8

The relevant law is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both the Philippines and China are signatories. With very few exceptions, the only country with jurisdiction over a ship in international waters is the country whose flag it is flying. Ships engaged in the drug trade appear to be one of those few exceptions: Article 108 ...


6

There is a slim chance that it is truish, depending on whose law you are asking about, and also depending on the facts (if the drug was in a baggie, it's unclear; it is was mixed with the soda, it's clear and it's true). As far as I know, the "baggie in can" theory has not been put to the appellate test (perhaps that is evidence that the can does not count). ...


5

Leaving Colorado with a Marijuana product is illegal. You cannot bring Marijuana to Denver International or any other airport in Colorado. You also cannot bring Marijuana into a Federal Park, reserve, ski slope or National Parks. Colorado has a site outlining these restrictions, so no, you cannot bring back Marijuana to your home state, even if you can ...


4

It comes down to intent ... and possibly responses to illegal activity. Localbitcoins intention is to facilitate trade in bitcoins - in itself a legal undertaking. Cryptocurrancy transactions can be used for illegal purposes but it is not the sites intention to enable that. Amazon.com intention is to facilitate trade in books - in itself a legal ...


4

International waters is not a law-free zone. If your ship is flying the flag of any country, that country's laws apply aboard the ship, and that country may board you or authorize another country to board you. Also, the people on the ship may be subject to thejurisdiction of more countries, For instance, if you're running an operation that smuggles drugs ...


4

Its worth actually reading through the law again - they're meant for different categories of drugs - and its worth looking up the relevant laws as a whole. You can't cherrypick which law you charge them under in this case. It depends on what the suspect has in posession, and if you have more serious charges, they're probably going to be preferred unless the ...


1

In the U.S., Law enforcement favors going after the distribution of narcotics over the use. Going after the users just means dealers will seek out new customers whereas going after dealers means eliminating the supply chain. And Law Enforcement would much rather have a dealer flip on a manufacturer at that. The bigger the fish they bring in, the more ...


1

If this is simply created as practice, or for educational purposes, I don't see that it would be illegal. But if it were placed on the net in such a way that actual drug dealers would be likely to find and use it, and particularly if the developer charged for access to it, the developer might be charged as an accessory do drug distribution, or with ...


1

Assuming we're talking about the same person, the decision says in the second paragraph that the informant had been "under surveillance for six weeks." Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. at 473 (1963). It's the dissent that says he was "known for six weeks." Id. at 499. If you still need more background on him, or someone else, there are several other potential ...


1

That the cop claims to be your friend is not more illegal than a salesman claiming that he has "the best offer" for you because he likes you (in fact didn't you see any film about the good cop/bad cop routine?) The term you are looking for is Entrapment. The (very simplified) basic idea is that police officers can promote the comission of a crime to catch ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible