All the more reason not to drive around with a lot of weed. Under KY law you can have 7.999 oz and still not be charged with trafficking. Why the f would you have more than that and not be intending to sell it?
I kinda understand the point he's making though. It's more about how the laws are written. If the purpose of the law is to stop people from selling weed, and in order to make it easier to prosecute, a somewhat arbitrary threshold is set to differentiate between someone who would probably sell and probably just use for themselves, what do you do when someone crosses the threshold but obviously has no intention to sell? Is it right to charge someone for selling because of an arbitrary threshold that was set even if they clearly have no intention to sell?
Do you know how much you make off of 3 pounds wholesale? In most cases under 5k, considering he's not growing it or selling it by grams as a day job, could theoretically be less than a thousand in profit just moving around bulk. Harrell makes on average 20k a day from his contract. Overwhelmingly likely he's just throwing parties and giving it away to his friends/family.
I don’t think he was trafficking for profit. But you kind of made my point for me. With that quantity, you are most likely distributing somehow, unless he just wants to keep 3 lbs in his closet for personal use. I am not saying he’s a drug trafficker, just that 7 oz should be plenty of weed for personal use and no one should ever drive w 3 lbs. in a state that still has strict weed laws.
If following too closely is a traffic offense in that state, the cops can pull him over even if they secretly know they'll find mar1juana. Whren v United States (1996). Basically the Court held that we're not gonna bother trying to figure out if minor traffic stop is a pretext for something else. As long as they were caught actually committing an offense, the police have free reign.
I've never heard of that citation being given outside of an accident because it is impossible for the court to prove that they wouldn't be able to stop.
Police usually (should) have dash cams these days to capture that. Otherwise, like in the days before dash cams, it’s the officer’s testimony versus the defendant. But I’m sure the statute reads that you have to be a certain distance behind the front vehicle. Not saying I agree with all of this, but I think it’ll be hard for him to suppress the evidence. That being said, he’ll definitely get probation and won’t spend a day in prison.
