice, remember?)
Is cocaine, heroine, marijuana and other drugs being used as legal tender in parts of the world?
Inasmuch as all avenues of currency exchange and legal tender have been eliminated fom the insurgents in the Middle East, are the poppie, marijuana and heroine plants and productions being substituted for legal tender and utilized as a bartering agent to purchase weapons of destruction? Should the governments of the world agree to a certain level of production and enforce its agreed to production levels with a United Nations military force? Are drugs being allowed to enter into countries as nations and factions barter, using drugs as a form of legal tender? How are the insurgents being able to acquire weapons and explosives if all banks, financial institutions and currency exchange's are being monitored? Should there be a grand jury impounded with full subpoena powers to investigate the matter, some form of journalism or media coverage, putting the matter of drugs being utilized as legal tender in the funding of the War in the Middle East under a microscope? Any idea...?
True story. Many years ago, a friend of mine who had a bad coke habit paid a large sum of cash to his drug dealer, in expectation of receiving coke. This was a person he considered a “friend” with whom he had made many similar deals in the past. Well, the dealer was experiencing cash flow problems so spent my friend’s money and did not deliver any coke. He promised that when some other deals went through he would have more cash and would make good. My friend, being an addict, did not like the idea of waiting for his drugs so he broke into the dealer’s apartment and took his high-end stereo, and let him know he could have his stereo back when he got his coke. He assumed as many might that of course a drug dealer is not going to involve the police in such a dispute. But he assumed wrong — the dealer promptly called the cops who got a warrant and searched my friend’s apartment and found the stereo. They then went to my friend’s work location and took him out in cuffs. My friend told his story but of course the drug dealer denied being a drug dealer and the cops did not even bother searching his place for drugs, which in any case they probably wouldn’t have found since he was not an idiot. My friend ended up with a burglary conviction on his record, which cost him the high-paying financial service job that funded his coke addiction, along with any chance of similar future employment. He later committed suicide in despair. Moral of the story: drug addiction is bad and makes people do very stupid things, and drug dealers are probably not people who should be relied upon to act honorably, so it is best to avoid drugs and drug dealers altogether. But in any case, theft is theft in the eyes of the law and the fact that the “victim” is a scumbag drug dealer or that the stolen property was ill-gotten are not legal excuses if you are caught.
It's impossible to list every single instance when cops would be allowed to force entry into a residence. I can only attempt to explain the general rules and common instances when that would be allowed.As an general rule, cops are allowed to force entry into a residence when there are exigent circumstances or they are given a "no knock" search warrant by a judge. They can also force entry if they have an arrest warrant and can clearly see that the person they are looking for is inside the residence.Most of the time, cops do what's commonly referred to as "knock and announce". This is exactly what it sounds like. They knock on the door and announce their presence, and then wait a reasonable time for you to come to the door. If they get to the door and see or hear something that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the life of somebody inside the house is in danger, then they can force entry. Exigent circumstances can, in certain cases, apply to preventing the destruction of evidence. Let's look at a couple of examples. If a search warrant specifies that they are looking only for a stolen 50 inch plasma screen TV, they probably aren't going to force entry. Most people aren't going to be able to destroy a 50 inch TV to the point that nobody will ever be able to tell what it originally was, at least not very easily or quickly. But if they have a search warrant for drugs, which can easily be flushed down the toilet, they need to be able to get in before the drugs are gone. As far as how long they have to wait for you to come to the door, there is no set time frame. It all depends on what's reasonable in that particular case.Occasionally, a judge will issue a "no knock" search warrant. This means that the cops who execute that warrant are not required to knock on the door or announce their presence. This is usually done in cases where the suspect is known to be violent towards cops.If you as the homeowner have an issue with what they did, please do not argue it at the scene. Save it for later and file a complaint with the department or file a lawsuit. That's much safer for everybody involved, especially you as the homeowner.Please note that I am not a lawyer. Any statements I have made here are my own personal experiences and opinions, and should in no way be interpreted as legal advice. If you desire legal advice, please consult a licensed attorney.
You can smoke meth up until the day of the UA. All you have to do is put three table spoons of baking soda in sixteen ounces of water and drink it three and a half hours before your UA. After about an hour and a half of drinking the mixture you will get explosive diarrhea for about forty five minutes to an hour. you have four hours from the time you take it till its expired. Trust me I was on intensive corrections for the last two and a half years and did meth everyday ands a lot of it, I failed one UA that's because I took the mixture four and a half hours prior to the UA. three tablespoons to sixteen ounces of water slam it down three and a half hours before UA I guarantee you to pass. Only works for meth. The diarrhea is violent but not uncomfortable. Don’t exceed three table spoons you could get real sick and overdose. And oh yea if you throw up you got to drink it again. I love my nuts but I will putt them up against if this works or not.p.s. I see people are saying 72 hours to pass a ua for meth. B.S I have personally failed a u.a. 21 days clean. No joke I had an honest 21 days clean and failed thats when I found a real solution like the baking soda.