Parents Outraged After Cop Charges 11-Yr-Old Child With “Possession” for Having a Leaf that “Looked Like” Marijuana, Kicked Out of School for a Year



BEDFORD COUNTY — In another example of the glaring absurdity that is the “War on Drugs,” a cop has charged a 6th grade child with “possession” for having a leaf that merely looked like marijuana.

The parents of the boy state that he now suffers from panic attacks and depression, and is seeing a pediatric psychiatrist, after the Bedford County Sheriff’s Office engaged in what many agree was malicious prosecution against the young boy.

The 11-yr-old child was charged with “possession” and prosecuted for months by officers and lawyers, according to reports.

On top of that, he was kicked out of his school for an entire year, preventing him from socializing with his friends on campus.

RELATED: Weird Cop Literally Tries to Place a Pet Dog Under Arrest, Owner Dominates Cop and Makes Him Leave (Video)

“Essentially they kicked him out of school for something they couldn’t prove he did,” said Melvin Williams, an attorney who is working with the boy’s parents in lawsuit filed against the Sheriff’s Office.

Deputy M.M. Calohan filed a “possession of marijuana” charge against the little boy, even though the leaf that the boy had was not marijuana.

Field tests performed on the harmless leaf came back as negative, confirming that it was not marijuana.

“The field test came back not inconclusive, but negative,” Williams said.

“Yet [Deputy Calohan] went to a magistrate and swore he possessed marijuana at school.”

Apparently, another student at the boy’s school reported him to the principal for having a leaf that looked like marijuana.

Once the boy was brought into the principal’s office to be searched and punished, the parents arrived at school and the mother asked, “Can I see the leaf?” according to reports.

Pages: 1 2

If you haven't already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY

Sign Up To Receive Your Free E-Book
‘Advanced Strategies On Filming Police’

About author

Filming Cops
Filming Cops 3209 posts

Filming Cops was started in 2010 as a conglomerative blogging service documenting police abuse. The aim isn’t to demonize the natural concept of security provision as such, but to highlight specific cases of State-monopolized police brutality that are otherwise ignored by traditional media outlets.

You might also like

  • Angelo

    I hope she wins a fortune.

    • Guest

      ☆☆☆☆☆get $73 every /hr@ac7:

      Going Here you

      Can Find Out

      ►►► >

    • Dude

      unfortunately where do you think that “fortune” comes from? Neither the school or the sheriffs give a darn cause the tax payers foot the bill

      • Jeff Lachance

        And?! Id rather it go to a needy family than a goon squad…

      • Angelo

        Your right. I understand that. That is why laws need to be changed. Cops need to be held accountable. If they fire these clowns you will save a ton just from there over priced pensions. My brother has 25 years in a NJ fire dept. Longevity put his salary all the way up past $116,000. He retites with over $70,000 a year for the rest of his life and benefits. He’s 51 years old. That is disgusting. He says they sure pay me a hell of alot of money to stay home. Him and the rest of the firefighters laugh all the way to the bank and get a kick out of this hero worship status they get.

        • mwhitten1977

          That’s actually not that much considering that he,’s a NJ fireman. If he has a family $71,000 would be tough to live on. Be isn’t poor, but firefighter is a dangerous job, worthy of a six figure income.

      • Dante201

        I understand that perfectly. BUT, all the taxpayers seem to not give a phuck about there HERO cops. Every God damn cop is a HERO and they can do no wrong. Until people cry like hell to get rid of bad cops and this blue wall of silence which makes every cop bad. Reason why is all cops witness cops doing wrong from beat downs to taking pussy to stealing etc and the do not tell and they make sure all there police reports say so.

    • stand down?

      Well, I can tell you that he won’t win a fortune, if anything at all. As bad as the situation is, other than making an error in judgment regarding ONE expulsion, there really isn’t any gross deprivation of the child’s constitutional rights. There were many things that the child and his mother state they did not like: such as not being able to go to band and socialize with other kids…well, tough shit….that’s what expulsion is. I hate to break it to some of you, but it’s against school policy to even pretend that you have an illegal controlled substance, so even pretending to have some fake weed is grounds for expulsion. But School officials make mistakes at their jobs just like the rest of us, and as long as there isn’t a pattern of incompetence or some widespread policy, there isn’t any liability attached to the City.

  • Curtis Schweitzer

    The cop is nothing but a bully

  • Zartan The Destroyer

    Another jackboot SS

  • Armchair Activist

    Police officers in school. . .
    Who thought this would be a good idea?
    This story was shared on Armchair Activist

  • Kim Connell

    I wonder who are the real “thugs” here.

  • Mark Stockman

    You can’t un-ring a bell. The kid is screwed big-time. And even if the mother sues the pants off the police department, the police, DA and judges won’t be punished one bit- but the taxpayers who pay their salaries will feel it in their wallets. Pretty stupid- Cinquefoil (an invasive species) grows just about everywhere. The rounded leaves should tell any cop with half a brain that it’s not Cannibis.

    • mwhitten1977

      Yes, I agree because most of those municipal employees and officials have immunity from lawsuits such as this.

  • Tempest Rockdoll

    Lawsuit that the tax payers will have to foot the bill for once again – cops should have to face personal civil liability for their actions – civilians are held accountable – so should be those that enforce the laws,.

    • Alexander

      The taxpayers, most of them, deserve what they get. They elected these corrupt officials, and rarely do they kick them out.

      • Jimbob

        The taxpayers don’t actually even elect the president. The electoral college makes it so that the votes of the people do not actually affect who wins the election, only the votes of two representatives per state. They are not required to vote for what the public wants. Politicians use dirty tactics such as gerrymandering to ensure they unfairly end up in office. But what does it matter anyway, all of the candidates were strategically placed in elections so that no matter who wins, a puppet of the government and of the banks is elected to rule.

        • Guest

          ☛☛☛☛get $73 every /hr@ad29:



          you Can Find Out,


        • Adam Caine

          Except many states have laws against their electoral member voting against the popular vote. That is why they do the gerrymandering.

          • 2broke4 her

            some states now have an automatic electoral vote, and its based on popular vote regardless of which party and the states popular vote dont count! lets take the liberal state of Califoreignia.. if the voters favor a democrat (winning) in Califoreignia and the Republicans are ahead by 1% nation wide, the Califoreignias electoral votes go to the Republican party regardless of how the voters voted!! The liberal politicians did this because they figure it will help the Democrats win every time! but the first time it backfires they will complain stating its not fair, even though its their idea!

        • the president doesn’t actually hire the police …

          • Drakenfly

            really….isn’t a police commissioner part of the “police”

            Obama Appoints Notoriously Corrupt Police Commissioner To Improve Cops’ Credibility

          • 2broke4 her

            my guess you cant read! Obama appointed the corrupt police commissioner to head the task force obama started!

          • Drakenfly

            You cant read…is the commissioner a police officer or not even when acting as head of a task force…how hard is it to understand that he was appointed to a position/post by Obama and he excepted the position so he was HIRED!

            appoint : to choose (someone) to have a particular job : to give (someone) a position or duty
            : to decide or establish (something) in an official way
            : to decide (the time or place at which something will happen or be done)

          • 2broke4 her

            my guess you dont understand! she claimed Obama appointed a police commissioner… if he is appointed to a task force and accepts, he is on federal payroll!

          • Drakenfly

            “wiseoldsnail:the president doesn’t actually hire the police” … wrong the president DOES hire police officers…he never stopped being an officer since he was assigned to head a police task force even if it’s on a federal level…they do have federal police officers

          • 2broke4 her

            telling me, I was one! sure he is a federal officer just like I stated he is collecting federal pay! DUH!

          • stand down?

            Okay, I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here, so I want to make sure everything’s clear: can we all concede that although the president may appoint or hire, or be involved in appointing and/or hiring of law enforcement officers to head task forces and other positions within the FEDERAL government, the President of the United States does not appoint, hire, or have anything to do with hiring or appointing state/local

            law enforcement (aka…the police). This is because the president, even if he wanted to, would not be able to do so because it would be uncostitutional under the 10th Amendment. Can we all at least agree that we have a 5th grade education?

          • stand down?

            yes, my good sir, but you are failing to grasp the difference between state law and federal law…or even the difference between one state and another state…or, as a matter of fact the differences among various law enforcement agencies. It seems as though you think there are just “police…” and that they are all the same. We have 50 states, Washington DC, as well as federal jurisdictions. Each state has their own criminal code, and federal crimes are outlined in the United States COde.

          • stand down?

            yes, a police commissioner is a police officer, but the President of the United States, and the Federal Government, have nothing to do with hiring of police officers at the state level or appointing state officials. The individual states themselves handle that…If Obama “appointed” anyone and that person was a police commissioner, then he appointed them to do some task at the Federal level…not to run the local state police.

          • Mike Ferry

            Well then this would be a Trump issue.

          • Drakenfly

            Well then it would be if he was president back then but he wasn’t…

          • 2broke4 her

            he didnt mention anything about the president hiring police, just venting on the corruption of politicians

      • Ricky Ross

        LOL … like voting works any more! What’s worse than a cop??? A Politician … and the only Law Enforcement position that a citizen can vote for, is the Sheriff >>> and he is both a Politician and a Cop! Furthermore, anyone who desires to have power and authority over their fellow man, should be banned from every having a career/position that allows him to have it!

    • Jeff Lachance

      If it dont go to the lawsuit its funding the goon squad anyway so fuck it

    • Scott Leger

      let the fools who worship the police pay .

    • CL Harris

      Your statement is stupid. The Tax payers will pay for this because it is their responsibility to get involved with government to insure crap like this does not happen. Police are local, Local politics are easy. Facebook and social media make it easier. 1 Go to the city counsel meetings contact the mayor to see if she or he has fired the officer and what measure are being taken to ensure stupid dose not happen again. Publish his or her statements. introduce a new law in your town or city specifically dealing with the issues you are having, if you cant get a counsel member to sign onto to it. Take it door to door until you have changed the laws in your town. If you don’t take control or your police they will take control of you. It requires you to do something

      • stand down?

        I am so sick of hearing about “our tax dollars this, our tax dollars that…” WHO CARES??!!! IT”S TAX REVENUE. For god sakes tax revenue pays for basically everything, so yeah, they’re are going to be a lot of things that we don’t like our tax dollare paying for, but that’s life. We don’t get to pick and choose “yes, I want my money to go here, and no i don’t want it to pay to defend a school administrator who made an error in judgement.” And, actually, if she can afford her own attorney then the City won’t have anything to do with here defense, and the City will only have to pay a judgment if she is sued and found guilty in her official capacity, and that doesn’t seem likely at all in this case, beccause there was never any policy or custom alleged in the complaint.

      • mwhitten1977

        You think the mayor can fire a police officer? Wow, our country is in trouble if everyone understands government the way you do.

    • cdm

      Tax payers should not have to pay for defense of these cops. Noone wants them! Close the department. Lay them off (so they can starve because you cant get paid to kill and hurt people at any other job).

      • mwhitten1977

        So municipal employees aren’t allowed to make mistakes at their jobs?

        • cdm

          No my comment did not say anything to that effect. They can make mistakes. But they can pay for their own defense. When a doctor makes a mistake does the public foot the bill? No of course not. That would be ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous to expect the taxpayer to constantly defend these out of control cops. They pay for their own defense fund- if they keep killing innocent people the rate goes up and every cop pays for it. It is perfect. They all stick together and cover each others mistakes, they can further this mentality with their own money.

          • mwhitten1977

            I think assuming that her defense will be paid for by th city is an erroneous assumption. However, if a doctor, nurse, or any medical practitioner is working for a city/state/county and deprives a person of a well established right, then the city would pay for the defense just as it would pay for the school administrator’s. And certainly there are many medical professionals that work for the city, state, and county. But this is not an expensive case that will take crazy amounts of resources to defend. How much do you want to bet that it gets dismissed entirely meaning nothing is paid out because the court rules that the school administrator has “qualified immunity?” I’ll bet that’s what happens.

          • mwhitten1977

            I guess my response to that is that there is a difference between an “out of control cop” and one who makes a reasonable mistake while on the job. Personally, I don’t care about who pays the legal fees…I dont. In fact, I believe that there are so many frivolous actions against police officers I think that there should be in place some provision for police and other municipal workers to be provided with legal counsel in case they were sued….just like in the case of malpractice insurance for doctors like you mentioned. And no, I do not agree with police who cover for each other when they have made civil rights violations and I believe that if people use courts in the right way, eventually, the police are caught covering for each other and something can then be done about it.

    • 2broke4 her

      cops can face personal civil liabilities, its up to her lawyer to do that! a smart lawyer sues the Department, the County and anyone else involved personally. then you cut a plea deal with the county or sheriffs department, that you would drop the suit against them if the deputy and/or people involved are fired! but you continue the law suit against the cop and people involved! the dismissal in a civil case against the cop would look bad for his defense and its a slam dunk win!

      • stand down?

        yeah but the story is complete bullshit. A leaf? Really, people? you gotta stop falling for this type of bogus story.

      • stand down?

        um, yeah you don’t know what you’re talking about. A good lawyer would not just “sue everybody,” rather, a good civil rights attorney would be very careful and selective regarding who is sued based on who is directly liable for whatever damages suffered by the plaintiff. It’s not enough just to be in a position of authority, it has to be shown that the person was either grossly negligent in their duties, plainly incompetent, or acted out of malice, and that person’s conduct caused a deprivation of a constitutional right. To sue the Municipality (City), the burden is much greater, as the lawyer has to show that the City has a police or custom in place that was the cause of the unconstitutional conduct which caused the injury….so there has to be a repeated pattern or a well-known widespread custom.

        where the kid is going to have a problem is the fact that he had this leafy substance in his bag…WITH A LIGHTER, and that it was other student’s that brought the matter to the attention of the principle (or whoever), and the students claimed that the kid was telling them that it was a leaf from a marijuana plant…so, he kind of screwed himself by trying to be cool and act like he had some marijuana, and after he got into trouble he wants to act like he didn’t say ANYTHING at all….I mean, come on..he can at least admit to his own culpability in the matter, which I admit does not excuse the actions of the school administrators who knew the leaf was field tested three times and tested negative but went forward with the charges anyway.. The kid could have been diciplined without being expelled.

        • 2broke4 her

          I dont know what Im talking about and I served as a LEO… your’e a hoot! even during training lawyers come in and tell the groups to get liability insurance for at least $10,000,000.00 and who to sue if they were a civilian and injured or a family member was killed! I guess Im wrong with that also! the lawyers also said to sue the gun manufacturers also, claiming the gun could be at fault for malfunction and discharged! so Im wrong on that too!

          • mwhitten1977

            Yes, but that’s if they’re injured. This is not a personal injury/negligence type of lawsuit, rather, it’s a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and there are strict limitations regarding qualified immunity for municipal employees. If an attorney frivolously filed lawsuits against everyone under the sun he/she could very well have to pay sanctions for the attorney’s fees to the people who had to defend the action. Do you really think that an attorney could get away with suing everybody just to harass or intimidate them into settling. It definitely doesn’t work that way.

          • 2broke4 her

            I sound like an idiot and you type like an idiot! you look up laws and tell me the laws you think, you might have an idea as to what they are and thats what it is suppose to mean! youre so stupid, if it is a frivolous lawsuit and the judge knows it he can dismiss the suit or dismiss it with a direction and/or advise for counselors, if you know what that means, (BEEN THERE) ! as for the liability insurance as I mentioned, it also covers civil suits you twit! you know nothing of me personally as to how effective I was as a LEO which shows your character. not much of one!

          • stand down?

            That’s the whole point: If an attorney files a frivolous lawsuit or includes a bunch of defendants that have no liability under the law (“sue everybody,” involved, as you were saying) the people sued still have to bear the burden of defending the action. Yes, it may be dismissed by the judge but by that point the defendants would have already had to have hired attorneys to respond to the complaint. Surely you understand that, right? I mean, lawsuits just don’t start all of a sudden one day in court…they have to be filed, and the parties are served, then they file responses, possibly counterclaims, then interrogatories, then discovery, etc…that’s why lawyers are so expensive

            Of course the insurance you mentioned covers civil suits…that’s what we’re talking about…what else would the insurance cover other than civil suits?

          • 2broke4 her

            the insurance covers civil suits related to the officers actions! also when I was in the Coast Guard Reserve, lawyers from OIL (Office of Intelligence and Law Enforcement) advised us of getting liability insurance also! I was part of a suit brought against the boat crew I was assigned, because the guy we boarded twice in the same day and an hour apart, claimed we violated his Constitutional Rights! while in court the judge reviewed the case, then dismissed it! Stating we did not violate his rights and at the same time advised his lawyer what to do! nothing ever came out of it, no appeals, no settlement, just a pissed off person because he had to pay a $1,000 fine for not providing PFD’s and negligence! the suit was brought about after I was discharged from the Reserves 3 months later, so I had to seek private counsel and it cost me! my lawyer suggested, suing the man in small claims to get back my legal fees but chances are the judge would say sorry. so I ate $3500 for my lawyer representation after talking to the small claims judge and saving me court fees!

          • mwhitten1977

            So what if insurance covers it? I mean whether an insurance company decides to pay for the defense isn’t a question of law, or even liability…that has nothing to do with who is liable for the school administrator’s actions if indeed a jury decides that the student’s rights were violated. Just because you .

            A as far as your story goes if you boarded this person’s boats and you did not have probable cause to do so then you did indeed violate his Fourth Amendment right to be free of illegal searches and seizures. Boarding his boat is considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and in order to do so you have probable cause or a warrant. So I can actually see how that claim would be actionable.

            Look bro, you’re out of your element ok? I know you think you know what you’re talking about but I’ve been doing this a long time and I know more about the law than you ever will or care to even know. So you can sit and argue with me till you’re blue in the face but that doesn’t change the fact that I know what I’m talking about okay? How you can waste some more of your time talking about how insurance covered this or insurance covered thatthat, but you can’t paint the legal system with this broad brush that’s going to take care of every argument and every situation that you can possibly run into. Certain things are deprivation of people’s rights other things are not certain things make people liable for this deprivation other things do not there’s also something called qualified immunity which I think you should know protects police officers and municipal employees from basically everything they could possibly do wrong as long as they didn’t do it intentionally, maliciously, or break some criminal law while doing it. There are a very narrow set of exceptions qualified immunity; one of them you’ve mentioned alreadyalready… that’s the Fourth Amendment. Theyre not too many others though… go ahead and look up qualified immunity on Google… I think you’ll have some fun because you seem interested in this topic. If you do decide to look up qualified immunity in a Google search you’ll see how often it protects officers and officials from this type of lawsuit

          • 2broke4 her

            here you go, out of my element… dont have clue as to what you think you might know…. look up 14 USC 89 it gives the right for the boarding party to board any boat or ship without a warrant! you dont have a clue as to what you think you might know! 14 USC 89 states……

            (a)The Coast Guard may make
            inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests
            upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has
            jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of
            violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes,
            commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of
            any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law,
            of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the
            ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel
            and use all necessary force to compel compliance. When from such
            inquiries, examination, inspection, or search it appears that a breach
            of the laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is
            being, or has been committed, by any person, such person shall be
            arrested or, if escaping to shore, shall be immediately pursued and
            arrested on shore, or other lawful and appropriate action shall be
            taken; or, if it shall appear that a breach of the laws of the United
            States has been committed so as to render such vessel, or the
            merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of, or brought into the
            United States by, such vessel, liable to forfeiture, or so as to render
            such vessel liable to a fine or penalty and if necessary to secure such
            fine or penalty, such vessel or such merchandise, or both, shall be
            (b)The officers of the Coast Guard insofar as they are engaged, pursuant
            to the authority contained in this section, in enforcing any law of the
            United States shall:
            (1)be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular executive department or independent establishment charged with the administration of the particular law; and
            (2)be subject to all the rules and regulations promulgated by such department or independent establishment with respect to the enforcement of that law.
            (c)The provisions of this sectionare in addition to any powers conferred by law upon such officers, and not in limitation of any powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States.

            so you really dont know what you are talking about! guess again and get back to me!

          • mwhitten1977

            Yes, but the Fourth Amendment still applies my good sir. Observe:

            This statute gives the Coast Guard plenary authority to stop vessels for document and safety inspections, but like any federal regulation, it is subject to constitutional limitations, including those imposed by the Fourth Amendment. (United States v. Watson (9th Cir.1982) 678 F.2d 765, 771.) The Fourth Amendment impresses a reasonableness standard which calls for balancing the competing individual and governmental interests. In deciding whether a particular law enforcement practice is permissible, we balance the objective and subjective intrusion on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests, evaluated in light of alternative mechanisms available. (United States v. Watson, supra, 678 F.2d at p. 771; see also United States v. Villamonte–Marquez (1983) 462 U.S. 579, 588, 103 S.Ct. 2573, 77 L.Ed.2d 22.)

            Moreover, the original statutory grant of authority in title 14 United States Code section 89(a) can be traced to an enactment of the First Congress, which also proposed the Fourth Amendment. That original enactment “is persuasive evidence that stops and searches of the sort involved here [document and safety inspection on high seas after dark pursuant to administrative plan] without a warrant and without even a founded suspicion are not ‘unreasonable’ as that word is used in the Fourth Amendment.” (United States v. Watson, supra, 678 F.2d at p. 774.)

            People v. Eng, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 856, 858-59 (Ct. App. 2001)

            Get it? Got it? Good. Balancing test, reasonableness, constitutional limitations, Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures, legitimate government interest…

          • 2broke4 her

            the Coast Guard still use 14 USC 89 and to this day still doesnt require any search warrant to search a vessel! my suggestion call a local station near you or call a recruiter and ask! stop pretending the constitution affects 14 USC 89 because it doesnt, the only time search and seizure laws pertain to the Coast Guard when its on land!

          • mwhitten1977

            Sir, with all due respect, you must be trying to waste my time at this point. The Fourth Amendment protects against all searches and seizures by government agents, and the stuff that you pasted into the comments said nothing about the Fourth Amendment applying only to land. Seriously, any amount of casual research, perhaps performed during one afternoon, would make that abundantly clear to even someone who is completely ignorant of United States law and procedure.

            I never said anything about the coastguard requiring a warrant…the search is required to be reasonable, however, and the standard for reasonableness is probable cause. Look up ANY court case where drugs were seized by the coastguard and the defendant is trying to suppress the evidence and you’ll find a reference to the Fourth Amendment…GUARANTEED.

            Here, I’ll help you out; here’s a link to an opinion from the United States District Court from the Government Printing office. It’s a great site, so go nuts looking at court opinions….for free. Page 9 starts the court’s Fourth Amendment Analysis.


          • 2broke4 her

            youre confusing yourself with privacy versus the ship in total! I stated that the Coast Guard doesnt need a warrant to search the ship ! never stated anything to the privacy of individuals! it would be best if you keep reading past page 9!

          • mwhitten1977

            I don’t need to read anything. I already know that a warrant isn’t needed for the coast guard to perform an inspection. What Are you even arguing at this point? Because I don’t know, honestly. We started out arguing about who should the attorney name in the lawsuit, you basically said “Sue everybody,” I said “an attorney shouldn’t sue everybody because of standards of ethical conduct,”you said when you were in the coast guard you were named in a lawsuit because you boarded a ship twice,” I said “that action wouldn’t be frivolous because the Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures to be reasonable,” you said “the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to the coast guard because the US code allows for inspections,” I said “are you kidding yes it does, you don’t know what you’re talking about.. ” I’m not playing whack a mole with you anymore, dude, OK? If you want to debate this issue with me any further, you can call me, just let me know. But I’m not playing this silly game where you can’t admit you’re wrong and where you act like I don’t know what I’m talking about. The coast guard example as an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Anendment was a good point, OK? But the rest of your arguments are a bunch of garbage, seriously. Your point of view on lawsuits is uninformed and hyperbolic. Things aren’t as extreme or as simple as you are attempting to make them out to be. You take everything to the extreme when it’s convenient for your argument and then when it’s not convenient to your argument you make everything simple and start defining words. Your opinion keeps changing when you realize your wrong, but you keep changing the topic anyway, and then you change opinion back and keep arguing and arguing, even as I show you by citing sources and even posting links to help you understand things better, yet you just wanna be hard-headed. Well I’m not wasting time with you anymore.

          • 2broke4 her

            gee im sorry but i was trained by lawyers as to how to make statements! you know the ones where you say one thing but not everything! I guess they trained me well! cause that is how I do things!!

          • mwhitten1977

            You were trained by lawyers? That’s great, man. Yeah, they trained you well. Let me know when you can answer a question or make a comment without having to be trained first.

          • 2broke4 her

            “The right of the people to be secure
            in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
            searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
            issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
            particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
            things to be seized.” Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution, ratified

            The Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
            Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against
            unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to
            be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was
            written in direct response to British general warrants which empowered
            British law enforcement to search virtually any home, at any time, for
            any reason, or for no reason at all.

            The Coast Guard’s primary law
            enforcement authority is derived from 14 USC 89 (made law in1949) which
            states in part, “The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations,
            inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and
            waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the
            prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of the laws of the
            United States for such purposes, commissioned, warrant and petty
            officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the
            jurisdiction, or to the operations of any law, of the United States,
            address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents and
            papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all
            necessary force to compel compliance . . .”

            While the Fourth Amendment may protect
            the citizen, law abiding or not, from the threat of an “unwarranted”
            search, that protection ceases once the citizen is on a vessel. The
            Coast Guard has sweeping authority to board any vessel (subject to the
            jurisdiction of the United States) at any time, any place. It does not
            require a warrant. It does not require probable cause. Boardings need
            not be based on a suspicion that a violation already exists aboard the
            vessel. Their purpose is to prevent violations and the courts have
            upheld this authority. Also, the Coast Guard has full legal law
            enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as
            needed to complete any mission. 14 USC 89 has its roots in the
            Revenue Service Act of 1790 which provided “all collectors, naval
            officers, surveyors, inspectors and the officers of the revenue cutters .
            . . to go on board ships in any part of the United States . . . for the
            purposes of demanding manifests . . . examining and searching the said
            ships, and the officers shall have free access to the cabin and every
            other part of the vessel . . .” This statute was passed by the first
            Congress, the same Congress that enacted the Bill of Rights, including
            the Fourth Amendment with its guarantees for citizens to be secure
            against unreasonable searches and seizures. By enacting the Revenue
            Service Act, the first Congress showed unequivocally that the Coast
            Guard’s significant law enforcement authorities to board and search a
            U.S. flag vessel anywhere in the world, as well as vessels intending to
            call on U.S. ports, were consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

            U.S. Courts over the last 200 years have
            consistently validated the right of the Coast Guard to board and
            inspect vessels, probable cause or not.

            Plainly stated, when it comes to Coast
            Guard boarding, you don’t have any rights. As stated by Capt. Rasicott
            and CDR Cunningham in their article found in Proceedings, Summer 2009; “There are two main ways to board a vessel – either with permission, or without.”

            Vessel operators should know that to
            refuse permission for Coast Guard personnel to board may subject them to
            a penalty of $500. Forcibly resisting is a felony punishable by up to
            ten years in prison and a $10,000.00 fine.

            The unfettered search authority by the
            Coast Guard has its merits, especially in a world where random acts of
            terrorism are a constant threat and smuggling of illegal drugs into the
            U.S. is rampant. Supporters also point out that “the government
            certainly has a vital interest in ensuring vessels on the high seas are
            safe, seaworthy, and properly documented.” See Constitutional Barriers to Smooth Sailing;
            14 U.S.C. 89(a) and the Fourth Amendment by Megan J. Knight. Indiana
            Law Journal Vol. 72, Issue 2. In her article, Ms. Knight recognizes the
            inherent conflict between the U.S. citizen’s expected right to privacy
            and 14 U.S.C. 89, and suggests that these vital interests, however
            “should not be advanced at the cost of sacrificing the constitutional
            freedoms of law abiding seafarers.”

            However, if you are expecting the Courts
            to reverse decades of decisions finding that 14 U.S.C. 89 searches are
            not in conflict with the Fourth Amendment, forget about it. In today’s
            society where everyone is subject to mandatory searches without probable
            cause every time you board an airliner, enter a government building,
            state or federal, or major sporting event, the power of the Coast Guard
            to search any vessel at any time is not going to be fettered. It will
            take an act of Congress and that will never happen.

            for excellent reading of 14 USC 89 versus 4th Amendment…… The United States Coast Guard’s Law Enforcement Authority’s under 14 U.S.C 89; Smuggler’s Blues or Boaters’ Nightmare by Greg Shelton, William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 34, Issue 3; and Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 – 3, by Clark Beek 10-12,

          • mwhitten1977

            So your point here was what? To disprove yourself? Because the writer clearly references the Fourth Amendment in the article (which is an opinion piece…but it was for the most part well done). So, now that we agree that searches and seizures, even by the Coast Guard, are subjected to Fourth Amendment scrutiny, why are we going on and on about this? Or did you even read what you pasted in there? (Incidentally, it is a better practice to paste the link to the article in a comment field rather than the entire text to the article. It saves space.

          • 2broke4 her

            I read the article and I dont disprove myself! searches and seizures by the Coast Guard, are subjected to Fourth Amendment scrutiny! not really, only ignorant people keep challenging the issue! like the fool did when I had to go to court and the judge tossed it!

          • mwhitten1977

            Just because a judge dismissed a case that doesn’t mean that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply you fucking moron. In fact, there can be a Fourth Amendment violation, meaning a violation of someone’s constitutional rights, and a civil suit could still be dismissed because municiple and state employees are protected by “qualified immunity,” so only the most incompetent and most malicious state actors are liable for damages.

          • 2broke4 her

            name calling, thats what you come to! the judges decision was based on the fact that it was common space you FUCKING MORON as you like to put it! there is , repeat, there is nothing about searching a vessel under 14 USC 89 that is an illegal search.. personal items and spaces do need a warrant! BUT, if a system that runs through the personal space that needs to be inspected, does not need a warrant! that is a loophole in the 14 USC 89 in not needing a warrant! so, if a person is smuggling drugs and its in the personal compartment (space) and in plain view or items needed to be moved to get to the system and the drugs are found, it is considered a legal search! Im not arguing over the fact of , state, city or county employees can or cannot be sued, because those are based on each case and if there is standing in the suit!

          • mwhitten1977

            I never said that searching a vessel under 14 U.S.C. 89 is illegal. In fact, I didn’t even bring that up or want to discuss the coast guard. This was about 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims for violations of civil rights, and you mentioned how you were sued because you were in the coast guard and it just so happened that you boarded the same vessel twice in one night. It went from there, but the original discussion, if you even remember, was about your statement that an attorney should just “sue everybody” in the school district because that’s what a good lawyer would do to put pressure on the departments to settle. I indicated that a good attorney would not in fact do that because there are penalties and sanctions for frivolous actions, and that an attorney could be responsible for the opposing parties legal fees if he/she was making meritless, frivolous actions. I stand by that comment, sir.

          • 2broke4 her

            it all depends in what state Frivolous suits would end in sanctions! as in Califoreignia there were no sanctions just if the judge feels there were grounds that it is frivolous and dismisses it, that was up until 2007, when the State Supreme Court granted permission for defendants to sue the lawyers representing plaintiffs in frivolous suits! which is far better than sanctions. when it comes to a wrongful type suit, as I was instructed by lawyers during training, they state you file suit against anyone and everyone connected to a case regardless if they are liable or not! then over time the suits are dropped before it goes to trial! they claim it is the only way any government will respond fast, because they get pressure from everyone! this is the same method used when people get shot now, sue everyone, from the guy that sold the gun and the bullet to the manufacturers and in some cases the police even if it cops are not involved in the shooting! I do agree about frivolous suits in what you say! there was one lawyer suing on grounds of the ADA where businesses didnt have the right wheel chair access! so over a period of time it came back and bit him in the ass! the women working for him sued on grounds of discrimination based on their sex and won!

          • mwhitten1977

            Nice try but this is a federal lawsuit.

          • 2broke4 her

            I was basing it on frivolous in state terms not federal , because in the federal the judges usually kicks them out before they go to trial! but there have been frivolous cases in federal courts in Califoreignia and they go to trial!

  • Harry

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
    ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,
    Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
    rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
    laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
    not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts
    committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use,
    attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
    and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
    such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse,
    or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall
    be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
    both, or may be sentenced to death.

    • stand down?

      Yeah, but these weren’t criminal acts…not even allegedly criminal. It does fall under 42 U.S.C. 1983, so you may wanna look that one up since you seem to be so handy with the US Code. : )

  • warrioragainstpigs

    fking pig and hogs.

  • Gary Williams Jr.

    that dumb bitch in the video, on at least 4 different times tried to make this guy, or anyone else who wants prohibition ended, sound like they’re “nuts”. every time he said anything, there she was rolling her eyes. but you can bet your ass that she goes home and drinks her precious, over priced wine. or goes out to the bars for a night of whore-ing.

    • Christopher Linnett

      She really didnt seem to be paying much attention did she. He makes a great point though, never thought of it like that before

      • Gary Williams Jr.

        yup, the war on drugs has done more damage to this country, then all the communists countries could’ve ever hoped to do

  • Dimitri Theodosakis

    Even Mama June and her Family are Smarter then 99% USA Police

  • Scotty Monte

    And they want to stop bullying in schools??????????????????

  • Jay Barros

    Hey maybe thats the best thing that could happen to him.. Since from an early he seen the true shitiness of the system maybe he will drop out all together and run off to be a radical anarchist fighting the system

  • Kathryn Aldridge

    Sue, sue, SUE!!!

  • Cl4tgp

    Ok, while I 100% disagree that this is way out of line and that cop should be prosecuted for malicious harassment, the statement from the mom “just broke down and said his life was over. He would never be able to get into college; he would never be able to get a job,” is Bullshit. No 11 year old child thinks like that also if the child is in theraphy it is due to the parents. 11 year olds are resiliant.

    • Craig Lane

      How many eleven year olds do you know that have been falsely charged for possession and kicked out of school? You are an expert on the thought processes of an 11 year old? Is this because you are only 12?

    • Scott Leger


    • Ozymandias

      Some families have goals.

    • nkwengert

      This is a gifted child that they are destroying because he is smarter than they are. He knew the leaf was not marijuana, it even tested negative for marijuana but these adult bullies can’t admit THEY made a mistake. I’d be sue the principle and the sheriff’s Dept, and the sheriff’s deputy who lied to the judge. I’d also make sure the sheriff’s deputies got better education on what marijuana leaves actually look like. This child should be reinstated to school immediately and all charges against him dropped. The whole thing just makes the sheriff’s office and the D.A. look stupid.


    • cdm

      The only bullshit is you. These cops scared the crap out of a young boy over a friggin leaf. Who cares what the boy said?! These pigs are out of control. They need to be put in a pen.

  • Ozymandias

    Lawsuits are obviously NOT enough. There has to be personal accountability.. perhaps personally bankrupting these officers will change something?

  • Jason LaCroix

    Are the police catching criminals or creating them?

  • BrunoFehr

    Let the tax payers pay for the compensation this child deserves. The tax payers must pay for this a much more. They must pay until the day they wake the fuck up!

  • Daniel Pose

    More proof that we must end government schools (socialist schools). They are a key part of the current police state and its constant growth.

  • Clive

    That cop should be fired for gross stupidity for costing the taxpayers this much money and for maliciously causing this much harm to a child.

  • Clifford Nytko-Galli

    How long are we going to let these idiots get away with this. When are we going to stand up to them? They are ALL COWARDS. They should ALL be pilloried in the public square and hung. Thereby, helping to cleanse the genetic pool of idiots and cowards.

    • cdm

      They divide and conquer. Until it is so bad that everyone if forced to take action together, people will be afraid.

  • Michele McAlum

    Another incompetent, low IQ, moron that thinks they have authority over others. They seriously need to hire people with a little intelligence. I just read a story about an Officer Whipple that wanted to arrest a barking dog. All I see is stupidity, even when I get pulled over, I can tell there isn’t much going on between the ears.

  • ryan

    Another case of bad police work and the hands of the law holding power trips on those they feel they can take advantage of. Police should have a higher turn over rate for when they make mistakes so that they are more afraid to misuse the powers they are giving. The time for change is long over due

  • Daniel K. Berg

    You can’t fix stupid…..but you don’t need to hire it either.

  • David Christie

    The kid shouldn’t need college.. Make a career out of suing the bloody crap out of these fucking low-life craven idiots.

  • Gary Harryman

    Making a common garden weed illegal will go down in history as a period of social insanity.

  • Rusty Bucket

    There must be a pool of retards somewhere that law enforcement pulls it’s candidates from. We desperately need smarter police!

    • the courts gave permission for discrimination in police hiring … against those with high iq

      • cdm

        the problems are in the courts! the judges these days- they enable this kind of behavior! over a stupid leaf. I don’t care even if it is real marijuana! That does not justify doing this to a sixth grader! Fuck them all.

  • Kat Leland

    Honestly!?! This is all over a leaf!!?! If the kid, or anyone for that matter, had a marijuana leaf would they be charged with possession? It’s a freakin leaf!! come on people!!

  • Mike

    A cop that does not know what a marijuana leaf looks like should be fired and sent to prison for false arrest or kidnapping. What a fucking moron!!!!

  • Adam William Majkowski

    Somebody do something to those cops.

  • dollarbill

    We need a new law that gives tax payers ZERO liability for police actions. Law suits should be paid by the Police Unions. That, our destroy those Unions an make them Follow the constitution. Judges can’t oversee Police hearing its a conflict of interest. If we wanna get anything done. We the People need to create it.

    • cdm

      Yep. All police shall provide for their own legal insurance like doctors. The more the police are sued, the more the rates go up.

  • Larry Brautigam

    Great story. Any clue where it is alleged to have occurred? Journo 101 FAIL.

  • Dan Howe

    And they wonder why some people want to see them dead.

    The perjured cop should be given the maximum sentence the boy could have been charged with.

    I hope the kid collects enough that he never has to work.

  • stella hart

    If a cop doesn’t know what a Marijuana leaf looks like.. he should be terminated!

  • Eagle

    These cops are messed in the head! Time to get out the pitchforks and run them out of here!

  • cdm

    All involved should be dragged outside and hung for devastating that little boy. The true criminals are in uniform.

  • Jeff Mahaney

    No one here has pointed out that an 11 year-old had a lighter as well. This kid likely thought it was pot and had the INTENT to smoke an illegal drug. This story is only telling the parents perspective. It doesn’t include any of the evidence that the school district or the district attorney used to determine his intent.

    Maybe the kid had no idea the leaf was there OR the lighter…but maybe he did.

  • Adam Reed

    Citizens of America I would highly recommend & encourage we all take a stand once and for all against police corruption/brutality.Write to your state representative and complain.Send all your videos to ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union),district attorney’s office,and FBI,youtube and a stand,let them know how fed up we all are from the corruption,brutality & coverups.Support M.A.C.C. (men against corrupted cops),back each other up nationally and help dissolve the corruption quickly within the police forces.Help pass laws for every citizen in case we feel threatened,unease and offended by a sudden attack by a cop so we can protect ourselves physically & legally.We don’t deserve it so why tolerate it? Together we stand,divided we fall.I urge all that’s had enough to stand up and help defend our god given American rights what corrupted cops are attempting to take away with nonsense procedural excuses they literally use against us.please go to the website below,sign up and become a member.Support copblock in your local neighborhood,towns and cities.Enough is enough.Together we can help stop police state and martial law from forming,growing & spreading across our country.

  • When I gotta go

    I have toilet njgger babies

  • WhitepolioceCIArapebabybOys

    LIES CHEATS FRAUD!!! This is white fkkk their recessive diseased pederast child raping CABABALISTIC failed police race of dumbmockrazy!!!


  • asshatmcgee

    this is why people are calling for the deaths of pigs, this is why idiot pigs are wondering ‘Durr, why dont we have more support?!’