Conviction of the defendant
The defendant can be convicted if found in possession of the drug paraphernalia. This is because the possession of the “crack pipe” is itself a violation of the act on Drug Paraphernalia Control Act (Gardner, & Anderson, 2012). Moreover, possession is regarded as an actus reus, which is criminal act based on omission when the law that demands an action of an individual is violated. As such, the defendant was in possession of the item, which is used in inhaling substances, which are controlled to human body. Further, the defendant was aware that the item in possession was the cracking pipe. Therefore, the defendant deserves to be convicted on the basis of knowingly possessing this item (Wyatt, 2010). If in any case the defendant never knew he was in possession of an illegal item, he would prove to be guilty on the same, but present a claim not to know the status of the item. However, such a claim may reserve low attention since this would be a clear show of ignorance for the law.
Matter on making or buying the pipe
In this case, it does not matter whether the defendant made the pipe or bought the pipe. This is because drug paraphernalia act deserves that prove be made that the individual to be convicted was in possession of the item (PEOPLE v. REEVES, 2002). As such, the question in this case is the type of possession. Types of possession include actual possession, knowing possession, constructive possession, mere possession, and joint possession. Irrespective of the possession type for the defendant, he has to be convicted with charges being determined by the type of possession for the defendant. However, ignorance of the existing law may not be used as the validation for the possession type by the defendant. This is because the defendant may claim that he never knew that the crack pipe was an illegal item.
Reasons
Possession is regarded as a criminal act irrespective of not involving any physical action (Actus Reus, n.d). As such, Florida statutes create a room for charging defendants found in possession of items that are deemed illegal. This shows that anybody found in possession of an illegal item as outlined in the law act, such as the drug paraphernalia has to be convicted in a court of law. Such conviction occurs irrespective of the type of possession established for the defendant.
Drug paraphernalia is a serious issue. The defendant should have indicated the main use of the crack pipe. This would eliminate any form of confusion on the use of the crack pipe. On the same note, the defendant should not be in possession of an item, which seems to promote the consumption of drugs (Wyatt, 2010). This is because such an item would act as a means for making drug consumers to have an excuse for consuming their drugs. This would occur in cases where they would associate the crack pipe with other uses other than drug consumption. As such, there is no validity that the defendant was to use the crack pipe in possession for other purposes other than smoking crack cocaine. Therefore, the defendant should really be convicted on basis of drug paraphernalia possession. Otherwise, this would act an opening for having these illegal items among people.
Reference List
Actus Reus. (n.d). Chapter 4: Actus Reus. Retrieved from:
http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/study/supplements/Florida/FL04.pdf
Gardner, T, & Anderson, T. (2012). Criminal Law. United States of America: Cengage
Learning.
PEOPLE v. REEVES 762 N.E.2d 1124. (2002).Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.
January 14, 2002. Retrieved from:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20021886762NE2d1124_11834.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
Wyatt, J. (2010). In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville. Retrieved from:
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/wilsondanitanormantiffany2opn.pdf
