Man faces life in prison because of photos and messages posted online

A man has been arrested on federal charges and faces the potential of life in prison, when the only evidence is videos and photos that he is believed to have posted on Snapchat. In the videos, he appeared to offer to sell drugs.

This is yet another example of individuals being charged with crimes based only on internet data.

In July 2020, pictures were shared of him brandishing a handgun. In one of the pictures, he appeared to have 24 oxycodone pills. He also posted a video of him with the same firearm and two Taurus handguns. Another video showed two five-gallon buckets filled with pre-packaged marijuana products from a dispensary, which Howard said he was selling.
Law enforcement also found videos of Howard displaying different firearms.
Prosecutors said Howard posted additional videos offering to sell marijuana, crack cocaine, and other controlled substances.

You should be reminded that with modern technology, it could be easy for someone to create a digitally altered video that appears to show a person and their voice who was not actually filmed.

Law enforcement went to the man's house with a search warrant and found guns that closely matched the unique guns shown in the videos. They also found $16,201 in cash in his home and $950 in cash in his vehicle. Not really evidence of any crime, but suggestive that he may have been involved in illegal sales.

This man sounds incredibly stupid, and it probably was actually him in those videos, but this type of thing sets a terrible precedent.

The man has pleaded guilty to one count of "possession of firearms in the furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime", probably pushed into it by the prosecutor and threats of numerous additional charges.

The prosecutor charged him with a range of different crimes, and, if convicted on the least serious charge, he would have faced a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison (without parole), or he could have faced up to life in prison (without parole). So it's fair to say he was coerced and threatened into pleading guilty.

The problem that I have with this is that the only real evidence of a crime were videos that someone posted on the internet.

The man's name is Chauncey Howard and he lived in Missouri.

Snapchat posts will land Missouri man in federal prison (fox4kc.com)

You can see this video where Jordan Peele uses computer software to make it convincingly appear that he was President Obama talking in a video.
You Won’t Believe What Obama Says In This Video! - YouTube

 

he had the right to remain silent, putting the videos online... stupid

"Howard, 37, appeared in federal court on Tuesday, May 24, to plead guilty to one count of possession of firearms in the furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime."

he pled guilty, case closed

 

That is clearly not true given as you state yourself that his home was searched, leading to the guns and drugs being discovered. Countless different things could have led up to a legitimate search of his home and the outcome would have been exactly the same. The claim that he was charged based only on "internet data" is unconditionally false.

No form of legal evidence is incorruptible or flawless. That is why both prosecutions and defences can present a range of evidence supporting their case and challenge the accuracy or legitimacy of evidence against them, with technical experts as appropriate. All of this will be assessed by a jury and/or judge to reach an overall conclusion.

No criminal case is every going to be entirely decided on a single piece of evidence alone, however much fraudulent media sources may well spin their stories to make out.

 

They did not find drugs in his home. It sounds like from the story they did not actually find anything illegal in their physical search.

(The only drugs that were actually found were a pack of THC (marijuana) gummies, but that is kind of irrelevant to this story and is only punishable in Missouri by a small fine)

Can't you see why it might be at all troubling that his home was searched in the first place? It's true that a personal home and vehicle search is a much less worse thing than an actual arrest and prosecution, but it can still be a pretty invasive thing. Once there is a search, it is very easy for evidence to be falsely planted, or even in some cases for evidence to found that results in wrongful imprisonment. Few people would be okay with giving law enforcement the authority to go into any home for any reason, and if they claim to find anything illegal in that home, arrest the occupants.

The search only turned up coincidental and circumstantial evidence that helped show that the man who lived in that house was more likely to be the man in the videos. (Since the type of guns seen in the videos appeared to match the guns found in the home)

The man was prosecuted for making vague offers to sell drugs in the videos, and for being seen with what appeared to be drugs.

Based off of that, the prosecutor could have pushed him into a plea bargain to plead guilty to anything.

I find the charge that he was pushed into pleading guilty to, "possession of firearms in the furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime", to be ridiculous in this situation.
(Well, as a Libertarian, maybe other people have different opinions)
With this charge, it seems the prosecutor appeared to be trying to send the message that they don't want anyone who is likely using drugs or involved in drug dealing to have guns.

In my opinion, based on the evidence, it would already have been a stretch to charge him with "drug-trafficking". It's all the bigger of a stretch to charge him with "possession of firearms in the furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime" if those firearms are otherwise legal.

Imagine if I took some pills, could be Aspirin for all you know, and showed them in a video where I made the vague statement that I was selling drugs. That would pretty much be no different than what this man did.
Think that's enough evidence to constitute a crime and prosecute him?

 

I also think there's a big difference between police finding a video that someone is sharing on the internet, versus if police got the video recording themselves, from an undercover operation or hidden camera.

Should people be arrested and prosecuted if the only evidence is them admitting to committing a crime in public? That almost seems like what this is equivalent to.
(That almost seems to be against the spirit of "the right against self-incrimination" in the Fifth Amendment, and kind of a pointless and illogical policy to have)

There is also the possibility, in these modern times with widespread technology, that a video could easily be faked or digitally altered. It wouldn't be too difficult to make it look like it was you in a video doing something.

You can already find some pretty convincing digitally altered videos that really look like different Presidents have been filmed having sex with a woman. These videos are complete jokes, but only 60 years ago, a video like that could have been enough evidence to force a politician to have to resign, since the technology to alter videos like that did not exist.

 

I mentions marijuana (which I gather is decriminalised but not legalised in that state) in addition to the THC gummies.

Not at all. On the face of it they had perfectly good reason to suspect criminal offences on the basis of the videos and that would be a legitimate justification for the search. Obviously not definitive proof on their own (which is exactly why further investigation was necessary) but more than enough for a reasonable suspicion.

How do you know they were vague? Have you reviewed all the videos? The quotes in your article don't suggest any vagueness at all.

Plea bargains are an entirely different issue. Lets not get distracted from your initial false claim in the OP. It seems like you're just desperately looking for any excuse to challenge authority here and I'm not convinced this scatter-gun approach in relation to a single case based on limited information is a valid way to do that.

 

Sorry, you are correct, I missed that part.

I do wonder how much marijuana the police actually found. It does not say.
It does seem a little bit silly to be charging him with "possession of firearms in the furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime" if it was only a moderate amount of marijuana that they actually physically found, even though he was shown in a video with more.

The marijuana that was seen in the video was pre-packed and had come from some legal dispensary, even if it wasn't legal in the state.