penalty for not having prescription bottle

Does anyone know what the fine is for having a prescription pill in your possession without the prescription bottle.A friend of mine was taking a rest in her car (pretty sick girl) in southtowns and a police man stopped to see if she ok. He asked her to empty her pockets and found a couple prescription pills she got from Roswell. She told him so but he arrested her for not having them in prescription bottle. This is her first time with any problems with the police. This girl was on her deathbed less than a yr ago and still under treatmant by roswell. Police could care the least.Does anyone know what the fine might be and should she get a lawyer? I am so afraid this girl may end up in jail and miss her treatments. I want to help her but dont know what to do. She called a lawyer and he told her 1500 dollars up front just to talk to him. Due to her illness she is not working yet and has no money. She was actually dog sitting for a friend in southtown and on her way home. Any advice would be very helpful.

Even if the prescription in legitimate, the police can charge you and hold you until they verify it's your prescription. Most won't. My wife keeps a number of prescription medications in a pill organizer, but carries the papers from the pharmacy with her. That way, she has proof they're hers without carrying a myriad of brown bottles with her, and without announcing to the whole world what she's taking.

As long as your friend can produce the pharmacy paperwork and/or a note from the prescribing physician, the public defender should be more than adequate.

Were they controlled substances? Narcotics? Regular prescription drugs out of the bottle shouldn't get you a charge under the NYPL. I know we don't care at the border unless they are scheduled drugs.

EDIT: Looked it up, all the crimes involve controlled substances, marijuana or hallucinogens, scheduled drugs. Nothing about regulated (prescription required), non-narcotic drugs.

SEC 220.00 NYPL
5. "Controlled substance" means any substance listed in schedule I,
II, III, IV or V of section thirty-three hundred six of the public
health law other than marihuana, but including concentrated cannabis as
defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision four of section thirty-three
hundred two of such law.
6. "Marihuana" means "marihuana" or "concentrated cannabis" as those
terms are defined in section thirty-three hundred two of the public
health law.
7. "Narcotic drug" means any controlled substance listed in schedule
I(b), I(c), II(b) or II(c) other than methadone.
8. "Narcotic preparation" means any controlled substance listed in
schedule III(d) or III(e).
9. "Hallucinogen" means any controlled substance listed in schedule
I(d) (5), (18), (19), (20), (21) and (22).
10. "Hallucinogenic substance" means any controlled substance listed
in schedule I(d) other than concentrated cannabis, lysergic acid
diethylamide, or an hallucinogen.
11. "Stimulant" means any controlled substance listed in schedule
I(f),II(d).
12. "Dangerous depressant" means any controlled substance listed in
schedule I(e)(2), (3), II(e), III(c)(3) or IV(c)(2), (31), (32), (40).
13. "Depressant" means any controlled substance listed in schedule
IV(c) except (c)(2), (31), (32), (40).



b.b.

What exactly was she charged with?

If she was so sick that she had to "take a rest in her car", why was she driving? You have to be alert and aware to drive a motor vehicle, and it seems that maybe she wasn't. Moreover, many medications, especially narcotic painkillers, come with specific instructions not to drive while using them.

I think the fact that your friend was apparently the driver of a vehicle rather than that she had pills without paperwork on her is what has gotten her into trouble. Cops regularly run into dopeheads behind the wheel who claim the pills in their little bags are "prescriptions", so they're going to be suspicious.

The order to empty her pockets or search her bag may have violated the Fourth and Fifth. Again, exactly what was the charge against her? She might be able to get the charges dismissed and she may also have a section 1982 claim for damages. InWNY most section 1982 claims that are valid settle for between $10,000 and $150,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nogods

InWNY most section 1982 claims that are valid settle for between $10,000 and $150,000.

---

Wow!
Another chance to win the taxpayer funded lawsuit lottery!

I believe one of the pills was for pain so most likely a narcotic, other pills for her autoimmune disease.Charged with presc pills not in presc container.I agree maybe she should not have been driving but she had the smarts to pull over and rest for a while.This was her mistake. She thought she was doing right and gets arrested. Thanks for the replys, Border Bob thanks for that info but does that mean she is automatically guilty if a pain med was with her ? Would anyone happen to know how much will be the fine if the judge has to follow the law regardless of the circumstances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fp2206

I believe one of the pills was for pain so most likely a narcotic, other pills for her autoimmune disease.Charged with presc pills not in presc container.I agree maybe she should not have been driving but she had the smarts to pull over and rest for a while.This was her mistake. She thought she was doing right and gets arrested. Thanks for the replys, Border Bob thanks for that info but does that mean she is automatically guilty if a pain med was with her ? Would anyone happen to know how much will be the fine if the judge has to follow the law regardless of the circumstances?

---

What was the exact charge? What provision of law was she charged with violating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ILOVEDNY

Wow!
Another chance to win the taxpayer funded lawsuit lottery!

---

That's what happens when public employees use their public positions to violate the constitution. Would you rather that injured citizens have no recourse?

Since we are speculating...

Asleep in her car? Keys in the ignition? Time of day or location. Probably not a great leap to articulate getting into a purse. Or he could have asked...


b.b.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BorderBob

Since we are speculating...

Asleep in her car? Keys in the ignition? Time of day or location. Probably not a great leap to articulate getting into a purse. Or he could have asked...


b.b.

---

Bob? Do you have you own box of this in your office?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WNYresident

Bob? Do you have you own box of this in your office?

---

I usually keep a few pair in my pocket, why?

Better ones too. :-)



b.b.

Thought it was funny. We use those to handle prints and when I'm cleaning print heads on the large format printer. One time I stained my hands blue for like a week. The gloves prevent that.

All charges were dropped due to being all prescription drugs.

Wow. I had no idea it was a crime to carry a pill outside of it's flipping bottle. I'm breaking the law when my purse has a few of my thyroid pills floating around at the bottom? Crazy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fp2206

All charges were dropped due to being all prescription drugs.

---

That's good.
I can see this case being handled as an ACD.
You show the judge a valid prescription and charges dismissed.

Personally. When I'm on a script, I'll just bring whatever I need for the work hours.
Cause I know I'll leave the damn bottle at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bannister

Wow. I had no idea it was a crime to carry a pill outside of it's flipping bottle. I'm breaking the law when my purse has a few of my thyroid pills floating around at the bottom? Crazy!

---

It's a violation subject to a max fine of $50:

NYS Public Health Law:

§ 3345. Possession of controlled substances by ultimate users original container. Except for the purpose of current use by the person or animal for whom such substance was prescribed or dispensed, it shall be unlawful for an ultimate user of controlled substances to possess such substance outside of the original container in which it was dispensed. Violation of this provision shall be an offense punishable by a fine of not more than fifty dollars.

I wonder if there are any regulations issued with respect to the exception "for the purpose of current use" because that could mean the same as the often asked question "are you currently taking any medication" - wich doesn't mean "at this moment" but rather are you regularly taking medication, or it could mean "about to swallow."

I'm guessing it means the former, so that as long as you have a current prescription for the pills you are not in violation of the law even though they pills are not in the original container.