Rob Corry: Read unusual police report for attorney's smoking-pot-at Coors Field case

rob.corry.mug.shot.205x205.jpg
More photos below.
Marijuana attorney Rob Corry seeks PR for events like free-joint giveaways in Denver and Boulder -- part of his campaign against Prop AA, a marijuana taxation measure. Lately, though, he's also appeared in the news for incidents he'd undoubtedly have preferred to keep on the down-low, including a June arrest for allegedly breaking an RV's window. And now, he's accused of public pot smoking and disobeying a lawful order at Coors Field in one of the lengthiest and most unusual police reports ever for what started as a petty offense. See it and get details below.

Smoking marijuana in public would typically result in a citation similar in length to a traffic ticket. But documents related to Corry's case are an astonishing fifteen pages long, complete with a probable cause statement, multiple witness accounts and several pages pertaining to AmberLee June, a 33-year-old Salt Lake City resident busted for allegedly sharing a joint with Corry. Also on hand were copies of both their drivers licenses, which we've omitted from the PDF below.

Was the size and scope of the report dictated by Corry's alleged belligerence when confronted by officers, resulting in a second, potentially more serious charge? Or could Corry's prominence in the marijuana scene, and as a thorn in the Denver Police Department's side, have been a factor? Well, Corry has declined comment at this time, and the report's narrative features the attorney supposedly saying, "I bet I am a big trophy for you" and the cop replying that he had "never seen or heard of him before to my recollection."

anti.marijuana.taxation.rally.7.jpg
Photo by Alex Brown
Rob Corry looks on as Miguel Lopez, co-organizer of an anti-Proposition AA rally at Civic Center Park, gives out a free joint.
The incident took place on September 25 at Coors Field during the final home game of Colorado Rockies all-star Todd Helton. A stadium employee is said to have alerted two plainclothes DPD reps that several people were "smoking marijuana publicly in the area between the concourse and the gate." When they approached, the report quotes them as seeing a man later identified as Corry "take a long drag off of the suspected marijuana cigarette," then handing it to Lee, who did likewise.

According to the narrative, one cop asked Corry to hand over the joint, and he replied, "No, I don't have to, it's legal" -- a statement that would certainly seem surprising coming from Corry, who made certain that people who received free joints at the aforementioned rallies knew they'd be breaking the law if they fired up in public. Corry's then said to have tossed the joint to the ground and attempted to cover it with his foot.

More alleged Corry quotes from the report:

(When asked for identification): "I don't have any ID and don't have to give you shit."

(When asked to turn around and put his hands on his head): "Oh, fuck off, cop. It's a citation only -- public consumption."

(When told he was under arrest): "I am going back to my seat and watch the game."

(When an officer began to search him): "You're a stupid cop. You are going to make this easy for me. You can't search me. It's a citation only."

(When told he'd have to go to the police station to complete paperwork): "You can go wherever you want. I am getting my stupid citation for public smoking and going back to the game. You can fuck off and bring me my ticket."

Continue for more about Rob Corry's arrest at Coors Field, including more photos and the police report.


My Voice Nation Help
90 comments
Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident

"I bet I am a big trophy for you" and the cop replying that he had "never seen or heard of him before to my recollection."

That's kinda funny in both ways. The cop smacked him down pretty good, and showed a lot of ignorance.

astounded_attorney
astounded_attorney

I'm an attorney.  Based on this story: don't hire this guy as your attorney.  That is all.

Harry
Harry

Thanks for deleting my comment, are you sucking up to the Rockies that bad you can't have someone suggesting they're at fault because of their sucky play and had more people been there and been given something to really watch you wouldn't have had bored cops looking for something to do?  You guys really blow.

Chris Vann
Chris Vann

But if you get shitfaced on $10 beers, no problem

James Gold
James Gold

So... basically he got arrested for being an asshole? Shit, if that's a crime, we might need to triple the size of the police force and really get to work.

stupidstuka
stupidstuka

Typical belligerent lawbreaking douchebag stoner.

stuka1
stuka1

I wonder if the PD really think that a Denver jury is going to convict him of anything in this case?

Geoff Frazier
Geoff Frazier

Same guy who was charged with sexual assault. He is an arrogant dirtbag and publicity hound. Time for him to be disbarred.

gfraze
gfraze

This guy is a dirtbag.  He has been charged with sexual assualt as well.  Should be disbarred.  

Kush_is_my_Cologne
Kush_is_my_Cologne

So they harassed a guy for smoking weed, how 1990's of them, but he should of know better to either bring an edible or vaporizer, duh, it's not illegal to eat ganja or vap.

stuka1
stuka1

@astounded_attorney

Sure, but hey, at least he is letting HIMSELF be the test case, instead of some little person who likely couldn't afford to fight the charge...something to be said for that, perhaps.

JimTom
JimTom topcommenter

@Harry Really! you are blaming Corry's ignorance and stupidity on poor Rockies play? LOL People like you an Corry are the reason that legal pot will fail in Colorado. 

 

McShyster
McShyster

@Chris Vann 

Sounds like this asswipe loser did both.


JimTom
JimTom topcommenter

@James Gold If that was the case he would already be doing life.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident

@Geoff Frazier I won't defend his actions, in either case, but it takes a special kind of loser to link the two, as though they were in any way related.

Monkey
Monkey

@Djadamstall

Eating or vaporizing ganja in public is still illegal, it's called consumption.

"NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY"

JimTom
JimTom topcommenter

@stuka1 @astounded_attorney Damn dude can Corry do anything wrong in your eyes? He didn't "let" himself be anything other than an idiot.

stuka1
stuka1

@stupidstuka <-- oh, look!  Yet another cowardly sock puppet! Go fuck yourself, punk.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident

@Monkey You're brilliant, and so is he. There are "more legal" ways to consume edibles and vaporize.

If pot is consumed and no one sees, smells or recognizes it, did it really happen?

Kush_is_my_Cologne
Kush_is_my_Cologne

@Monkey Consuming on private property isn't considered in public.  There's a lot of gray area in the law, so don't make so many assumptions.  Plus good luck proving I ate an edible, and technically, the law doesn't account for vaporizing, smart guy!

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@Monkey yes "openly and publicly" --  both have to apply to be illegal and they are not defined in A64--so now we have to rely on the courts as to what exactly "openly and publicly" mean.  Not one or the other--both. 

Was it on public property or private?  

Did anyone shield the actual hit with their hand to conceal it?   

One of the dozens of reasons I voted no on this shit--VAGUE LANGUAGE in A64 allows the government to interpret the opposite of the voters intent.   Let the games begin. 

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident

@stuka1 @Cognitive_Dissident He's most definitely still wrong. Ask my wife.

The funniest thing about that meme is that experiments based on Quantum Theory seem to indicate that perception literally is reality--that fate actually depends on perception. In science, that's a scary proposition, but it seems true. (These are experiments based on "Schrodinger's Cat.")

JimTom
JimTom topcommenter

@KathleenChippi @stuka1 Nice job in classing pot smokers as "poor people". The tax will pass with at least 60% no matter what anyone says or does. The 85% of non-regular users don't care the least what tax on weed is passed.

JimTom
JimTom topcommenter

@stuka1 Sucka1 A64 GOD!!!! He knows all!!!!

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@stuka1 @KathleenChippi oh they didn't spend over 3 million to pass this and not get what they want out of it.  This was intentional.  We addressed it and A20 before they were even submitted for title.  This wasn't a mistake and they know/knew better.

stuka1
stuka1

@KathleenChippi @stuka1  

" No A64 definitions for these very important words was a mistake. "

 Indeed. 

 "Shielding the drag with a hand is not openly, nor is turning your back."

 And I think that this is what will ultimately prevail, but I fear that a lot of good people will be ground in the mill before the question is settled. And that's what pisses me off about the sloppiness of A64 and, by extension, the expanded efforts of MPP.  Yes, they broke the dam.  And they deserve credit for that,  But there is a hell of a lot to be learned from the "A64 experience", and I would hope that they figure it all out BEFORE the next legislative step.   

 

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@FUDH @KathleenChippi who is "us"--people who think pot can only be consumed by adults in a locked closet or the prohibition tax supporters?  

stuka1
stuka1

....but from talking to folks at work and elsewhere -- including some who have been using cannabis for a very long time and thus, I would have thought, would have taken pains to be VERY informed -- it seems that few, if any, understand the details and the ramifications thereof, most if not all voted FOR the only  legalization measure that was on the ballot (I did too, but only after careful consideration of the issues, unlike most, I gather), and now, I find myself often explaining various details of the ramifications of A64 now to people I would have thought would have been far more well-versed on all this than me.  I mean, today I was asked to to resolve a disagreement as to of whether people from out of state will be able to buy cannabis at all once the shops open.  I would have thought that anyone who was paying the least bit of attention wold know, much less people whom I know to consume more in a week or two than I would in a year.   Hmmmm....

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@stuka1 @KathleenChippi   I agree with you.  Vague language can be interpreted by the courts either way.  Shielding the drag with a hand is not openly, nor is turning your back.  No A64 definitions for these very important words was a mistake. 

And conflicting language on DISPLAY, that also has no Constitutional definition. 

 Left it all up to the GA.  Why I voted no after seeing them mutilate MMJ after a decade of success in patients accessing meds.  

You never give the government the upper hand to regulate when you write a Constitutional amendment for christs sake.  

stuka1
stuka1

@JDGM

 You don't know  fuck about law, do you. 


No, you fucking don't.

stuka1
stuka1

@KathleenChippi  

"And I know that 2 ounces or less was already decrim in CO since 1975" 

 And yet another question is whether that decrim still holds for possession of <+2Oz after A64.  Arguably it should.

stuka1
stuka1

Obviously some JackAss is trolling. Or one of its many foetid socks.

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@FUDH @KathleenChippi  who is "us"--people who think pot can only be consumed by adults in a locked closet or the prohibition tax supporters? 

stuka1
stuka1

@KathleenChippi

From the balance of the responses to their articles and editorials, it appears that the public are not buying into their many ruses.  

It's beyond me why anyone who was involved in getting A64 passed would actually support these punitive taxes that are so obviously designed to sabotage the legalization process. 

But a lot of things baffle me about the way they crafted A64. I think it passed because it was the only legalization measure that made it onto the ballot, and a better-crafted measure would have left it with no votes at all. I think most voters who voted for A64 did so because it was the only measure on the ballot and we took the best worst option (continued prohibition/war on the people vs. the only available, though badly-flawed, stab at legalization).

I'm glad we are at the tip of the spear, as it were, and that we are at the forefront of legalization and a move toward sanity and away from the senseless prohibition and war on the people that we have suffered for almost double my lifetime, but the legalization movement could have done better.  I only hope, since MPP is going national, that they will learn from their mistakes and craft better bills in the future (I have serious doubts), or someone will step up right quick who understands the issues better than they do and can do it right.  I guess time will tell, but I'd rather see more sensible bills come up in other states and on the national level sooner than later.

FUDH
FUDH

@KathleenChippi

"Rob says he was not arrested. "

Rob says a lot of things that aren't true. You know that, but conveniently forget it when he's arguing for something you agree with.

FUDH
FUDH

@KathleenChippi

Only an idiot like you would interpret it that way. Please shut up before you make us all look bad.

FUDH
FUDH

@KathleenChippi

Your tin-foil hat is on too tight if you really think this is all some elaborate scheme by the cops and denver media to put down Rob Corry so AA passes, Kathleen.

It's too bad you come off like such a raving nutjob. You do have good ideas every now and then.

stuka1
stuka1

@hempstress

"Of course you can quibble over the semantics of "Open and Public" vs "Openly and Publicly""

It's not quibbling at all.  It is the very crux of interpretation of law. And the (20.5) is a perverse definition intended to circumvent the constitution.  What A64 says is this:


(d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED ****OPENLY*** AND PUBLICLY OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.

As anyone can see who has even an ELEMENTARY education in the English language -- or ANY language at ALL, really -- the definition of "open and public you cite in (20.5) describes a NOUN:

"OPEN AND PUBLIC" MEANS A PLACE..."

 You see, that definition doesn't even make SENSE. 


Your other definition, "OPENLY AND PUBLICLY", is specific to GROWING:

 (20.7)  "OPENLY" MEANS NOT PROTECTED FROM UNAIDED OBSERVATION LAWFULLY MADE FROM OUTSIDE ITS PERIMETER NOT INVOLVING PHYSICAL INTRUSION 

 "FROM OUTSIDE ITS PERIMETER NOT INVOLVING PHYSICAL INTRUSION" refers to laws governing Curtelage, which is relevant to 4th amendment search and seizure rights, especially regarding properties.  Your analysis is way off-point. 


Something that is done "OPENLY" is done in a manner that is obvious to the casual observer.  Eating a brownie that contains THC does not make it obvious that one is consuming cannabis.  This is the obvious intent of the framers of the Amendment, and it would be nice to get confirmation from them on this and many other issues.  I'm not sure they are organized enough, or even legally savvy enough, to be aware of the significance that their opinion and intent in crafting legislation carries.  


But at any rate, the one who needs to go back to school on this -- that is, if you've ever even been -- is YOU.



 



KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@stuka1 @KathleenChippi they did. over and over.  And yet they used an old mug shot.  

DP has been greased by the rich people who want to over- tax poor people who use pot.  The new SCAMpaign thinks making Rob look crazy will make most of us vote against Rob and for the tax. 

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

And 64 says it shall no longer be unlawful to DISPLAY cannabis.  Display: to make visible and to flaunt.

Like I said above, let the games begin.  People will be busted and the courts will decide.  And here most in CO thought the voters got to decide......vague language costs lives and $$$ for court. 

stuka1
stuka1

@KathleenChippi  Thank you.  I am certain that the Post claimed he was arrested. Many times.   No surprise here.

stuka1
stuka1

@KathleenChippi  

" yes "openly and publicly" --  both have to apply to be illegal..."

Which is something I have been pointing out as long as I have been involved in the discussion here,  that it has to meet *both* criteria: out in a *public* area, *and* openly.  It has to be obvious to the casual observer that the person is in fact consuming cannabis.   If it's not, it doesn't meet the second criterion for the mere *civil infraction* that A64 dictates that any "failure to comply with regulations..." constitutes.

My question is this:  The Post says that Corry was ARRESTED.  If so, on what specific charge was he arrested for? 

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@hempstress @KathleenChippi @Monkeyoh and "hempstress" can you define your anonymous  name?    Working on my schooling on reading comprehension.  

Currently I understand self naming 'hempstress' as "self righteousness and imaginary self importance"  

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@hempstress @KathleenChippi @MonkeyPerhaps we should all go to school together?

There are people who never have attended an event at the house of worshipers for professional sports.  Did you not see my question--was it public or private? 

and a judge will have to decide if openly--defined as above--includes your hand over your joint or your pipe or whatever you consume.  What is "not involving physical intrusion"?  Is a hand physical intrusion? Is turning your back?

The legislative intent and language must be compliant with the language in the Constitution, passed by the voters.  

Sounds like you can help me in my "reading comprehension":  What exactly in my above post struck you as "self righteousness and imaginary self importance"?  

And thanks ahead of time for taking the time to help me.

And James, I'm not confused about A64--and the feds and Hicks senior legal counsel at the federal hearings agree with my interpretation--A64 does NOT LEGALIZE cannabis--it DECRIMS one ounce or less.  And I know that 2 ounces or less was already decrim in CO since 1975. 


hempstress
hempstress

@KathleenChippi @Monkey Or you can rely on what the GA established in SB13-283 (of course that would require you to stop screaming and step outside your reverberating bubble of self righteousness and imaginary self importance long enough to some actual research and participate in the fine art of reading comprehension)

(20.5) "OPEN AND PUBLIC" MEANS A PLACE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WHICH INCLUDES A PLACE TO WHICH THE PUBLIC OR A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS WITHOUT RESTRICTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, PLACES OF AMUSEMENT, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND THE COMMON AREAS OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES THAT ARE GENERALLY OPEN OR ACCESSIBLE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITHOUT RESTRICTION

 (20.7)  "OPENLY" MEANS NOT PROTECTED FROM UNAIDED OBSERVATION LAWFULLY MADE FROM OUTSIDE ITS PERIMETER NOT INVOLVING PHYSICAL INTRUSION

 (30.5)  "PUBLICLY" MEANS AN AREA THAT IS OPEN TO GENERAL ACCESS WITHOUT RESTRICTION

That means you can smoke a joint on your own front porch but not Coors Field. Of course you can quibble over the semantics of "Open and Public" vs "Openly and Publicly" and there is no doubt that what Mr. Correy did constitutes "Openly" and "Open"  but I have a distinct impression that any judge worth his or her salt will interpret the legislative intent (legislative intent wins over semantics every time) of "Public" and "Publicly" to mean you can't go smoking a blunt in a public venue or "places of amusement"  where kids are present and the general public has access i.e., a hallway at a ballpark.

Maybe you should go back to school, Kathleen?

JDGM
JDGM

@KathleenChippi @Monkey  

If you're truly questioning whether the Rockies game was a public event or not, it's no wonder you're so confused by Amendment 64.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...