DTF Busts Indoor Marijuana Growing Site
November 6th, 2009 by Joe Burgess
According to Lt. Jason Akers of the Tenth Drug Task Force, task force agents arrested a Monticello man after executing a search warrant at his Monticello apartment.
Agents arrested Jerry Lape, age 69, of Monticello, after a search warrant at his residence resulted in the seizure of a indoor marijuana grow that contained numerous marijuana plants, lighting equipment and related paraphernalia. Akers said a total of between 25 and 30 plants at various stages of growth were recovered.
According to Akers, Lape was charged with manufacture of a controlled substance, and has since had his first appearance hearing, after which he posted bond.
Choose another article
Newer article: Prosecutor Requests Funderburg Victims Contact Office-Restitution Hearing Planned for Thursday in Criminal Fraud Case From 2005
Older article: City Council Fire Dept. Committee Discusses Plans for 1 or 2 More Fire Stations
Thank goodness they are getting these hardened criminals off the streets! This will surely stop the major drug trafficking in our fair town. You know those 69 year old men are DANGEROUS!
So – just for the record, this is what an actual growing operation looks like. I agree that this constitutes as manufacturing of a controlled substance, although I believe that the government should specify that the controlled substance is MARIJUANA and not CRYSTAL METH more clearly.
Good job DTF! However, how is that a person with 25 – 30 plants that is OBVIOUSLY growing and cultivating the plants, most likely for sale gets the same charge and probably sentence that another person with no prior criminal history gets when that person had one DEAD marijuana plant OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOUSE that was like four inches tall? How is that fair and equal justice!?! I am not really arguing with the DTF, Sheriff’s Department, or Monticello Police Department, however I am questioning why these two situations result in the same charge? Especially when in the latter case, nothing else was seized except a couple of hunting rifles? It just does not add up.
What can we do to change these laws? I am all for the guilty being convicted, however, I do not think it makes sense or is fair that these two situations resulted in the same charge. That is CRAZY! It’s not like they specify on a criminal background check or criminal history records that it was one tiny plant that had died. When read by future employers, financial aid organizations, etc. it all looks the same and gives that person the mental image of the picture shown above. A bunch of LARGE marijuana plants that have obviously been cared for in a closet that is fashioned with lights and a cup of water? Oh my goodness… come on. That is not fair. Let’s fix this!
Yeah, especially those with glaucoma…i hear that glaucoma really makes them dangerous!!! Way to go narcs!!!