The Crimes of the Landlord; the Culpability of the Tenant

[Procrustus]

@KneadToKnow

There’s still a difference between being charged and being successfully prosecuted, right?

Being charged still sucks. And, innocent people get convicted now and then.

[md2000]

@Procrustus

I disagree with both of these points. In Washington, which is not unusual, this is the test;

Washington Pattern Jury Instruction
WPIC 10.51 Accomplice—Definition

[A person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he or she is legally accountable. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when he or she is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.]
A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either:
(1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or
(2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime.
The word “aid” means all assistance whether given by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence. A person who is present at the scene and ready to assist by his or her presence is aiding in the commission of the crime. However, more than mere presence and knowledge of the criminal activity of another must be shown to establish that a person present is an accomplice.
[A person who is an accomplice in the commission of a crime is guilty of that crime whether present at the scene or not.]

How does this instruction relate to “possession”? If you are resident in the house and know about the drugs… I’m guessing there’s a lot of wiggle room in the argument to the jury.

[Procrustus]

@md2000

How does this instruction relate to “possession”? If you are resident in the house and know about the drugs… I’m guessing there’s a lot of wiggle room in the argument to the jury.

I was addressing the allegation that knowledge of a crime is enough. Here’s the instruction for possession:

Possession means having a substance in one’s custody or control. [It may be either actual or constructive. Actual possession occurs when the item is in the actual physical custody of the person charged with possession. Constructive possession occurs when there is no actual physical possession but there is dominion and control over the substance.]
[Proximity alone without proof of dominion and control is insufficient to establish constructive possession. Dominion and control need not be exclusive to support a finding of constructive possession.]
[In deciding whether the defendant had dominion and control over a substance, you are to consider all the relevant circumstances in the case. Factors that you may consider, among others, include [whether the defendant had the [immediate] ability to take actual possession of the substance,] [whether the defendant had the capacity to exclude others from possession of the substance,][and][whether the defendant had dominion and control over the premises where the substance was located]. No single one of these factors necessarily controls your decision.]

[elbows]

If cars are coming and going all day, you shouldn’t be worried about the grow OP so much as living over a heat score. It would unnerve me, I know. I’d probably start looking for another place if I was in your shoes.

[md2000]

@Procrustus

I was addressing the allegation that knowledge of a crime is enough. Here’s the instruction for possession:

Yes, so “dominion” suggests that if the tenants habitually are allowed in the basement (ie. for laundry), not excluded; if the door to the grow-op was not locked to them - they might be liable for possession. It depends how private the apartment is from the house.

At least, that’s my reading from this:

Factors that you may consider, among others, include [whether the defendant had the [immediate] ability to take actual possession of the substance,] [whether the defendant had the capacity to exclude others from possession of the substance,][and][whether the defendant had dominion and control over the premises where the substance was located]. No single one of these factors necessarily controls your decision.]

Good point also, that a major grow op is a fire liability as well as possible mold problems if it’s too humid.

As I said if the prosecutor wants to be a dick to pump up his conviction numbers, and the landlord is willing to claim they were in on it, in return for a lighter sentence… the OP is screwed.

[kayaker]

@md2000

Good point also, that a major grow op is a fire liability as well as possible mold problems if it’s too humid.

Safety first as far as wiring is concerned. Mold? A serious concern as it will ruin product quickly. Dehumidification is SOP.

[Enola_Gay]

I had a kindofsortof similar situation that happened in one of our rentals. We have duplex house–rented out to 2 separate families with a common garage. Long story short, cops get called in for some domestic violence thing & notice a grow operation in the garage. I get called cause they need my permission as owner to enter the property (which I thought was weird, since they had a warrant, but whatevs…). Anyway, grower gets busted, but the other tenant who shared the garage & lives in the other half of the duplex (and I’m pretty sure was a client) did not get charged. But of course these are all State laws, so things might go down differently in your state…

Btw, my tenant had 32 plants, not 3. Pretty sure that 3 would qualify as personal consumption here, and would likely not get prosecuted.

[Zeke_N.Destroi]

@HeyHomie

Well, I will NOT be calling the police. I think cannabis laws are unjust and immoral. Not to mention that he and I do business besides just rent, if you get what I’m sayin.

The operation is three plants, way the hell down in a part of the basement that I couldn’t get into without a key, which I don’t have and don’t need.

As to why I think he’s going to get busted: forgive my tin-foil hat paranoia here, but if the local constabulary picks up on the fact that lots of vehicles come and go throughout the course of the day, staying only a few minutes at a time, a search warrant is likely to be issued.

Sounds like the guy is a bit of a heat-score. I tend to avoid being around people like that, and certainly wouldn’t pay for the privilege.

Don’t forget that even if you skate you’ve got the hassle of the investigation (meaning visits from the police) and likely, at the very least, a forced, short-notice eviction (hose is seized under proceeds of crime and your are suddenly homeless).

@aNewLeaf

No traffic at grow sites! OMG, that’s basic security!!

Not just grow ops. Many a dealer has gotten busted because neighbours noticed exactly this traffic pattern and called the cops. While I’ve no first-hand knowledge of such things I am told that smart / successful non-street dealers will often insist that visits last a reasonable time in order to avoid this.

[pohjonen]

I actually called the hotline on a neighbor once when I tired of his guard rottweilers chasing me up my own driveway. He was growing in a huge shed behind his house and it could be smelled from my backyard, you could see the lights escaping around the roof 24/7 and he had constant 2 minute traffic to his house.

The cops did - nothing.

I wouldn’t worry too much if I were you.