GQ or CS? Hmm…maybe one of our resident officers will have a factual answer to this, so we’ll start with GQ.
A&E has a show called Intervention. The gist is that people with serious drug addictions agree to participate in a documentary about drug addiction, unaware that they’re in fact going to have an intervention.
Before the intervention happens, the cameras roll while they go about their day - shooting up, doing blow, whatever. They never block out the person’s face - they give their name and their hometown.
Let’s say there’s a member of law enforcement watching who recognizes that this is their jurisdiction and can easily track down the person on TV. What would stop him from going over to the person’s house and arresting that person? He’s got video evidence of the person doing illegal drugs. Wouldn’t that be probable cause?
Also, in some cases, the cameras follow as they go to another part of town and buy drugs. Would / could the officer legally head over there and arrest the dealer?
I am not an expert but I believe the police would need to establish their own case but a supporting tape may start the process. As a general rule, it is not illegal to have done drugs (with some narrow exceptions), it is only illegal to be in possession of drugs or some specific paraphernalia.
Generally speaking it is not against the law to have done drugs. It is usually against the law to possess drugs, and public intoxication is usually also against the law.
But suppose a cop wanted to arrest someone because they saw a videotape of that person snorting a white powder, and calling that white powder cocaine. If you were that cop, what would you charge that person with? What would be the name of that crime? Who would have jurisdiction to arrest that person?
Frequently the crime of drug possession is only peripheral to other, probably more serious crimes committed by the suspect. And sometimes it can be a good way to “nail” someone who is suspected of other crime(s) when there is insufficient evidence to arrest/convict them of said crimes (“At least we got him for crack”). It’s generally true that the police don’t spend an enormous amount of time and resources specifically seeking out non-distributing drug users who aren’t creating any problems. Not that you can’t still be in the wrong place at the wrong time though.
Gee I see movies and TV shows with dudes snorting white powder quite often, why aren’t those dudes in jail? Oh, I know- it’s because the blow isn’t real drugs. Maybe what they show is real,maybe it isn’t.
Now that the legal questions have been answered, may I ask what exactly happens in a typical ‘intervention’? I presume this means the user is restrained from taking drugs for a period of time? If so, what level of force is applied? Are the users prevented from just walking away, and if so, isn’t that kidnap?
There can be no force and they can just walk away. I have not seen the show but I am familiar with interventions in general. There is no legal way they can hold the person. An intervention is supposed to work by shocking the person into rehab. They are suddenly confronted with all their loved ones and have to face their problems. It is hard to deny things when everyone you know is in one room telling you how fucked up you are. I have no idea what the success rate is.
An intervention is a meeting between the drug user and concerned loved ones, mediated by a counselor. The user is unaware that the intervention is about to take place, often being brought to it under false pretenses. On the show, the user has been told the s/he is participating in a documentary on addiction but is not told that there will be an intervention.
At the meeting, the concerned loved ones advise the user of the effect their drug use is having on them, the loved one. They spell out what consequences the user will face as a result of refusing to get help that day (the loved one will cut off all contact, no financial assistance of any kind, showing up at their house will get the user arrested for terespassing, etc.) and ask them to go to a treatment center that the intervention counselor has arranged. The user is not physically restrained and is free to leave at any time.
A Google search turns up a lot of advert-like cites of 90-95% of intervention subjects going into treatment. Not seeing anything upon quick perusal on the success rates of treatment for the intervened or how it compares to those who enter treatment through another avenue. I don’t recall anyone on the show ever refusing to go for treatment, but of course the show has complete control over whether it airs refusals. That show is one of my guilty pleasures and a little evil part of me thrills when they play the final interview with the user being all “I’m so happy, my nightmare is ending, I’m gonna make this work” and then immediately plunk a graphic up about how they left treatment after a week or they relapsed ten minutes after getting home or whatever.
Also, the goal of criminalizing drug use is supposedly to reduce drug use. If people are taking it upon themselves to get their friends and family into treatment they are saving the legal system a lot of time, effort, and money.
You’re saying that these people agree to be on camera being shown destroying their lives and having their concerned family members confront them about their horrible drug problems but they’re really actors and it’s all fake?
No, what he’s saying is that proving that what the person actually stuck in their veins or snorted is a controlled substance on the basis of video shot weeks or months earlier presents enough of a proof problem that police and prosecutors aren’t going to bother. Couple that with the terrible publicity that a police department or prosecutor would get for charging a recovering addict following an appearance on the show and there’s zero incentive for anyone to go after the subjects.
