Articles Posted in marijuana arrest

As the legalization of marijuana – primarily for medicinal purposes – spreads throughout the country, there has been strong resistance by those who fear the potential for unintended consequences.

For example, some have feared that it would lead to a proliferation of minors using the drug. Others have expressed concerns that it would be a gateway drug, leading to an increase in the use of harder drugs.

As these questions have swirled, our Los Angeles marijuana arrest lawyers know that we have begun to see an incremental amount of hard data emerging to provide answers. One of the recent – and more interesting – of these results is one that was provided by a collaborative research effort by the University of Colorado, the University of Oregon and Montana State University. The data, recently published in the Journal of Law and Economics, suggests that alcohol-related fatalities began to markedly decline in states soon after the implementation of medical marijuana laws.
Continue reading

It’s being called a blatant abuse of power that robs Americans of their fundamental rights under the Constitution, and it’s being carried out by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, in collaboration with the National Security Administration and the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive report by Reuters.

Our Los Angeles marijuana defense lawyers understand that records obtained by the news agency reveals that a secretive DEA unit has been feeding information from intelligence wiretaps, informants and huge telephone record database to state and local authorities nationwide. The reason? To help them launch criminal investigations on American citizens.

These cases very rarely involve issues of national security, which is the reason why the NSA has insisted is the reason behind the broad scope of information and intelligence it collects. So how would officials get away with this for so long?

Apparently, according to Reuters, law enforcement agencies have been instructed on how to conceal the true origins of their investigations. The information is kept from defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges.

This is critical because the origins of a criminal investigation can have a huge impact in terms of whether the information collected was legal. Per the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine, if authorities use an improper basis on which to launch an investigation or search, whatever they find subsequently should be inadmissible in court.

Reuters reports undated documents reveal how federal authorities have been trained to “recreate” an investigative trail. Of course, this is a clear violation of a defendant’s right to a fair trial. If a defense lawyer doesn’t know the truth about how an investigation began, there is now way to know that they should ask for a review of certain sources, which could reveal mistakes, biased witnesses or even entrapment.

This revelation is seemingly much more troubling than the recent disclosure that the NSA had been culling massive amounts of domestic phone records. This effort appears to be specifically geared toward targeting DEA suspects, primarily suspected drug dealers.

As one Harvard Law professor was quoted as saying, it’s one thing to establish a special set of rules for the purposes of protecting national security. It’s another thing entirely when we start making up special rules for everyday crimes – particularly when these instances involve the failed “War on Drugs.”

The fact that this information has come to light could affect hundreds if not thousands of criminal drug cases across the country. The executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance was quoted as saying that this may only be the tip of the iceberg.

This is not the first time in recent memory that the DEA has come under fire. Just to provide some recent examples:

• The DEA recently settled for more than $4 million for a UC San Diego student who was questioned after a drug raid and subsequently forgotten in a cell for five days without food or water. He nearly died.
• Human rights groups have demanded answers from the DEA on a drug war operation in Honduras last year that reportedly resulted in numerous deaths of innocent civilians.
• DEA agents, acting in accordance with the Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” program, reportedly laundered or smuggled millions of dollars worth of drug profits into Mexican drug cartels – an operation that appeared to help rather than hinder the illegal drug trade.
• The DEA continues to be criticized by numerous elected officials at every level for the continued efforts to thwart efforts to provide medical marijuana to patients suffering from cancer, HIV/AIDS and multiple sclerosis.

In the wake of all of this, the Drug Policy Alliance is calling for Congress to conduct a sweeping review of the DEA’s policies, procedures and tactics.

Were talking about an agency that has a $2 billion budget, has enormous power over the lives and liberties of every-day citizens. Yet, the amount of oversight is miniscule.
Continue reading

In the last 75 years, national attitudes regarding marijuana have swung wildly from one direction to the other.

First, there was the “Reefer Madness” paranoia. Then there were the excesses of the Woodstock-era, which then swung back again to the 1980s hard-line, zero-tolerance policy of the Reagan-era “Just Say No” campaign.

In the quarter century since, we’ve had one President who insisted he didn’t inhale, and then another who responded there was no question he did, as “that was the point.”

Today, our Los Angeles marijuana arrest lawyers know that we’re at an interesting crossroads with regard to where we stand as a country on the issue of acceptance of this substance both as legitimate medicine and as relatively harmless recreational indulgence when used responsibly.

Right now, the vast majority of the country believes marijuana should be legal and accessible, at the very least for medicinal purposes. We have states that are willing to approve the drug in direct defiance of federal prohibition, and we have a federal government that is not only cracking down on patients, dispensaries and pro-marijuana policy makers, but hindering further research into the potential medical benefits of the drug.

In all, 18 states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana as medicine since California became the first in 1996. Last year, Colorado and Washington state became the first to legalize the drug for recreational purposes. Alaska is probably going to do the same next year and there are several other states mulling similar measures for the 2016 vote.

A spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project was recently quoted as saying that it’s expected following the 2016 elections that at least 7 states will have approved laws legalizing marijuana and regulating it similarly to alcohol.

All of this is moving ahead rather rapidly, and yet, in Washington D.C., very few lawmakers seem to express any interest whatsoever in addressing the legal conflicts.

We know the U.S. Department of Justice has said it is reviewing the issue of legalization in Washington and Colorado and has repeatedly promised a response “soon.” Obama has said he doesn’t plan to prioritize prosecution of drug users or providers in states where it’s legal. But he stopped short of saying the government won’t take any action.

Yet the government continues to dog medical marijuana providers who offer their services to patients who are chronically and terminally ill with conditions like AIDS and cancer. In more than a few cases, dispensary owners have been hauled off to federal prison and sentenced to decades behind bars for drug trafficking – despite the fact that their actions were perfectly legal per state law.

Storefront dispensaries continue to be the subject of federal authority harassment.

Some anticipate Obama is going to duck this issue just as long as he possibly can, with the strategy that he doesn’t want to alienate younger, more liberal voters, but he may risk outraging the right were he to take any definitive, pro-marijuana action.

Many say this head-in-the-sand approach gets us nowhere. Marijuana is not going away. The last 75 years have proven as much. The best way to ensure that we don’t cede control of the substance to the criminal black market, where it may become readily available for teen use, is to establish a well-regulated system.

Now is the time to act.
Continue reading

Perhaps feeling emboldened by the recent California Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of municipalities to uphold a ban on local marijuana dispensaries, the city council in Riverside is now taking aim at another vital service: marijuana delivery.

Our Riverside medical marijuana lawyers question the authority of the council to take such action, let alone enforce such action.

Marijuana delivery services have become a popular way for chronically and terminally ill patients to obtain their medicine without having to travel far distances to dispensaries – providers that have become in fewer and farther between, with the onslaught of federal crackdowns and some local efforts to bar accessibility for everyone, regardless of circumstance.

The ban in Riverside would include not only medical marijuana delivery services but also mobile medical marijuana dispensaries.

The city’s medical marijuana dispensary ban, upheld in May by the state Supreme Court, failed to address the issue of mobile providers. In an effort to continue to provide services to patients, many formerly brick-and-motor facilities in Riverside have been altering their operations to become mobile.

The city responded to a proliferation of these operations after the court ruling by enacting an emergency ban. There isn’t a single word in the high court decision that indicates the justices intended to include mobile dispensaries as part of its ruling, which means the authority of the city – or any local officials – to enact such a measure is suspect. Not to mention, it’s unclear how the city would enforce such an ordinance. For example, would they establish mobile dispensary checkpoints throughout the city? If so, at what cost?

The local police department said it would likely act when notified of an operation through advertising or when someone is victimized by a crime. The latter, we believe, only serves to push these operations further underground by giving operators an incentive not to report serious crimes.

City officials say they have a vested interest in eliminating mobile medical marijuana operations because they allege the (unsubstantiated) proliferation of crime that supposedly plagued storefront facilities is now being carried out in residential neighborhoods. One official cited a single report of an armed robbery of a mobile dispensary driver as proof.

However, the danger here is grossly overstated. Pizza delivery drivers get robbed. So do liquor stores. So do armed security trucks. Do we respond by banning all of these?

From our perspective, the government is attempting to justify its position by blaming the victim. What’s more, these instances of robbery against mobile marijuana services personnel are not pervasive, certainly not to the point of requiring a city-wide ordinance to ensure neighborhoods are protected.

There is nothing in state law that prohibits collectives from growing the drug and then subsequently delivering it to other members who need it. If local officials want to take action against those providing this valuable service, our Riverside marijuana lawyers are prepared to mount a swift and powerful legal defense.

About 200 cities in California have banned retail medical marijuana sales. About 40 cities have laws expressly allowing dispensaries. Advocates with Americans for Safe Access said the ban in Riverside is the wrong approach to regulation. Not only is it likely to result in more litigation, it severely restricts access for those patients who have neither the skill nor the money to grow the plant on their own.
Continue reading

Amid a growing body of evidence regarding the positive effects of marijuana as medicine, more states are taking steps to decriminalize the drug even for those who do not have a prescription.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Vermont became the latest state to pass a law removing criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana by civilians.

Many states, including California, have enacted similar measures over the years as there has been a widespread realization that the so-called “War on Drugs” has failed and that resources spent prosecuting petty marijuana “crimes” are essentially wasted.

The new law in Vermont means that individuals caught with possession of up to one ounce (or up to 5 grams if it is hashish form) will now face civil fines, as opposed to criminal penalties.

The state governor was later quoted as saying that the measure was “common sense.” Limited law law enforcement resources as they relate to drugs would be better spent focusing on reduction of addiction and abuse involving powerful opiates such as heroin or drugs like methamphetamine, rather than clamping down on individuals for marijuana possession.

For those under the age of 21 found to be in possession of the drug, the courts will treat it in much the same way as it would be for the possession of alcohol, with a court referral involving civil penalties and possible license suspension. Criminal penalties would only be applicable after a third or subsequent offense.

Vermont is the 17th state to enact such a measure. Similar action has already been taken in:

• California;
• Oregon;
• New York;
• Massachusetts;
• Maine;
• Rhode Island;
• Nebraska.

In Vermont, similar to what we see in California, there are still criminal penalties for possession of larger quantities of the drug or depending on where the possession was discovered.

For example, possession of less than 28.5 grams in California is typically an infraction, punishable by a $100 fine. However, if that same possession is discovered on school grounds, it’s a misdemeanor punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $250 fine. A person caught with more than 28.5 grams might face up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

The real incarceration time is inflicted if you have possession of any amount with intention to distribute (up to 3 years). It’s the same story if you illegally cultivate the drug or are caught selling it. If you are over the age of 18 and are caught selling the drug to someone under the age of 17, you could be facing up to 7 years in prison.

Alteration of the law in Vermont came just as researchers in Israel had released a study suggesting that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, may be helpful in arresting certain kinds of brain damage in mice. The hope is that might somehow translate to help for humans who have suffered traumatic brain damage.

It’s studies like this that are helping to shift public attitudes about marijuana. No longer is it considered by many to be a dangerous drug, although it remains as a Schedule I narcotic according to federal government guidelines.
Continue reading

At a time when arrests for many other types of arrests are down, those for simple misdemeanor possession of marijuana have skyrocketed over the last decade, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

In fact, the number of people arrested for marijuana in California doubled from about 28,000 annually back in 1990 to nearly 55,000 in 2010. It comprised about 8 percent of all drug arrests in the early 1990s, whereas it makes up about 30 percent of California drug arrests today.

Some of this may in no small part be due to the rise of the private prison.

Between 1999 and 2010, the total U.S. prison population spiked by nearly 18 percent. This increase is largely a reflection of the so-called “drug war,” that includes tough sentencing guidelines like hard-line mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws.

During this same time frame, the number of private prisons has exploded. In the federal sector, it’s grown by 785 percent. On the state level, it’s grown by about 40 percent.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers do not believe the rise in marijuana arrests and the rise of private prisons to be coincidental. These companies claim that they are able to run prisons at a lower cost to taxpayers. This has not been backed up with definitive numbers, but the bigger issue as far as we’re concerned is whether they can offer the same level of fairness. We believe the answer is no.

In a for-profit system, inmates are no longer citizens who are paying a debt to society, but commodities that must be cultivated for a profit.

One need only see the 20-year management contracts extended by Correction Corporation of America to those in 48 states (including California): the firm would purchase and manage the jails in that time frame, but the state had to promise to keep those jails at least 90 percent full.

What this means is there is a clear incentive for local law enforcement to boost incarceration rates. So the number of inmates grows, even though crime has not actually increased. Low-level marijuana offenders are often viewed as easy targets.

In CCA’s 2010 Annual Report, the company indicated that its demand for services could be harmed if law enforcement relaxed its efforts or if judges exercised leniency in convictions, sentencing or parole practices or if there were efforts to decriminalize certain activities. The most obvious decriminalization effort of late involves marijuana.

A 25-page study produced by the non-profit Sentencing Project found that on average, the CCA has forked over about $150,000 annually for the last dozen years to lobby the governor, the legislature, the state Department of Corrections, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the Department of General Services and the Office of Planning and Research. California has received more lobbying funds than any other state from this entity, and about 70 percent of that money goes toward conservative, anti-marijuana candidates and allies.

The study concluded that even if these private prisons could offer lower cost services, as they say, the success usually comes at the detriment of other services – not to mention justice.
Continue reading