Today, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld a jury's guilty finding against a Webster woman who conspired to possess and sell the drug Ritalin.
Mishell Rose Fidler resided with her co-defendant Alan Jordan in a Webster apartment in January, 2015. Jordan had his prescription for Ritalin filled. Ritalin is used to treat attention deficit disorder, but people abuse it to get high.
Ritalin works by increasing dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is the same chemical that’s used to “reward” the brain in various day-to-day situations. Because of its effects on dopamine levels in the brain, stimulants like Ritalin can cause feelings of euphoria, happiness, and extreme well-being.
After having his prescription filled, local law enforcement used a confidential informant to go into the Fidler-Jordan apartment to buy some Ritalin using $101.00 of marked money. The informant bought ten Ritalin pills. Cops then went to the apartment to talk to Fidler and Jordan. They were invited in (big mistake right off the bat). Cops then did a "safety frisk" of Fidler and found the $101.00 in marked money in the waistband of Fidler's pants. Fidler and Jordan then consented to a search of the apartment (mistake number two) and the remaining Ritalin from Jordan's prescription was found.
Because there was no proof that Fidler sold the Ritalin, she was charged with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver. From this, it can be deduced that Jordan did the actual selling while Fidler was the money keeper.
Fidler did not testify at the subsequent jury trial, nor offered any witnesses in her defense. A jury had no problem finding her guilty.
The fact is, based on what we know now, she is guilty. However, the main evidence against her other than the informant's testimony (which could always be attacked because an informant is getting out of some trouble for his/her efforts in helping the police) was the money found in her waistband.
Cops are allowed to conduct a "safety frisk" without a person's consent so that the cops can assure themselves that the person does not possess a weapon.
The high court found that the money found during this frisk was admissible. They got it wrong. Did the cop truly believe the feeling of paper/money in a waistband was a weapon? And feeling that notoriously dangerous and lethal "paper feel" they needed to explore further and seize it?
The fact is the cops felt no weapon. At that point, any further search of the waistband was an illegal search. Anything found as a result of an illegal search is not admissible at trial.
The marked money found on Fidler was a key piece of evidence against her. Had it been suppressed and not admitted, perhaps the jury might not so easily have found her guilty. Perhaps without that key piece of evidence, Fidler's attorney could have focused his efforts on the credibility of the informant (there is nothing in today's opinion that says the drug buy was a recorded buy, or that if it was, that it implicated Fidler in any way). I would bet that the informant told the cops that Fidler kept money in her waistband and that is why the cops felt that "dangerous weapon" around Fidler's waist, not because they actually thought there was a weapon around her waist.
At least one of the high court's justice dissented from the majority's approval of Fidler's convictions.
Click this link for full text of the Court's opinion:
Court Opinion
