Lexington Park Man Arrested for Possession of Ecstasy in Lusby

May 16, 2017
Tremaine J. Berry, 27 of Lexington Park

Tremaine J. Berry, 27 of Lexington Park

On Sunday, May 14, 2017, at approximately 10:25 p.m., Trooper First Class Davis, from the Maryland State Police Prince Frederick Barrack, stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation on Route 4 near HG Trueman Road in Lusby.

While talking to the driver, several criminal indicators were observed and a K-9 scan was requested. The K-9 scan revealed a positive indication of Controlled Dangerous Substances.

A probable cause search was conducted and 94 pills of Ecstasy-MDMA were located along with a digital scale.

The driver, Tremaine J. Berry, 27 of Lexington Park, was arrested and incarcerated at the Calvert County Detention Center.

A passenger in the vehicle was found to be in possession of a small amount of marijuana and received a civil citation and was released.

Tremaine J. Berry, 27 of Lexington Park

Tremaine J. Berry, 27 of Lexington Park

18 Responses to Lexington Park Man Arrested for Possession of Ecstasy in Lusby

  1. Sofa_King_Kewl on May 16, 2017 at 8:38 pm

    “several criminal indicators were observed”

    Gee, I wonder what those could possibly be?

    • Bob Lob Law on May 17, 2017 at 7:58 am

      The dreadlocks and color of his skin no doubt.

      • Shelia on May 17, 2017 at 2:58 pm

        You can say anything behind the screen your a big part of why the world is the way it is today full of hate. God’s watching you……hope you don’t suffer from your actions.

        • Bob Lob Law on May 18, 2017 at 7:46 am

          You gonna tell me Santa’s real next? Your fairy tales have no effect on me. Move along.

    • Anonymous on May 17, 2017 at 10:31 am

      It appears their suspicions were correct. If they would have found nothing these two would have been slightly inconvenienced and sent on their way. I was pulled over a few years ago and they noticed a small baggie on the passenger seat. I knew the baggie was from screws to a ceiling fan but the cop asked to search my vehicle. I told him to have at it, he looked for 10 minutes, he was satisfied I was clean and he sent me on my way. Moral of the story is don’t ride dirty and you have nothing to worry about.

      • Sofa_King_Kewl on May 17, 2017 at 3:56 pm

        “I told him to have at it, he looked for 10 minutes”

        Somehow, somewhere, over some time, you were taught that the accused must prove their innocence. If that was a bag that held screws, and you knew it was a bag that held screws, why did you feel the need to prove to someone that you were “riding clean”?

        Why did it not cross your mind to simply say “no” to the search and require the officer to prove probable cause? Have we become so accustom or so taught, to give up our rights so flippantly? Is it simply out of convenience so that we can be on our way? Do we think we’re doing the cop a favor? It’s to the point that any hesitancy in our willing to exercise some basic, fundamental rights labels us a suspect and erodes what few rights we enjoy even further.

        Free speech is now defined by those in the majority. Dissent is now described as “racist” to those in power. Freedom to assemble is replaced with a mandate that all must associate and assimilate.

        No, anon. The moral of your story is not that you “have nothing to worry about” if you’re willing to shed some self-respect and be treated as a criminal. The moral of the story; is that you already are one until proven otherwise.

        • Anonymous on May 17, 2017 at 6:31 pm

          Once you give up a freedom, you never get it back. Your papers please.

          • Bob Lob Law on May 18, 2017 at 7:47 am

            Don’t tread on me.

        • Anonymous on May 18, 2017 at 8:15 am

          How is him asking to search and me being cooperative and allowing him to search giving up my freedom and dignity? I could have said no but I mad the choice to be cooperative. Remember, you might own the car but all taxpayers own the road. I am good with the cops scrutinizing people they deem to be unsafe or a risk to all the other people on the road. When a large group of people own something equally they all have to play nice when using it. I will always consent to having my car searched if they ask and that is my choice, you can handle the situation any way you see fit.

          • Sofa_King_Kewl on May 18, 2017 at 10:55 am

            “How is him asking to search and me being cooperative and allowing him to search giving up my freedom and dignity? I could have said no but I mad the choice to be cooperative.”

            You have the right to be secure in your persons, papers, and effects. Saying “no”, despite what you’ve been taught, is not being uncooperative. Inalienable ‘rights do not depend on you being cooperative, they are not bestowed upon you by government, decree or law. They are there for you to declare without pretext of guilt, crime or suspicion. And the more you dismiss those rights, the harder it is for you, or someone else to exercise those rights in the future. You have set precedence for yourself, your children and your neighbors. “Hey anon lets us search his car, why don’t you? Unless you’ve got something to hide!”

            In my lifetime, we’ve gone from allowing searches of our vehicles, persons and homes, to the government actively gathering, storing and disseminating electronic information on its citizens. We’re now to the point that the party in power uses various branches of government to target those who disagree with them.

            “Remember, you might own the car but all taxpayers own the road.”

            Your rights do not depend on me, or anyone else paying taxes. You have rights whether I pay too little, too much, or not at all in taxes.

            “I am good with the cops scrutinizing people they deem to be unsafe or a risk to all the other people on the road. When a large group of people own something equally they all have to play nice when using it.”

            Using your previous comments as logic, this IS an admission that you need to be scrutinized because you’re unsafe and a risk to other people. It has to be, because the cop deemed it necessary to search your car. And cops never search vehicles of safe citizens that pose no harm to other people.

            “I will always consent to having my car searched if they ask and that is my choice, you can handle the situation any way you see fit.”

            No. You’re leaving yourself (and possibly others) no choice. If you deny the search, and do not “play nice”, you obviously are a risk to other people. That’s what you and others have taught the cops, and more importantly, that’s what you’re teaching your kids and neighbors.

          • Anonymous on May 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm

            “Sofa_King_Kewl”
            I guess we have a difference of opinion on what freedom means. To me, agreeing to have my car searched on public property is not giving up any of my freedom. If he were to force a search based off of that little baggie that would be a violation the same as if they entered my private residence without being invited or enough probable cause. It sounds to me as if you believe the cops should not have the right to even ask if they can have permission to search or enter your vehicle. Do you believe the cops should just ignore seeing illegal material or they should have to let someone go even though they see a rocket launcher on the passenger seat? If cops had no authority to enforce the laws just because people lock themselves in their cars it could lead to a level of lawlessness bordering anarchy on the roads. More people would drive at an unsafe speed, more people would drive high or drunk, more people would carry dangerous and illegal materials because they would know anything inside the safety of their vehicle is off limits including themselves. In order to maintain safety in a public area the cops need to have some leeway in their authority to search if they suspect something illegal is taking place. What the cops did to me was a non-issue IMHO. They asked to look and I said no problem. If they had demanded it would be a different story but what they did was no different then a coworker asking if they could look to see if I had their missing IPod. I could say no and the coworker might suspect that I did take it or I, knowing I didn’t take it, could just let them look and satisfy their suspicions. No harm done and no freedoms lost for me or you. The only freedom I feel is in jeopardy with this conversation is my freedom of choice by you telling me not to handle the situation the way I did by saying I am somehow infringing on your level of freedom. Like I said before, you are free to handle it your way and I will handle it my way. Ain’t freedom great?

          • Sofa_King_Kewl on May 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm

            “It sounds to me as if you believe the cops should not have the right to even ask if they can have permission to search or enter your vehicle.”

            Nope, they have a right to ask. And you have just as much right to say no, without arising suspicion. It’s that last part that you can’t wrap your head around.

            “Do you believe the cops should just ignore seeing illegal material or they should have to let someone go even though they see a rocket launcher on the passenger seat?”

            Strawman argument; red herring. You did not describe what you did as being illegal. But, I’ll go a step further. Even if illegal, you still have the right to say no. The cop then is allowed to perform his duties as an enforcement officer and only within the scope at hand.

            “If cops had no authority to enforce the laws just because people lock themselves in their cars it could lead to a level of lawlessness bordering anarchy on the roads….”

            Another strawman. At what point then, do you expect your Constitutional rights to kick in?

            “In order to maintain safety in a public area the cops need to have some leeway in their authority to search if they suspect something illegal is taking place.”

            Again, what “leeway” do they have to ignore your rights? Cops have absolutely NO “leeway” to deny you your rights as a non-criminal/suspect. Think about it this way: The power to arrest allows an individual to remove a criminal’s (or suspected criminal’s) liberty. It should be a hard, difficult choice to remove someone’s liberty.

            “but what they did was no different then a coworker asking if they could look to see if I had their missing IPod.”

            No. Your co-worker does not possess the power of arrest.

            “The only freedom I feel is in jeopardy with this conversation is my freedom of choice by you telling me not to handle the situation the way I did by saying I am somehow infringing on your level of freedom”

            Not at all. Allow the police into your home at any time. Allow them to search your vehicle anytime without cause. You can freely allow them to trample upon your rights. No harm, no foul.

            However, you cannot then be alarmed when the government tracks your every electronic move. You cannot feign consternation when the cop decides that the unlabeled bottle of Advil in your car is an illegal substance. You cannot be alarmed when the cop decides that the utility knife in your tool box is the equivalent of a “switchblade”. When the government sends the FBI after you because of your political party, no peep from you please.

          • Anonymous on May 19, 2017 at 8:17 am

            Again, how are they trampling on my rights if they asked and I consented. The only way it would be trampling on my rights is if they forced their way into my vehicle without seeing something illegal. I have free will and the right to say no but I decided to say yes. If a person poses a threat to innocent drivers they are trampling on my rights to live and the cops are there to make sure that doesn’t happen. If a cop pulls a person over and sees a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels, smells the alcohol on the guys breath but is unable to investigate any further because he is in his car and it might trample on the guy’s rights he would have to let the guy go. Then this guy plows into your family member because he was plastered drunk. I guarantee you would blame the cop for letting him go or would you say “Thank God the cop didn’t trample on his rights”. The cop in my situation did not see anything illegal that is why he asked, I am sure if there was heroin and a needle on my seat he would have searched without asking and that is the drawback of driving on a public road where the safety of other people are involved. This is called probable cause and I believe without it we would see more crime and more death. The cop in my case might have let me go if I said no but I had nothing to hide and no ware to be at that particular time so I said yes. I doubt this will tear down everyone’s freedoms and erode the bedrock of our society. This is the great thing about freedom, I have the freedom to say yes and you have the freedom to say no without either choice infringing on the rights of the other or causing harm. If my only choice was to say NO in that particular situation only then will I not be free.

          • Sofa_King_Kewl on May 19, 2017 at 4:49 pm

            “Again, how are they trampling on my rights if they asked and I consented. The only way it would be trampling on my rights is if they forced their way into my vehicle without seeing something illegal.”

            You were doing nothing illegal. You chose to not exercise your rights, and the officer lowered the bar of “probable cause” to a bag of screws. What’s next for probable cause? A bag of Cheetos?

            “If a person poses a threat to innocent drivers they are trampling on my rights to live and the cops are there to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

            Non-sequitur. You said that you were doing nothing illegal, and then describe someone posing a threat to society. So, which is it? You were doing something illegal and just got away with it? Or, is this another red herring?

            “If a cop pulls a person over and sees a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels, smells the alcohol on the guys breath but is unable to investigate any further because he is in his car and it might trample on the guy’s rights he would have to let the guy go.”

            I posit no such scenario. Straw man: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

            “I guarantee you would blame the cop for letting him go or would you say “Thank God the cop didn’t trample on his rights”.”

            Sorry, but no. I do not blame 3rd parties for others people actions. Maybe your one of those millennials that think everything can be blamed on someone else. If a cop pulls someone over, and finds no probable cause that they are intoxicated, sorry, it’s not the cops fault. He’s done everything he can within the boundary’s we have set for him. If that person then causes an accident, be they drunk, high or sober than a preacher on Sunday, the result is the same. You cannot then blame the cop for doing his job correctly.

            “Im sure if there was heroin and a needle on my seat he would have searched without asking and that is the drawback of driving on a public road where the safety of other people are involved.”

            Uhhhh, the cop doing his job correctly is not a “drawback”.

            “The cop in my case might have let me go if I said no”

            And here again, is the thing you can’t wrap your head around. Might let you go? Why wouldn’t he let you go? According to you, you we not doing anything illegal. Are you suggesting either you really were doing something illegal or, the cop would have illegally detained you and searched your car without probable cause?

            “I have the freedom to say yes and you have the freedom to say no without either choice infringing on the rights of the other or causing harm.”

            Not exercising your rights, tears down those rights. The rights of your children, your grandchildren and yes, mine, are a little more infringed each time you give up your rights. It makes it that much harder for your grandchildren to say “no” to searches. Makes it a little harder to voice their dissent.

    • xMosquito on May 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm

      I heard that Ecstasy gives you man-boobs, so there’s one or two

      • Bob Lob Law on May 18, 2017 at 10:06 am

        Yeah, you “heard”.

  2. chiefjoseph on May 22, 2017 at 8:31 am

    I believe Sofa_King_Kewl needs some ecstacy.

  3. linda houseman on May 22, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    To Sofa King whatever,

    Get over yourself. Cops jobs are hard enough these days without goons like you refusing requests based on “principle”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.