Just Me wrote:The only issue I have with it at this point is that according to the D.A.'s motion Peterson "admitted he smoked a little weed." There is no time frame specified in which he allegedly used marijuana, and therefore, is not indicative that he violated parole. It doesn't mean that there aren't more details that aren't included in the motion (the texts are typically a brief - not a "blow-by-blow" description), but honestly, if the DA filed this without knowing the specified time frame of the alleged marijuana use, then the motion should be denied, and the DA is incompetent.
... and if he knew the time frame, you would think it would have been included in the motion. Instead, it says:
"On October 8th 2014 the defendant made his first Court appearance and submitted to a urinalysis exam. During this process the defendant admitted to (name redacted), an employee of Davis Investigations, which conducts urinalysis testing for this Court; that he smoked a little weed. In light of this statement, and the fact that it was made during the urinalysis testing, and the term "weed" is a common slang term for marijuana, the State argues that the defendant has smoked marijuana while on bond for the current offense."
It's not very convincing on it's own...
IOW if Peterson "smoked a little weed" 6 months ago in Colorado, this is not an issue here (legally speaking). I would think the test result would be the final say in whether or not his bail will be revoked. OTOH if the allegation is that the employee asked, "Have you used any drugs since posting bail?" and Peterson's response was that he "smoked a little weed," well...then...
Even then, a positive answer could have been a nervous joke (which would, admittedly, be ill-timed and ill-considered). I would think that, as you said, the test results will probably be the determining factor.