Woman Jailed For Slapping Officer

March 5, 2012

In Plea Court this morning [Mar.5], 22-year-old Tenora Steede, said to be of no fixed abode, pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting a Police officer and not guilty to a second charge of violently resisting arrest. The Crown Prosecutor dropped the second charge and proceeded only with the first charge.

The facts as read out were that St Georges Club staff had seen Ms Steede on Club property when she had no right to be there, and had called police.

Attending police had found Ms Steede sitting outside a bathroom on the Club’s property. On accosting her, they saw that she had a bag over her shoulder and asked for her name and address which she refused to answer.

Telling her that Police had suspicions that she might have illegal drugs in her possession, the attending police Sergeant asked for her handbag. She refused and he reached for it.

On reaching for the bag, his hand was slapped away and the altercation rapidly built up to where Ms Steede slapped the police Sergeant’s face.

A struggle ensued and Ms Steede was finally subdued after being wrestled to the ground. During this time she was reported as telling the officers: “You need a pair of heels and a skirt. Why are you flinching? You got slapped by a girl.”

Explaining her actions to the Magistrate, Ms Steede said that the bathroom was open and she thought that it was for public use. She said: “I didn’t vandalize anything. Police had no right to search my bag. I’m a woman.”

Asked by the Magistrate if she thought her behaviour was acceptable, she maintained that as a woman she considered her bag to be special, that a male policeman had no right to even ask her for it, and that police had no right to search her bag.

Magistrate Archie Warner then ordered a ten day custodial sentence. Immediately after, Ms Steede strode off towards the Court’s prisoner enclosure.

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News

Comments (97)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. thatgirl says:

    police officers are allowed to search your bags/belongings without a warrant? thank God i live in America!

    • Tommy Chong says:

      The search was done under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act thats why the officer had to state they had suspicions that she had drugs. This is an act that is a spinoff of the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act that was coerced by the first drug czar of America on all league of nations countries. Sadly Britain still abides by this act while the rest of europe have become smarter. Your laws on drugs are just as bad as ours so there is no room to judge. The problem in Bermuda is that our laws juggle between some American states same criminalization level of all drugs & the Misuse of Drugs Act. In Britain less harmful drugs have different laws where as here as in some American states its the same law across the board. All of this is the fault of America’s drug czars & the U.S. past government administrations.

      All in all the police here still did something unlawful because under the Misuse of Drugs Act they still do not have the right to touch anyones belongings. Under the act it states the police must as the person to empty their own bag’s contents to avoid any accusations of planting evidence. This goes the same for emptying pockets, car content, etc. The girl should not have received prison time because of police not following the proper procedure.

      • bermyboy says:

        Chong you dont know what you are talking about if the police want to search a person or their belongings they are not going to ask the person to empty anything for two reasons one under the misuse of drugs act equipment is also illegal so would you as a police officer want to ask someone to empty their pockets and see them take out a razor blade thats a huge officer saftey issue and second whats to stop the person from shoving it in their mouth and swallowing it or attempting to throw it away. Stop writing false information it dose no one any good.

        • ap says:

          he is right bermyboy:

          Entry on premises; search; seizure
          A police officer or other person authorised in that behalf by a general or special
          order of the Commissioner of Police shall, for the purposes of the execution of this Act, have
          power to enter the premises of a person carrying on business as a producer or supplier of
          any controlled drugs and to demand the production of, and to inspect, any books or
          documents relating to dealings in any such drugs and to inspect any stocks of any such
          drugs.
          If a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that any person is in
          possession of an article liable to seizure, the police officer may, without warrant,—
          search that person, and detain him for the purpose of searching him;
          search any vehicle or vessel in which the police officer suspects that an
          article liable to seizure may be found, and for that purpose require the
          person in control of the vehicle or vessel to stop it;
          seize and detain anything which appears to the police officer to be an article
          liable to seizure:
          Provided that the onus of proving the reasonableness

          • Yup says:

            Don’t even start. Dem itches need ol’fashion tough love. No nonsense.

        • Tommy Chong says:

          Your the one who doesn’t know because if the police suspect you of having a razor why would they dig in your belongings & risk getting cut. This is another reason they are not allowed to go in your belongings. What if you are hiv positive & have a hypodermic heroin needle hidden in their bag. One prick sticking hands in pockets or bag could cause infection. Another thing is if an officer goes in you belongings & pulls out drugs you can turn around in court & say it was planted on you. When an officer approaches a suspect they are supposed to give enough distance between them & the suspect so to avoid getting hurt with a weapon. Also if the suspect goes to swallow the evidence the police just take them to the hospital where they have means to see what they’ve swallowed.

          • enough says:

            Have you ever actually read the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1972? didn’t think so.
            Do you actually have any concept of what the difference is between ‘allowed to do’ and ‘be conscious of’? didn’t think so.
            Seriously, you always come on these police related stories spouting utter nonsense as if it’s fact and law.
            It’s a joke.

            • Tommy Chong says:

              Do you mean this misuse of drugs act?

              http://www.commonlii.org/bm/legis/consol_act/moda1972184/

              or maybe you’ve made up another in your imagination.

              25 (1) A police officer or other person authorised in that behalf by a general or special order of the Commissioner of Police shall, for the purposes of the execution of this Act, have power to enter the premises of a person carrying on business as a producer or supplier of any controlled drugs and to demand the production of, and to inspect, any books or documents relating to dealings in any such drugs and to inspect any stocks of any such drugs.

              Did the police have a special order from the Commissioner of Police? NO THEY DIDN’T!!!

              25 (4) No female shall be searched under this section except by a woman police officer.

              Do I even have to point out what the MALE officer did wrong with this one?

              I’m sure there are more suspect individuals in Bermuda that the Commissioner of Police could give special orders to search daily. Why don’t the police take a drive around parkside & 42nd & use the act properly. Are they afraid they’ll get more than just a slap on the hand.

              • Tommy Chong says:

                BTW if anyone reads this act in full it becomes apparent that it is borderline communism.

              • enough says:

                Genuinely, you’re so dumb it’s frightening.

                Section 25(1) has no relevance here. “A police officer OR…..” ‘OR’ being the relavant word there. Police officers are sworn in, but other non-police personnel can be sworn in with limited prowerrs, such a Customs Officers being made Special constables; that’s what this sentence means.

                The foregoing is moot in this case, despite your flagrant misreading of the legislation, because the police were called by the St. George’s Club because this woman was trespassing. They didn’t need a power to enter the premises, authority was given by the owner or agent of the St. George’s Club.

                Section 25(4) speaks to bodily searches, not searches of a female’s belongings. A bag does not constitute searching a female.

                NEXT.

  2. Bermy's Finest says:

    WOW!!! That girl has some big ____, I am certainly not used to a female not having a fixed abode…..hard times.

    • Tommy Chong says:

      There are at least 20 young ladies not having a fixed abodes in Bermuda. This goes to show how much our government has helped young Bermudians deal with life here. Then we wonder why so many of our young are starting to find the gangster life so enticing.

      • Why do you people always blame the government for young peoples problems..??? Where are these young girls parents..??? They are responsible for their child’s upbringing and choices not the government…

        Take responsibility for your actions or lack thereof. Stop trying to blame someone other that the responsible party…

        • Wandering says:

          that is the problem totally – no one feels they should be held accountable for their actions or lack of – you tell parents about their children’s behavior and the first words out of their mouths (not a lot of parents but still plenty who do say it) “Not my child” – so, if it isn’t yours, then whose. I heard someone say once “not all people who have children are parent material” What is parent material? I am so very glad my parents who didn’t see eye to eye on many things – put their differences aside to to guide me accordingly for me to be the person I am today. I still feel the looks cast my way and the tone used when all of my names were called – spare the Rod – not in my house – nor is it spared in my house.

        • Tommy Chong says:

          The Bermuda government are the ones who made it law that a sixteen year old CHILD can choose to quit school or not. Parents have no say in this. Do you think at sixteen year old knows what they will become in the future? Most of them don’t even seem to know there proper clothing size.

          The Bermuda government decided to put all the thousands of public school students in an overpopulated learning environment. If we had a few bad eggs in each school when all high schools were split up by parish imagine what taking all the bad eggs island wide & putting them in one high school has done.

          There Bermuda government has not enforced the drinking & smoking ages in Bermuda. A teenager can easily by alcohol on a saturday & get drunk in a park. Are parents to follow their children to the grocery store to make sure they are not illegally sold alcohol?

          • Truth101 says:

            Just FYI, 16 year olds are allowed to drop out of high school, but if they are under 18 they must be in some type of educational environment, ie. Adult education. But by law they must in school if they are under 18 years of age.

            And parents do have a say in if he or she decides to drop out of highschool. They drop out of school, you get out of my house. No way I will allow that.

            And everyone should be held accounted for their own actions. These young people believe they are so grown, and some of the parents put it in their heads that they believe they are; you forget who is the child and who is the adult in the situation. They want to be act like an adult; treat them like one, the pleasures & consequences of his or her actions.

            Quit blaming the parents & the

          • Truth101 says:

            Just FYI, 16 year olds are allowed to drop out of high school, but if they are under 18 they must be in some type of educational environment, ie. Adult education. But by law they must in school if they are under 18 years of age.

            And parents do have a say in if he or she decides to drop out of highschool. They drop out of school, you get out of my house. No way I will allow that.

            And everyone should be held accounted for their own actions. These young people believe they are so grown, and some of the parents put it in their heads that they believe they are; you forget who is the child and who is the adult in the situation. They want to be act like an adult; treat them like one, the pleasures & consequences of his or her actions.

            Quit blaming the parents & the Government. Blame the individual.

            • Tommy Chong says:

              If this is the law that they must be in some type of educational environment if they drop out than it is not enforced. Many young 16 year old boys start working as construction labors on the weekends & when they get those big checks feel they don’t need school anymore. There are many of these teens who never get a GED or any diploma & no legal action is taken to get them in school. The thing that is more scary is when a gang head takes a teen under their scaly wings. The government & teachers support this by doing nothing to stop it.

              Twice I’ve forgotten to call my children’s teacher on a sick day but the teacher nor the principal called to see if my child was supposed to be in school. I’ve spoken to other parents & they say the same that their children could easily skip school if they wanted to. When approaching the principal about this she acted as if it was my fault even when I’ve pointed to all of the other times I have called to inform that my child could not attend. When trying to contact the department of education to address my complaint I end up getting more runaround then assistance.

              Just because a child tries to act like an adult doesn’t mean they should be treated like one because they are still children. To put a child at the level of an adult gives them a false sense of life because even adults have bosses so if you own the child you must act like there boss.

              Kicking a child out of the house is not the answer either because whatever situation is causing the child to act out will worsen when they’re thrown to the wolves.

              • Aquarius says:

                well said! I’m tiered of trying to deal with our primary school. The report card said my daughter was absent 1 time last term. She was absent 4 times in total as I both called and emailed why should would not be attending.
                not once has the school contacted me to enquire about her NOT being in school as a couple of times I have almost forgotten to call and its near the end of the school day before I make the call.
                my husband dropped out of school at 16 years old to join the construction industry. his mom said he was being homeschooled. some joke! he can barely read! he wholeheartedly regrets the mistakes made in his youth and pays the consequences with a bum back and poor joints still struggling to make ends meet for his family. no one seemed to care that he dropped out. his family included!
                but how can we get the system to care about the people dropping out when they don’t even care about the ones that are still within the system.

          • Agree says:

            Well said Mr. Chong

        • Tolerate says:

          From reading this article, I can only take from the incident what was reported as I was not there. No matter after all the debating what the law states, it appears the officer (for his own protection) should have followed the procedure of asking her to empty the bag in front of him and the other officer. Once done, he could have safely confirmed all the internal pockets had been emptied.
          At the end of the day, no illegal substance or weapons were found; however the procedure that was carried out resulted in irritating a situation and has lead to her being incarcerated. The question is does she deserve this? Again were any of you there to witness the mood of the whole ordeal.
          On assaulting a member of the law, she is guilty and should learn better self control. I hope her take of this ordeal turns into something positive in her life and not another means of adding to any hatred; especially if the incident could have been handled better.
          Lastly, there are some jerks in this world and she may, or may not be a product of a parent, who is one, but she is 22 years old and people are still blame parenting. Please, I know friends who have 16 year olds that can’t wait until they are 18 years old to leave home as they already know it all; and these are the good parents. They continue to fight the good fight, but once 18 rolls around; there is NOTHING they can further do. Unfortunately not all of us have a trust fund or other means of keeping our kids in check for any time after 18 years of age.

          • Tommy Chong says:

            This lady was wrestled to the ground by a male officer. For what? Like the lady said they need heels & a skirt. If the female is to be accountable for her actions of “assault” a slap to the MALE OFFICERS hand then why is the officer not found accountable for using brute force to illegally search the female’s bag? If she is to have self control then a trained officer should have more self control & should have assessed the situation better. If she was not hiding drugs then maybe she was hiding a pair of dirty panties as she is homeless & could be embarrassed. Now she’s been put in prison for 10 days with others who have done far worse than slapping an officers hand. She also has a record now that she will have to tell every employer about before being hired that’s if anyone hires her with a record of assault. Maybe if police were trained to do their job better they would get more of a positive response in the community. This type of force should be used on a thugged out gangster not a young lady. I wonder what this officer would do if some thug got in his face if he’s already flinching from the slap of a girl.

            @ Tolerate I appreciate that you have mentioned where the officer went wrong but I don’t think what the female did condones the officers behavior.

    • yeesh says:

      This young “lady’s” parents own a lovely house and she is their only child.

      • Me says:

        And they are so called Christians

        • Tommy Chong says:

          What ever happened to he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone?

  3. The Devils Isle says:

    Well well looks like she’s started her life out on the wrong track let’s hope these 10 days will knock some sense into her that she cannot have her own way with the Law just because she’s a Woman that’s rediculous because your a woman you don’t have to follow the rules by a male officer… Serves you right stop trying to be someone your not Be yourself cuz everyone else is already taken…

    • Tommy Chong says:

      Under the Misuse of Drugs Act police do not have the right to touch anyones belongings. Under the act it states the police must as the person to empty their own bag’s contents to avoid any accusations of planting evidence. This goes the same for emptying pockets, car content, etc. This is why customs ask someone to empty the contents from their pockets. It is considered assault even if you are slightly grazed with a metal detecting wand. Take note next time going on a trip & you will see how careful they are not to do this. The girl should not receive prison time because the police did not follow the proper procedure.

      • enough says:

        This post is almost complete and utter nonsense and so easily debuinked it’s barely even worth my time responding to your deluded opinion.

        • Tommy Chong says:

          So why have you taken your so worthy time out to type this if you haven’t even backed up your opinion?

          Further more the correct search procedure for the misuse of drugs act is not my opinion its part of the law of the land.

          • enough says:

            Listen you muppet….READ THE ACT. What you state as fact, is utter fiction. You make assertions that YOU need to back up. I’m telling you they are nonsense and here’s why (since you’re too bone idle, stupid or both to do so before you come on here stating your ‘facts’) Only reason I haven’t spoon fed your laziness is that, from bermudalaws.bm, it’s a PDF file and I can’t copy and paste. Section 25 (2) and (5) MDA 1972.

            http://www.bermudalaws.bm/Laws/Consolidated%20Laws/Misuse%20of%20Drugs%20Act%201972.pdf

            Learn facts before you purport to be an expert.

            Thanks.

            • Tommy Chong says:

              You have the nerve to call me a muppet when I’ve just pulled your strings. LOL

              Your the ignoramus who doesn’t even know how to copy a PDF file. I didn’t want to bring this into it because I do like anonymity but since you must persist I used to be an RP in the regiment where we are taught the same proper search procedures as the police. I’ve even been called to the airport with other RPs when BPS & customs couldn’t handle an unruly drunk passenger. We had to subdue the passenger but could not search them till they sobered up & could fully agree they knew there rights.

              25 (1) A police officer or other person authorized in that behalf by a general or special order of the Commissioner of Police shall, for the purposes of the execution of this Act, have power to enter the premises of a person carrying on business as a producer or supplier of any controlled drugs and to demand the production of, and to inspect, any books or documents relating to dealings in any such drugs and to inspect any stocks of any such drugs.

              Did the police have a special order from the Commissioner of Police? NO THEY DIDN’T!!!

              25 (4) No female shall be searched under this section except by a woman police officer.

              Do I even have to point out what the MALE officer did wrong with this one?

              BTW You copy a PDF by highlighting the intended to copy text with your curser & then right click & select copy from your dropdown. Now numpty dumpty say, “Thank you Tommy for your help.”

              • enough says:

                Sec 25(1) has no impact on the facts at question here you tool.
                The incident took place at the St. George’s Club…so where’s the relevance of the section you yourself quote??

                “…have power to enter the premises of a person carrying on business as a producer or supplier of any controlled drugs and to demand the production of, and to inspect, any books or documents relating to dealings in any such drugs and to inspect any stocks of any such drugs.”

                NEXT.

                You went through section 25(4) which again is irrelevant because the male officer didn’t search the female, he attempted to search her bag. That is covered in section 25(5);

                “…The power of search under this section shall extend to any receptacle or other article then in the possession of the person being searched.”

                You laid your somewhat embarrassing resume out for all to read and I contend that you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. The one and ONLY reason you RP idiots would be called for anything is if it’s one of your ‘soldiers’ that’s being dealt with. You have ZERO backing in law to come to the airport and search anyone. ZERO.

                You talk previously about safety but yet are quite willing to allow someone to sober up before searching them. Utter, abject foolishness and actions that will get you hurt, killed or even worse, get me hurt or killed. The Act does not speak to the searched person needing to be sober to understand what’s happening to them. I mean seriously, get a grip.

                Section 25(2) – “If a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that any person is in possession of an article liable to seizure, the police officer may, without warrant.
                (a)search that person, and detain him for the purpose of searching him; ”

                There endeth your lesson in the appropriate application of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

                I do thank you for the help with PDF copying and pasting. I hope you will afford me the same courtesy because you have stated multiple times here that police cannot search belongings. FALSE. You state that Act says so. FALSE. You now state people have to be sober prior to search. FALSE.

                You have no idea who I am but seriously, what you write is just FALSE, time and time again and it really has to stop.

                If you don’t know, ask and i’ll happily copy and paste from the relevant document with my newly acquired skills.

                Don’t make absolute statements like they are fact when they are demonstrably not. It’s embarrassing.

                • Tommy Chong says:

                  Alright officer enough you want me to ask questions then here goes some.

                  Can you use the misuse of drugs act on someone who is trespassing?

                  Also if St. George’s Club employees where saying that this girl was on their premises carrying on business as a producer or supplier of controlled drugs why doesn’t it say that in the report?

                  • enough says:

                    I think you might have learning difficulties.
                    So, really slowly, here goes….

                    St. George’s club call police regarding a lady they have previously barred being on premises and refusing to leave. End of report. No meth labs, no cocaine factory.

                    Police show up. Police say they have reason for suspecting she is subject to search under MDA. (I don’t know what those reasons were).

                    For simply trespassing, no, of course MDA doesn’t apply. I’m not sure if sec 315(f) Criminal Code was in effect or covers that area of the island, but that could be grounds for search for weapons but that’s not what they said they did.

                    After arrest is made, ALL prisoners are searched prior to transport. Basic handling procedures.

                    Can you now move on? Or make a formal complaint on her behalf to police or IPCC. Thanks.

                    • Tommy Chong says:

                      Sorry Nooooot slooooow enough officer enough! I still don’t get how the police decide that someone called in for trespassing is carrying drugs. I know what someone on cocaine characteristics are but I don’t see police using the MDA on people in business suits. So they seem to barking up the wrong tree.

                      I also don’t understand how having power to enter the premises of a person carrying on business as a producer or supplier of any controlled drugs and to demand the production of, and to inspect, any books or documents relating to dealings in any such drugs and to inspect any stocks of any such drugs relates to an addict who is neither a producer or supplier but a user.

                      My complaints would not be on this young ladies behalf but on all the victims of drug dealers who have been manhandled by the police because the MDA has been misused. The law puts addicts in prison & this action feeds the drug trade by throwing the sheep to the wolves.

      • enough says:

        “Under the Misuse of Drugs Act police do not have the right to touch anyones belongings. Under the act it states the police must as the person to empty their own bag’s contents to avoid any accusations of planting evidence. This goes the same for emptying pockets, car content, etc

        Kindly quote secyion of the Act. I guarantee you won’t be able to…..

  4. Nothing But the Truth says:

    Her behavior was unacceptable. However I do believe she had the right to defend herself. The Police cant search your belongings without a warrant

    • Tommy Chong says:

      They can under the Misuse of Drugs Act but do not have the right to touch anyones belongings. They must ask you to do it yourself.

      • Just saying says:

        I under stand the misuse of drug act. But do you think people are abusing it? When do we draw the line. If officers can not get what they want is it ok to just say the misuse of drug act to harass people. Now her actions are not acceptable. Not at all.
        I just want to know when do you not use the misuse of drug act or do you use it.

        • Tommy Chong says:

          IMO The police should be using the misuse of drug act on suspected drug dealers not suspected drug addicts. Especially when using this act on addicts gets them imprisoned with dealers who use them to make money or get other goods while locked up.

          To be an addict is a sickness & should be treated as such. The law putting addicts in prison is the same as putting someone with hiv in prison. Maybe its their fault that they have this sickness but just as it is some hiv victims faults for not using protection. Should someone be punished for having a self inflicted sickness?

          • Just saying says:

            The law is the law. Thats not what Im asking. Drug addict, drug dealer they are breaking the law. ok if they look. but what is the look. because there are people who dress up in business attire and do drugs. are they searched? thats what i want to know, because it seems that this is only for young black people. mostly male. drugs have no race age or color. so when is it really used. and is it used as a last resort to be “pokey”.

            remember what i think she did was wrong, but leading up to it is what im asking. and does this act apply to everyone!!

            • Tommy Chong says:

              IMO = In My Opinion & thats what blogs are for. Didn’t you read where it says speak your mind. Also this is on the world wide web so if you don’t want anyone in your business go ask officer enough at the police station not on a general post.

      • enough says:

        Wrong.

  5. Ryan says:

    I think this is a perfect time for an “Only in Bermuda!”

  6. Polly says:

    Under the Misuse of Drugs Act you don’t need a warrant!

    • Tommy Chong says:

      But they are not allowed to touch her belongings under this act. She was supposed to empty her contents of the bag not them.

      • okay says:

        Ok we get you, how many times are you gonna say it Tommy Chong!

        • Tommy Chong says:

          Not everyone gets it so do me a favor & explain it to them then I won’t have to repeat myself.

          • enough says:

            If you repeat lies, does that make them truths? Didn’t think so.
            The Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 specifically speaks to searching of possessions so kindly apologise for your spouting forth this nonsense repeatedly and thereafter remain quiet until such time as you have educated yourself.
            Thanks.

  7. enough says:

    Where does this notion come from that police can’t search without a warrant. Nonsense. Multiple Acts allow such searches.
    As for being glad you live in the US….really? Again, you need to read up on US law; arguably the most intrusive of any civilised nation.

    • Tommy Chong says:

      Some states in America have intrusive laws some don’t. Thats why there nation is in an identity crises. One state says you can have medical cannabis for your cancer & the state next door says you’ll be arrested if they find medical cannabis on you. While the rest of the world look to America for freedom. The American constitution is all a big joke especially when its a known fact it was written an paper made from cannabis plants.

      • Rummy says:

        So whats your point. “Cannabis plants”.

        Thats neither here nor there.

        They were pot heads?

        Or was it made from tobacco, or reeds from Eygpt.

        You digress.

        Law is law. Abide by it or move to Syria and protest there. (a new meaning to being/things getting shot down).

        • Come correct says:

          His point is that back in the late 1800′s it was illegal not to grow hemp, it was also acceptable to pay taxes and other things with hemp, it was until some d#ck (can’t remember the name right now) figured out it would cost him more money to switch his printing presses from tree paper to hemp, so using his newspaper spread lies that blacks and mexicans were smoke marijuana and raping white women (I’m white don’t go there) thus it was outlawed and has been ever since, its been used throughout history, medically, riyualistically, and recreationally. Now since its illegal but yet still so plentiful its the perfect excuse to search anyones belongings…correct me if I’m wrong tommy

          • Tired of nonsense says:

            Believe it was William Randolph Hearst

            • Tommy Chong says:

              @ Come correct & Tired of nonsense Your both are correct this was the beginning of prohibition with William Randolph Hearst & then Harry Jacob Anslinger carried on the racist practice after him. Thats why the world renown name for cannabis is marijuana a mexican nick name.

              I’ve got another infamous name from prohibition for all. Al Capone! Everyone probably knows about this drug dealing gangster. Does anyone know what kind of drugs he was infamous for dealing?

        • Tommy Chong says:

          My point was that American & Bermudian laws are hypocritical!!! Even if this was written on tobacco leaf or papyrus you would still be to ignorant or illiterate to understand my point.

          Also Im sure since you live by the law is the law when driving you probably stay within the speed limit, stop at all stop signs & overtake on the right line? Isn’t that right mr. law abiding citizen?

          Go visit Mr. Burns & talk to him about the law.

        • Brain cells says:

          Alcohol kills brain cells, pot does not kill brain cells. Maybe you should convert to save a few brain cells.

          • Pastor Syl says:

            @ Brain cells: From a study performed by Dr. Daniel Amen, et al, using High Resolution Brain SPECT Imaging, a kind of MRI that takes images of the brain as it is functioning to see which areas are firing or not. The full results of this study can be found in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Volume 30, No. 2 April-June 1998. Pgs 1-13: “the marijuana group also demonstrated marked decreased activity in the right and left temporal lobes. The severe and moderate ratings were found in the heaviest users, but not necessarily the longest users. This study demonstrates decreased cerebral perfusion in the temporal lobe regions of the brain on SPECT imaging from chronic marijuana usage.”

            Pot damages the brain. Accept it.

            • Tommy Chong says:

              I agree with Pastor Syl but my point would be cannabis, alcohol, tobacco & caffein all damage brain cells in heavy use. None are as highly addictive or as damaging as crack or heroin but one is still as illegal.

  8. Rummy says:

    Tommy is a transplant.
    Knows nothing about the Criminal Code nor ammendments.

    Hopen pirz…vee look for chinese fortune cookies…..

    Lucky numbar…..911…….

    • Come correct says:

      Actually Tommy is pretty correct as far as the goes, but the moment you don’t comply with the officers request, all of that goes out the window, and in court no matter if they were supposed to search your belongings or not, it your word against theirs, and we all know how that goes. Morale of the story: they can’t make you stop video recording everything from your phone, they won’t follow protocol, make them, and pay very close attention to the shiny numbers on the shoulders.

  9. MENE MEME TEKEL says:

    Tommy get your head from out of the clouds. Or shouold I say smoke? The hand writing is on the wall and we are fussing over the pennmanship.

    • Rummy says:

      Ignore Tommy.
      He spends too much time on BIAW, lives stateside and believes that he’s being taxed.
      Bwahaaaaaaaa

      As can be seen by his comments.

      Smoking Gun…………………..

      • Tommy Chong says:

        Too bad they dropped the liquor prohibition laws in the 1940s. There may have been a chance for you.

        NAAAH!!! You would probably be a worse Rummy than you are now.

    • Tommy Chong says:

      If the writing read Daniel’s message to Belshazzar than there would be no fuss. This is not what I read in the writing.

      • MENE MEME TEKEL says:

        You have tunnel vision man. Conversation is not limited to 1 case. It embodies any relatted case.

        • Tommy Chong says:

          I know about the related cases or at the ones I think you referring to. What I’m a confused about is why Magistrate Archie Warner has warned customs about illegally searching cruise passengers but still heavily fines the passengers or throws this female in prison when illegally searched.

  10. Pastor Syl says:

    @ Tommy: I believe you are right regarding proper police search procedures. However, they don’t all follow same in practice. However, there are so many things that are wrong, even the judges have become less vigilant about the letter of the law.
    I’m sure if that young woman’s sentence was longer, she’d be within her rights to appeal it, especially since it seems they did not find any illicit substances on her. However, the law gets funky when police officers get hurt, so that was her mistake.

    @ Necromonger: We do not know the circumstances of why this young woman is homeless, but there are more than 1000 out there, men, women, families with young children, sleeping in cars, under trees and bushes. The reason we blame the government is because they have known about the problem for years but have done nothing whatsoever. I well remember the day the front page of the Gazette carried two stories: top of the page that Dr. Brown had spent $360K on travel and bottom of the page – there was no money yet again to repair the North Street Homeless Shelter – the only one we have! For a government that is supposed to be so concerned about its people, I have yet to see any real evidence. Free bus fares for school children and tax breaks for seniors are offset by cuts in funding to Teen Services, Family Services, Focus, Coalition for the Protection of Children, the Mirrors program, the Family Center, Sunshine League, etc – all programs that target troubled youth – Age Concern and the Police also had their funding cut but not the Prisons. Low cost housing that isn’t low cost and only caters to those who can buy doesn’t help that portion of our population that has only minimal or no income. And that portion is steadily increasing.

    Add to that the closure of the Indigent Clinic by your beloved Dr. Brown, and you have a growing population of folks with no insurance and therefore no medical care – that no-one in government is addressing. People with no boots cannot be expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

  11. US Observer says:

    Someone please hand me the Mase…

  12. R2012 says:

    The police never should have touched her belongings, they only “suspected” she may have been on drugs. Under suspicion and officer does not have the right to touch others belongings without permission. This is pure primary school stuff. I would’ve slapped him too!

    • enough says:

      Been speaking to Tommy Chong? Why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good urban myth propogated by fools.

      • Come correct says:

        Have you ever even been in this type of situation? I hope you have if your going around calling people fools.

        • enough says:

          Wasn’t speaking about the situation per se, which is abundently clear. I’m speaking about the falsehood propogated by fools like Tommy Chong and R2012 when he/she says;

          “….Under suspicion and officer does not have the right to touch others belongings without permission….”

          This atatement is FALSE. Section 25(5) Misuse of Drugs Act 1972;

          “…The power of search under this section shall extend to any receptacle or other article then in the possession of the person being searched.”

          People who make FALSE statements are fools. End of story. Clear?

          • Come correct says:

            I’m happy you can read off a screen or a piece of paper but to the average citizen these acts are hard to understand, especially to someone with minimal education. How come our rights can’t be stated clearly? To break it down for everyone, the misuse of drugs act is the simplest way to say the police can search what they want when they want where they want so hope to god your not guilty. For example: I was arrested one night in a parking lot of a park, I was with another male and 2 females, I was sitting on my bike wen the police out of nowhere peeled in and pulled up right behind my bike, I’m familiar with the procedure so I got off my bike and went for my wallet with my I.D. All of the police in the car came straight to me and I was told to empty my pockets, when I asked what I was being searched for, apparently I fit the description of the person they were looking for (a medium build average height spic I’m guessing) right after that the officer asked “do you have anything in your pockets that may cut or poke me like razor blades or needles” as he snapped his purple latex gloves on and I was cuffed and searched, I was arrested for posession of 2.2 grams of marijuana, funny thing is the other guy I was with looks just like me but 2 inches taller and no one else was searched, also included in the report I’m quoted as saying “watever my step-mother will deal with this and you will be in front of the commisioner…last time I checked my parents hadn’t had a divorce. I admit I was guilty and that’s my problem, but the police can do as they like and contrary to the magistrates belief, they fucking lie.

            A cop friend of mine said to me once “all pigs like to play in mud”

            • enough says:

              Lol…I’m sure that’s exactly what your cop friend said.
              Well, you may not understand the Misuse of Drugs Act but you know it’s illegal to possess Cannabis here.
              Police abusing powers, lying etc is unacceptable.

              • Come correct says:

                Happens every single day and there isn’t a thing we can do about it because of that act.

  13. The Hell!! says:

    I think its important that every one should know their rights. Police do abuse their power at times. IE: they cannot come to your house and arrest you on certain warrants that’s one of the reasons why they ask you to come outside cause they wanna talk to you..the minute you do that they can snatch you.

  14. Compassion says:

    Not saying that the girl was right but heck the story sounds far fetched to me. “A struggle and then she was pinned down on the ground or whatever”. She’s 22 and probably 120 pounds. The cops have a difficult job but a lot them do like a little scuffle and they even go as far as to provoke people because they know the person will get mad and act out, then they can charge them. What a joke.

  15. Compassion says:

    Oh, ever sat in on a court case. One lawyer interprets the law one way and one the other. It’s up to the judge to decide who he they feel like siding with on that particular day.

  16. Verbal Kint says:

    HUH

  17. PH says:

    I find it intersting that a female can hit a police officer and get ONLY 10 days. If a male di dthe samething he would be lynched by the SAME courts! Whay do we have this horrible double standard when it comesto enforcing our laws.

  18. just an fyi says:

    On a side note there is always other information not all shared…
    - perhaps this young girl (whose parents live very close by in a wonderful new house and both have wonderful paying jobs) simply stated she was of “no fixed abode”.
    - perhaps this young girl stated she was of no fixed abode to not draw attention to whom her parents are and what cases they may be involved in.
    - perhaps this young girl was trespassing on property that the owners had already banned her from.
    - perhaps the police were called by security of the property as per following orders from owners/managers.
    - perhaps this “wonderful”, “Christian”, and YES educated (in a Florida college) girl was just plain wrong for trespassing where she was already warned she was not welcome or allowed and then just wanted to try and act tough…

    …good job young “lady”, you are right where you belong for 10 days and making your parents oh so proud after they praised you and all your accomplishments for so long

    • Tommy Chong says:

      Where is the perhaps she had drugs on her? Isn’t the catalyst that got her put in prison? Can you use the misuse of drugs act on someone who is trespassing?

      Maybe I should ask my new policeman friend. Lets see where’s enough’s post again.

  19. The Hell!! says:

    Some cops do try and provoke you but you must remain calm and remind the officer that you are not talking to him the way he is talking to you, take note of his badge # his attitude will quickly change. They are human & I know some of them leave home in a strange state of mind, and are unable to leave their troubles at home at times. Witch is no excuse. If they can’t handle it then they need to change careers. They are not saints as some folks may believe.

  20. k says:

    We are all taught right from wrong in our younger years . choices to be smart or stupid . sadly some take the latter and some support it !!!!

    • Tommy Chong says:

      Even some adults make stupid choices that have grey areas in them. There are many adults who make the choice to drink & drive. That only lands them in jail for the night. Some make the choice to drive over the speed limit. That lands them a speeding fine. Some make the choice not to pay a bill & that lands them into a debt trial. This young ADULT made the choice to smack a policeman’s hand & that landed her on the ground, hands in cuffs, in prison for 10 days & a criminal record.

      • Tommy Chong says:

        Correction on the drink & drive before officer enough comes along & tases me. That only lands them in jail for the night, a fine & some years off the road.

        • enough says:

          Choices have consequences. Shocking, eh?

          • Tommy Chong says:

            The shocking thing is not that choices have consequences. The shocking thing is that smacking an officers hand has worse consequences than being recorded smashing bottles over a civilians head. This is why problems exist on this island because the consequences don’t fit the action.

            • enough says:

              Take your latest whine to the judiciary.
              Lobby parliament for legislative change.

              • Tommy Chong says:

                LOL Officer Enough made a funny!!! Lobby parliament for legislative change that will stop the income of millions of dollars in fines & taxes? It would be easier for me to teach pigs to fly. No pun intended mister officer in all honesty thats a bad name for police as they do some good. I’d think that a better & more respectable animal term would be misguided sheep. They can’t help it that their shepherds are greedy.

  21. Just saying says:

    I need to learn my rights. Is it a crime not to answer the police if they ask for your name? I understand authority, I answer them, but are you breaking the law if you dont?

  22. Just saying says:

    Are you breaking the law if you do not answer the police when they ask for your name?

    • enough says:

      Depends under what circumstances and section of law. More often the answer is yes.

      • Come correct says:

        I thought I had the right to remain silent because anything I say can and WILL be used against me in the court of law…and no I was never read that when I was arrested, but one of the officers kept telling me I’d be charged with obstruction if I didn’t talk, I simply stated to her I hadn’t seen a lawyer yet and I’m not sayin sh*t and continued laughing in her face.

  23. enough says:

    @ Tommy Chong
    I couldn’t see the ‘reply’ button above so here are my thoughts;

    YOU and only YOU brought section 25(1) into the equation. I’ve told you multiple times that section has ZERO relevance to this situation. They didn’t use the Misuse of Drugs Act to enter the premises. They used the invitation of the owner to deal with a trespasser. I have also quoted the sections of that Act that are relevant and allow the search of her handbag. Feel free to keep ignoring same. I can’t explain it any more clearly than I have.
    As I have also stated, what their grounds were for conducting a search under the MDA are unknown to me.
    As for your assertion that this Act is misused, well, I don’t know about that but it’s clear from your posting that you don’t understand the Act so I’m not sure how you can decide it is misused.
    Dealing with drugs/dealers and users requires a multi faceted approach. Law enforcement at the user, producer and dealer side is required but there are other areas that require attention, mostly societal; education, employment, parenting etc but that’s for another blog.
    For now, I’m signing off and will not be responding to further posts but I hope I have helped bring some clarity to you.
    For the record, I am not employed by the police.

    • Tommy Chong says:

      Its quite amusing that you call me all sorts of names including muppet when I’ve been the one pulling your strings through my posts. Its not easy being green don’t you think kermy? :-)

      Though I thinks your strings are wound a bit tight because it took a bit to get what I wanted out of you. Here it is…

      “Dealing with drugs/dealers and users requires a multi faceted approach. Law enforcement at the user, producer and dealer side is required but there are other areas that require attention, mostly societal; education, employment, parenting etc but that’s for another blog.”

      Exactly so to use the MDA to search suspected addicts would be misuse of the act. This misuse causes societal, education, employment & parenting problems. If the reason why is not clear to you here’s the clarification societal the MDA makes addicts criminals of society, education the MDA makes it so teens caught with controlled drugs no matter the amount or type will put them on an american stop list, employment the MDA makes it so anyone caught with controlled drugs no matter the amount or type gets a criminal record & lastly parenting problems the MDA makes it so parents don’t see their child as having a problem that needs help but see them as a criminal that only prison time can help.

      I’m just kidding about the officer thing. I don’t have esp but your post show you must have some type of ties in the law to defend it so strongly. That doesn’t necessarily mean your a policeman but officer enough has a better ring to it than attorney enough, magistrate enough or spouse of officer enough or any other I could think of. Don’t you think?