Public urination prompts Paso Robles drug bust

March 24, 2015

pasopolicePaso Robles police responded to a report of public urination Sunday evening and ended up arresting the suspect for drug offenses.

Around 10:40 p.m., police received a report of man getting out of his vehicle and urinating on the driveway of a home in the 700 block of Tanner Drive. Officers located the vehicle and identified the suspect as Mario Sanchez, Jr., 23, of Templeton.

Officers discovered that Sanchez had approximately one ounce of a substance believed to be heroin, according to a police department news release. They also found money and paraphernalia related to drug sales.

Police arrested Sanchez for possession of a controlled substance for sale and for transportation of a controlled substance and booked him into the San Luis Obispo County Jail.

Get links to breaking news stories, like CalCoastNews on Facebook.


Given the recent abuses of “civil forfeiture” laws, I have to question whether or not the presence of money in his vehicle was adequate justification for nailing him for drug sales. Also, what exactly is “paraphernalia related to drug sales”? If they found heroin on him, that should be enough justification to bust him. If they didn’t, it sounds like they are manufacturing excuses to do so.

I suspect that they may have “known” that this guy was a druggie and were just looking for an excuse to bust him. Assuming they are correct, getting him off the streets is not a big concern in itself. However, abusing the rights of a low-life is a bad precedent. It opens the door to the police becoming judge and jury as well and that has some serious implications for the rest of us given the tendency of police to adopt an “us against them” mentality in general. Cops need to do their jobs the right way, not just the easy way. It is a safeguard against abuse of rights of everyone else.




How did you arrive at any of your conclusions?? The Cops were looking for an excuse to bust him? How do you form that opinion from anything that is written? The cops contacted him because he was urinating in public. He was more than likely under the influence, or at least was very nervous about the contact, knowing he had drugs with him. Then he was either arrested for under the influence, or gave consent. And if you read the article, he had a lot of heroin on him! Not sure how or why you mention the “civil forfeiture” as the cash located must have been small since they did not make a big deal. Just because there is cash does not mean it goes to forfeiture. Sometimes it is just evidence.

Paraphernalia related to drug sales?? That is easy, think about it! Scales, a bunch of little baggies to load the drugs into, notes of sales and amounts, cell phone with sales texts, etc, etc, etc.. Sounds like the cops did this the right way, and not the easy way as you somehow proclaim.


According to this article (which, admittedly, could be incomplete or inaccurate), he was busted for “possession for sale” and “transportation of a controlled substance.” Since I am not familiar with heroin use, I don’t know if the one ounce he possessed is a quantity that would only be present for selling or if it could be strictly for personal use. I assumed that the statement about the presence of cash was to help justify the “sale” charges. You could be right about finding scales, baggies, etc. but the article doesn’t specify what they found and that has me a bit concerned.

There was nothing in the article about him being under the influence although given his previous action that is a distinct possibility. If he has been convicted before, they don’t even need consent to search. But they do need a warrant to search cell phones according to the latest Supreme Court ruling.


Considering one “hit” of heroin can be as little as 1/10 of a gram, and a thumbnail size ball of heroin is roughly 1/2 a gram, you can see that one OUNCE is a lot of heroin, suggesting sales. If he has been convicted before is not too relevant as he may not be on probation and may not have a search clause. In that case, you will need consent or other circumstance to search. The one issue you are correct on is the warrant for a cell phone.

I appreciate “being concerned” about what the police did and why, but you attacked them. Your words suggested the cops were wrong or acted unfairly, based on an article with little information. That is the problem: the media reporting “somewhat accurate” info, and people twisting that to an anti-police mentality. There are hundreds of thousand police contacts daily and less than 1% go bad. The media blows the 1% way out of proportion too often.


Quick thought. The pro-pot crowd constantly goes on about “at least we’re just all home smoking our doobies and not bugging anyone while the drunks are all over doing this and that”.

If that’s so true why are all the pot heads popping up all over town urinating on things and just generally being town embarrassments?


Reading is fundamental. You do realize that there is a difference between smoking pot and shooting heroin I hope. (More so than the difference between alcohol use and heroin use in my opinion.) That said, drunks are more likely to be urinating in public than either potheads or heroin addicts. Check out the neighborhoods around Cal Poly on a weekend evening if you don’t believe me.

The legalization issue isn’t about whether people under the influence of any substance are acting in a publicly positive manner but whether or not the response to their actions is either proportionate or likely to be more costly to society than the actions themselves.


Stay classy Mario.


Can’t fix stupid.


Bet he is pi**ed off now! not like the driveway.


A real whiz kid!