Text and calls enough too convict?

andyturbo

andyturbo

Administrator: PR.net
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
4,395
Hey guys,
A friend of mine has been dealing drugs on and off for a couple of years (only small quanitys ranging from 8balls of speed and ice too a few hundred pills at a time.) At the start he was vary carful using pay phones ect but as time progressed got lazy and began doing things on his own phone (registerd to him ect) That friend has now decided to leave that game as he is geting paranoid that 'its only a matter of time before he gets caught'.

This person has gotten rid of anything illegal from there house ect and no longer has anything on them. His question which im posting on behalf of is if police have moniterd him and have photo's text messages/phonecalls ect stored that blantly show his previous affairs, even messages as bad as asking "how was the stuff" ect is this enough to charge someone without actually finding them with any drugs (after a raid ect) Or to be charged with trafficking do u have to be caught physically with drugs on you or in your possesion?
This is in Australia by the way.
Cheers
 
Just using common sense here.. but if the police have been mounting a long-term investigation and he decides to go clean before the takedown, then they will be lacking physical evidence to convict with.

Physical evidence being a crucial key to most drug convictions, I would imagine that it would be extremely difficult to prosecute.
 
I don't know about Australian law but if he has been under investigation he might have already sold drugs to a cop or informant.
 
I believe that text messages are only useful as minor adjuncts to more significant evidence such as undercover buys, seizures, and confessions.

On their own, especially after a suspect has ceased committing crimes--they are probably of little to no use.
 
physical evidence or bust. idk though, in america i have heard some pretty attrocious stories of the police really using minor evidence and getting a draconian sentance on folks.
 
It would likely depend on the nature of the photographs, phone calls, and text messages. If the content is sufficient to persuade the applicable decider of facts beyond the minimum standard of the elements of the charged offense, then your friend can be convicted on them alone. However, an apparently voluntary decision to stop dealing prior to getting arrested may provide a defense to certain charges, or may result in a lighter sentence should a conviction result.

All that said, the content of the evidence would need to be fairly explicit.
 
Swim doesn't think it's enough to make a conviction. However, if your friend were under surveillance, any records of drug related telephone conversations and text messages would just be more supportive evidence against him/her. They'd have to have a reason to be monitoring this person's communications in the first place.

SWIM is not sure how things work in Oz, but it seems that if he did have some sort of encounter with law enforcement, a message asking "how was the stuff" being seen by an officer wouldn't be sufficient enough probable cause: unless they already knew what sort of criminal activities he/she had been involved in, and were watching him/her anyway. It's definitely debatable.
 
Last edited:
I had a friend (Australia, VIC) get convicted for 18 months on the basis of text messages and phone conversations, but he plead guilty and copped plea bargain, so can't say what would happen if you fought the case.
 
Physical evidence being a crucial key to most drug convictions
Click to expand...

That isn't exactly correct. You should go talk to all the people in prison on conspiracy charges that were convicted only with circumstantial evidence provided by confidential informants, wiretaps and the like.
 
I've only seen texts convict once. under martial law for violation of classified info, the info being in the texts.

I've never seen a drug conviction without physical drugs of some sort for evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top