Hi,
This is my first post here and I apologize that it's going to be a long one, but I'm sure if you stick around, you'll have a bit of fun, and might even be able to share some of your opinions, helping a stressed out guy get some peace of mind.
Quite some time ago, while I was at work, my father called to tell me that a couple of policemen were searching my room at my family home with a search warrant to look for illegal substances, namely cannabis, along with related utensils. This struck me as odd because I didn't have a criminal record, never had any issues with police for cannabis or otherwise, and I couldn't understand what their reason was for obtaining a warrant.
This was, therefore, my first interaction with the police, and they already attained a very specific search warrant somehow. Anyway, they found a small amount of discarded item in a bag and concluded that I was in possession of 3 grams of cannabis (less than 1 gram without the bag, but that's beside the point).
I was not given a copy of the search warrant before the search was conducted. In fact, I was unable to see it until that evening when I got home, long after the search had been conducted by police.
I noticed that it said the reason for the search was that I was "found to be in possession of marijuana" three months earlier, in accordance with the 1987 drugs misuse act. I wasn't though.
Now intrigued, I read the relevant section of the QLD 1987 drugs misuse act to find out what exactly they were basing their search warrant on. It turns out that the 1987 drugs misuse act makes reference to possible outcomes based on physical quantities. It plainly states that if I have been caught with over a certain number of grams then outcome 1 will take place, under this number of grams, outcome 2 will take place, indicating that a seizure of the illegal drug is necessary.
How they came to the conclusion that they had found a definite physical quantity of illegal cannabis on my person 3 months prior to my first ever police interaction, is unknown to me. I, myself, wasn't aware that I had been determined a criminal three months prior to the warranted search.
I had never been searched or arrested or even questioned about marijuana before. I had never even interacted with police before (except one time when I was busted for holding an open beer in public on Christmas eve). It scared me when I double-checked the warrant and the 1987 Drug misuse act, and the put everything together in my head.
They were basing a search warrant on a claim that they found a specific amount of cannabis on my person 3 months prior to the first time I was ever actually found to have cannabis on my person. The warrant used to gain access to my property was based on something that simply did not happen.
So, I was signing the paperwork the next day when I asked the cops, rather casually, if the warrant was a bit iffy and one of them chuckled off a sarcastic "Heh, yeah mate.", in a dismissive tone with raised eyebrows, as if to indicate that I was acting out of line or being silly. They then explained to me, rather paradoxically, that as this was my first marijuana offense, I would be attending drug diversion, which is only given as an option to people if it is their first time.
I thought to myself: "Hmmm? The warrant already claims my first drug offense was three months ago but the cop is telling me this is my first offense too. What the hell is wrong with this warrant?"
I asked them how they could have possibly determined that I was in possession of a particular amount of anything, 3 months earlier, without physically searching my person or property. Their reply was shocking to me. They said that they were not willing or obliged to divulge their sources, other than to say "we do have access to your metadata and phone records".
I asked them again, more directly this time, what their proof was. My question was met with more mumbo jumbo about protecting procedures, officials, sources, etc. and that they don't have to tell me anything. Besides being shocked, I did find it pretty interesting that they specifically mentioned phone records and metadata. I might also note that an application inciting reasonable suspicion to a public official would have been necessary for them to attain my metadata and phone records in the first place.
As far as I understand, metadata and phone records only act as indicators of the location and usage of your devices, the people you communicate with but not any content etc. How is it then that they could say, with conviction, I had possessed a certain amount of drugs and quote metadata and phone records as some kind of proof even though I wasn't searched and they aren't willing to explain to me their actual evidence if they have any?
Is the alleged possession three months prior to the search false? If so, how could it be used against me for a warrant to search a property? If it is real, the police have essentially admitted that it is based on metadata and phone records and NOT finding a physical quantity on my person. In this case, I expect the QLD 1987 drugs misuse act to be completely invalid due to it's very terms of requiring an amount seized in grams. This would render the warrant invalid. In other words, either the warrant was based on a speculative inquiry into metadata and phone records, or it was based on some other form of "evidence" that doesn't involve physical observation. Either way, this is real proper freaky stuff.
Like a confused little boy lost in a big city, I called up legal aid to see if they knew how I might have been incriminated. Boy did they go deep, talking about police interception and incrimination if they think you are using codewords to deal drugs etc. Lol, I was told that if I called up someone who is a known criminal and say I'm buying a box of potatoes, the police could assume it is slang for drugs and get a warrant to enter my private property.
Police can even take sarcastic online statements and use them as admissions of truths. This scared me even more than I already was after the police basically admitted to spending 3 months looking at my movements, data and communication networks when I had a clean criminal record. Now I feel as though my very own room in my family home, the one I grew up in, is not a sanctuary and is closer to the property of the state than private living quarters.
Because of this whole kerfuffle, i can't help but assume that the messages I send or receive may be overheard, that my words will reach ears for which I did not intend the expression of my thoughts, even if eventually. Anyway enough about how the police turned me into an anti-authoritarian...
I have a slight feeling that the recent anti-association laws, make it easy to apply "reasonable suspicion" to enforce warrants. That there might be someone on my phone contacts who may have had a criminal history, and therefore, by association, it would be reasonable to suspect me to be a criminal, leading to a search warrant. This would explain the use of phone records and perhaps metadata. But it would not explain the claim that I was found with a definite amount of pot 3 months earlier when I certainly was not. Besides, how could they use anything from 1987 alongside something as recent as metadata retention?
The truth is, I have no idea what the hell is going on or what their claims actually entail. All I know is that I now have a legally binding strike against my name which nobody is willing to substantiate. Absolutely no discourse. Absolutely no disclosure.
Considering the police won't give me information relating to this, I was wondering if anyone knew anything about similar cases as it's very worrying to find out that even people without criminal records can be watched and that their online life can be retroactively scanned in order to search for incriminating links, and all these hidden legal processes are happening behind people's back. People can't lobby against secret processes in a democracy. Citizens shouldn't have the legal obligation to submit to transparency unless their government has demonstrated how it's done, so to speak.
It would be a great help if you guys could let me know of any relevant laws and regulations regarding metadata, reasonable suspicion, anti-association, 1987 drug misuse act, police warrants, drug diversions, interception, and just basic incrimination tactics etc. Basically, any ideas you have about my story above are welcome. Feel free to reprimand me for smoking pot; let's get that out of the way so we can get back to making sense of the bigger situation. Besides, at the drug diversion they ended up sending me home with cigarette/alcohol self-help booklets and told me that I seemed to have more trouble with binge drinking and peer pressure... O' equivocal Australia....
Anyways, if you have any questions or clarifications that might help you to help me, please let me know. I should hopefully respond pretty quickly.
Thanks
This is my first post here and I apologize that it's going to be a long one, but I'm sure if you stick around, you'll have a bit of fun, and might even be able to share some of your opinions, helping a stressed out guy get some peace of mind.
Quite some time ago, while I was at work, my father called to tell me that a couple of policemen were searching my room at my family home with a search warrant to look for illegal substances, namely cannabis, along with related utensils. This struck me as odd because I didn't have a criminal record, never had any issues with police for cannabis or otherwise, and I couldn't understand what their reason was for obtaining a warrant.
This was, therefore, my first interaction with the police, and they already attained a very specific search warrant somehow. Anyway, they found a small amount of discarded item in a bag and concluded that I was in possession of 3 grams of cannabis (less than 1 gram without the bag, but that's beside the point).
I was not given a copy of the search warrant before the search was conducted. In fact, I was unable to see it until that evening when I got home, long after the search had been conducted by police.
I noticed that it said the reason for the search was that I was "found to be in possession of marijuana" three months earlier, in accordance with the 1987 drugs misuse act. I wasn't though.
Now intrigued, I read the relevant section of the QLD 1987 drugs misuse act to find out what exactly they were basing their search warrant on. It turns out that the 1987 drugs misuse act makes reference to possible outcomes based on physical quantities. It plainly states that if I have been caught with over a certain number of grams then outcome 1 will take place, under this number of grams, outcome 2 will take place, indicating that a seizure of the illegal drug is necessary.
How they came to the conclusion that they had found a definite physical quantity of illegal cannabis on my person 3 months prior to my first ever police interaction, is unknown to me. I, myself, wasn't aware that I had been determined a criminal three months prior to the warranted search.
I had never been searched or arrested or even questioned about marijuana before. I had never even interacted with police before (except one time when I was busted for holding an open beer in public on Christmas eve). It scared me when I double-checked the warrant and the 1987 Drug misuse act, and the put everything together in my head.
They were basing a search warrant on a claim that they found a specific amount of cannabis on my person 3 months prior to the first time I was ever actually found to have cannabis on my person. The warrant used to gain access to my property was based on something that simply did not happen.
So, I was signing the paperwork the next day when I asked the cops, rather casually, if the warrant was a bit iffy and one of them chuckled off a sarcastic "Heh, yeah mate.", in a dismissive tone with raised eyebrows, as if to indicate that I was acting out of line or being silly. They then explained to me, rather paradoxically, that as this was my first marijuana offense, I would be attending drug diversion, which is only given as an option to people if it is their first time.
I thought to myself: "Hmmm? The warrant already claims my first drug offense was three months ago but the cop is telling me this is my first offense too. What the hell is wrong with this warrant?"
I asked them how they could have possibly determined that I was in possession of a particular amount of anything, 3 months earlier, without physically searching my person or property. Their reply was shocking to me. They said that they were not willing or obliged to divulge their sources, other than to say "we do have access to your metadata and phone records".
I asked them again, more directly this time, what their proof was. My question was met with more mumbo jumbo about protecting procedures, officials, sources, etc. and that they don't have to tell me anything. Besides being shocked, I did find it pretty interesting that they specifically mentioned phone records and metadata. I might also note that an application inciting reasonable suspicion to a public official would have been necessary for them to attain my metadata and phone records in the first place.
As far as I understand, metadata and phone records only act as indicators of the location and usage of your devices, the people you communicate with but not any content etc. How is it then that they could say, with conviction, I had possessed a certain amount of drugs and quote metadata and phone records as some kind of proof even though I wasn't searched and they aren't willing to explain to me their actual evidence if they have any?
Is the alleged possession three months prior to the search false? If so, how could it be used against me for a warrant to search a property? If it is real, the police have essentially admitted that it is based on metadata and phone records and NOT finding a physical quantity on my person. In this case, I expect the QLD 1987 drugs misuse act to be completely invalid due to it's very terms of requiring an amount seized in grams. This would render the warrant invalid. In other words, either the warrant was based on a speculative inquiry into metadata and phone records, or it was based on some other form of "evidence" that doesn't involve physical observation. Either way, this is real proper freaky stuff.
Like a confused little boy lost in a big city, I called up legal aid to see if they knew how I might have been incriminated. Boy did they go deep, talking about police interception and incrimination if they think you are using codewords to deal drugs etc. Lol, I was told that if I called up someone who is a known criminal and say I'm buying a box of potatoes, the police could assume it is slang for drugs and get a warrant to enter my private property.
Police can even take sarcastic online statements and use them as admissions of truths. This scared me even more than I already was after the police basically admitted to spending 3 months looking at my movements, data and communication networks when I had a clean criminal record. Now I feel as though my very own room in my family home, the one I grew up in, is not a sanctuary and is closer to the property of the state than private living quarters.
Because of this whole kerfuffle, i can't help but assume that the messages I send or receive may be overheard, that my words will reach ears for which I did not intend the expression of my thoughts, even if eventually. Anyway enough about how the police turned me into an anti-authoritarian...
I have a slight feeling that the recent anti-association laws, make it easy to apply "reasonable suspicion" to enforce warrants. That there might be someone on my phone contacts who may have had a criminal history, and therefore, by association, it would be reasonable to suspect me to be a criminal, leading to a search warrant. This would explain the use of phone records and perhaps metadata. But it would not explain the claim that I was found with a definite amount of pot 3 months earlier when I certainly was not. Besides, how could they use anything from 1987 alongside something as recent as metadata retention?
The truth is, I have no idea what the hell is going on or what their claims actually entail. All I know is that I now have a legally binding strike against my name which nobody is willing to substantiate. Absolutely no discourse. Absolutely no disclosure.
Considering the police won't give me information relating to this, I was wondering if anyone knew anything about similar cases as it's very worrying to find out that even people without criminal records can be watched and that their online life can be retroactively scanned in order to search for incriminating links, and all these hidden legal processes are happening behind people's back. People can't lobby against secret processes in a democracy. Citizens shouldn't have the legal obligation to submit to transparency unless their government has demonstrated how it's done, so to speak.
It would be a great help if you guys could let me know of any relevant laws and regulations regarding metadata, reasonable suspicion, anti-association, 1987 drug misuse act, police warrants, drug diversions, interception, and just basic incrimination tactics etc. Basically, any ideas you have about my story above are welcome. Feel free to reprimand me for smoking pot; let's get that out of the way so we can get back to making sense of the bigger situation. Besides, at the drug diversion they ended up sending me home with cigarette/alcohol self-help booklets and told me that I seemed to have more trouble with binge drinking and peer pressure... O' equivocal Australia....
Anyways, if you have any questions or clarifications that might help you to help me, please let me know. I should hopefully respond pretty quickly.
Thanks
