DPA works to promote policy alternatives to the drug war that are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
Information
- Founded:
- 2000
Events
1 forthcoming eventView all
- International Drug Policy Refo...
Albuquerque Convention Center
Tomorrow, 12 November at 09:00
Notes
2 notesSee All
- Kellogg's & Marijuana 24 March 11:51|6 comments
- Update: Kellogg's on Michael Phelps 13 February 12:31|2 comments
Photos
2 albumsSee all
2007 International Drug Policy Reform ConferenceCreated at 09:36 on 14 December 2007
DPA StaffCreated at 07:08 on 14 November 2007
4 of 6 fan photosSee all
|
| ||
|
|
YouTube Box
6 of 20 See all
Naomi Long Speaks Honestly Against the Drug War
Naomi Long, Director of DPA’s DC Metro Area, speaks honestly about her work, and the effect that the war on drugs has on all of us. Check us out at www.drugpolicy.org.
John Caldwell Lorenz
Looking forward to this big time look for blog updates www.solomota.com/wordpress
"solo mota para mi"
Damien Invite Dr. Nutt to the conference and give him an opportunity to address the assembled masses. This is a critical moment in the effort to counter every single instance of misinformation with an instance of science, reason, and compassion!
Drug Policy Alliance Politics triumphed over science last week when UK drug advisor David Nutt was sacked for challenging the country's existing drug classification system. Read more on DPA's blog, the D'Alliance.
Source: blog.drugpolicy.org
> Site Feed > AlterNet DrugReporter > Casey's Dream > DARE Generation Diary > Drug WarRant > theFreshScent > Grits For Breakfast > National Advocates for Pregnant Women > Reason Hit & Run > Transform > Vice Squad
Drug Policy Alliance Montel Williams to accept award for his activism on medical marijuana at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference. Register today!
Source: www.reformconference.org
Every two years drug policy reformers from across the United States and around the world come together to listen, learn, network and strategize. If you’re working to bring about drug policies based on ...
Alfredo If your a like-minded Liberal/Progressive, please add me so we can network to change our nation for the better in each others communities & re-legalize Marijuana.
Scott Feil
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
U.S. v. $186,416 in Currency (9th Cir. - Oct. 20, 2009)
Here's a timely opinion. Particularly given the Obama administration's recent statement that it will generally no longer go after medical marijuana clinics as long as their activities are legal under state law. (Needless to say, the focal p...oint of this exception is right here in California.)
The opinion by Judge Clifton highlights a variety of things; most particularly, the complexities that arise as a result of marijuana being legal (in certain settings) under state law but still illegal under federal law. As applied here, this creates for both doctrinal and practical difficulties in two settings: (1) in ascertaining the legality of searches, and (2) in assessing the validity of asset forfeitures.
Here, for example, the LAPD got a search warrant from a state court judge to raid a marijuana clinic in LA -- the United Medical Caregivers Clinic ("UMCC") on Wilshire. The problem being that in getting the warrant, the LAPD pitched the facility as just being a regular old place where you can buy pot, and didn't tell the judge any of the facts the LAPD knew that suggested that the place was providing weed legally under the Compassionate Use Act. So the state judge approved the warrant, but the district court (rightly) held that this warrant was invalid given the LAPD's deception, and hence the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.
So that solves any potential criminal liability. But what about the $186,000+ the LAPD seized from the place? UMCC wants it back, but the LAPD -- not surprisingly -- wants to keep it. It knows, however, that the warrant was no good, and also doesn't want to have to prove that the place was illegal under state law, since it probably wasn't.
So what does the LAPD do? It turns the money over to the feds. Who then file their own action to forfeit the cash under federal law, since -- remember -- marijuana's still illegal under federal law and hence the assets subject to forfeiture.
So UMCC seems like it's in trouble. But it responds: "I'm still entitled to my cash back because you got it -- and all the evidence against me -- from an illegal search." Which is true, of course. But the district court (Judge Wilson) says: "Not so, at least for forfeiture purposes. That UMCC may have been selling medical marijuana was admittedly relevant to whether a warrant for state law violations was proper, but clearly UMCC possessed chronic in violation of federal law. Given this fact, I don't think application of the exclusionary rule is proper." (There's some more stuff about some procedural complexities under Rule 41, but I'll leave this aside. You get the gist.)
UMCC then appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Which unanimously reverses. Judge Clifton authors the opinion and holds that, no, the exclusionary rule indeed applies here because even though there may have been a violation of state law, that's not what the warrant was based on: a state judge issues warrants for state violations, and for that, the warrant here was improper. Maybe a federal judge could have issued a warrant, but that didn't happen. So given that the warrant was improper and the search illegal, we're going to exclude the results of the search and give the cash back to UMCC.
Doctrinally, Judge Clifton's analysis makes sense. But he also makes a practical point that I found equally -- if not more -- compelling.
Recall who (effectively) lied to the state court judge in order to get the warrant. The LAPD. As well as who conducted the illegal search: The LAPD. Finally, who's likely to get the bulk of the proceeds from any permitted forfeiture? Yep, that same LAPD.
This matters. To Judge Clifton -- an eminently reasonable fellow -- as well as Judges Hawkins and Berzon, both of whom share Judge Clifton's keen (and important) understanding of the way the world actually works. Judge Clifton says:
"We are particularly concerned by the possibility that the LAPD might stand to profit from unlawful activity. It would be objectionable that any unit of government might profit from the LAPD’s actions, but even greater concern arises here from the suggestion in UMCC’s opening brief, not denied by the government, that the LAPD 'stands to receive up to 80% of any forfeiture obtained by the federal government in this case.' Although the record on appeal contains no indication of how any forfeiture proceeds might be divided between the federal government and the LAPD, we recognize the distinct and disturbing possibility that the LAPD could profit from its own illegal activity, were the government to prevail."
I hear ya. That'd matter to me as well. Generally, you shouldn't make money -- lots of it -- as a result of conducting an illegal search. Which is another reason, wholly beyond doctrine, why the illegality of the initial search should extend to the present forfeiture action.
So Judge Wilson gets reversed and UMCC gets its $186,000 back. Plus interest.
So there should be a good party on or around Wilshire Boulevard tonight.
Posted by Shaun Martin at 2:19 PM Read more
U.S. v. $186,416 in Currency (9th Cir. - Oct. 20, 2009)
Here's a timely opinion. Particularly given the Obama administration's recent statement that it will generally no longer go after medical marijuana clinics as long as their activities are legal under state law. (Needless to say, the focal p...oint of this exception is right here in California.)
The opinion by Judge Clifton highlights a variety of things; most particularly, the complexities that arise as a result of marijuana being legal (in certain settings) under state law but still illegal under federal law. As applied here, this creates for both doctrinal and practical difficulties in two settings: (1) in ascertaining the legality of searches, and (2) in assessing the validity of asset forfeitures.
Here, for example, the LAPD got a search warrant from a state court judge to raid a marijuana clinic in LA -- the United Medical Caregivers Clinic ("UMCC") on Wilshire. The problem being that in getting the warrant, the LAPD pitched the facility as just being a regular old place where you can buy pot, and didn't tell the judge any of the facts the LAPD knew that suggested that the place was providing weed legally under the Compassionate Use Act. So the state judge approved the warrant, but the district court (rightly) held that this warrant was invalid given the LAPD's deception, and hence the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.
So that solves any potential criminal liability. But what about the $186,000+ the LAPD seized from the place? UMCC wants it back, but the LAPD -- not surprisingly -- wants to keep it. It knows, however, that the warrant was no good, and also doesn't want to have to prove that the place was illegal under state law, since it probably wasn't.
So what does the LAPD do? It turns the money over to the feds. Who then file their own action to forfeit the cash under federal law, since -- remember -- marijuana's still illegal under federal law and hence the assets subject to forfeiture.
So UMCC seems like it's in trouble. But it responds: "I'm still entitled to my cash back because you got it -- and all the evidence against me -- from an illegal search." Which is true, of course. But the district court (Judge Wilson) says: "Not so, at least for forfeiture purposes. That UMCC may have been selling medical marijuana was admittedly relevant to whether a warrant for state law violations was proper, but clearly UMCC possessed chronic in violation of federal law. Given this fact, I don't think application of the exclusionary rule is proper." (There's some more stuff about some procedural complexities under Rule 41, but I'll leave this aside. You get the gist.)
UMCC then appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Which unanimously reverses. Judge Clifton authors the opinion and holds that, no, the exclusionary rule indeed applies here because even though there may have been a violation of state law, that's not what the warrant was based on: a state judge issues warrants for state violations, and for that, the warrant here was improper. Maybe a federal judge could have issued a warrant, but that didn't happen. So given that the warrant was improper and the search illegal, we're going to exclude the results of the search and give the cash back to UMCC.
Doctrinally, Judge Clifton's analysis makes sense. But he also makes a practical point that I found equally -- if not more -- compelling.
Recall who (effectively) lied to the state court judge in order to get the warrant. The LAPD. As well as who conducted the illegal search: The LAPD. Finally, who's likely to get the bulk of the proceeds from any permitted forfeiture? Yep, that same LAPD.
This matters. To Judge Clifton -- an eminently reasonable fellow -- as well as Judges Hawkins and Berzon, both of whom share Judge Clifton's keen (and important) understanding of the way the world actually works. Judge Clifton says:
"We are particularly concerned by the possibility that the LAPD might stand to profit from unlawful activity. It would be objectionable that any unit of government might profit from the LAPD’s actions, but even greater concern arises here from the suggestion in UMCC’s opening brief, not denied by the government, that the LAPD 'stands to receive up to 80% of any forfeiture obtained by the federal government in this case.' Although the record on appeal contains no indication of how any forfeiture proceeds might be divided between the federal government and the LAPD, we recognize the distinct and disturbing possibility that the LAPD could profit from its own illegal activity, were the government to prevail."
I hear ya. That'd matter to me as well. Generally, you shouldn't make money -- lots of it -- as a result of conducting an illegal search. Which is another reason, wholly beyond doctrine, why the illegality of the initial search should extend to the present forfeiture action.
So Judge Wilson gets reversed and UMCC gets its $186,000 back. Plus interest.
So there should be a good party on or around Wilshire Boulevard tonight.
Posted by Shaun Martin at 2:19 PM Read more
Drug Policy Alliance Have you ordered a FREE sticker yet?
Source: www.drugpolicy.org
Making marijuana legal is a hot topic nationwide. Keep the conversation going by displaying a 'Make Marijuana Legal' sticker! Sign up to receive one free sticker from the Drug Policy Alliance Network, and help build the movement to end prohibition. Click this link to get your free sticker.
Alfredo Everyone, please consider adding me so we can network to make medicinal Marijuana legal in all 50 states.
Scott Feil
raceready02@aol.com has sent you this article from Associated Press.
Message from raceready02@aol.com:
Wow
AP Newsbreak: New medical marijuana policy issued
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, ...under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday. Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it...
Click here to view this content.
Sign Up for Clip&Copy® to find other content like this. It's a free personalized news alert and press clippings service.
Click here for reuse options!
© 2009 Associated Press
Powered by iCopyright.com.
Read more
Message from raceready02@aol.com:
Wow
AP Newsbreak: New medical marijuana policy issued
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, ...under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday. Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it...
Click here to view this content.
Sign Up for Clip&Copy® to find other content like this. It's a free personalized news alert and press clippings service.
Click here for reuse options!
© 2009 Associated Press
Powered by iCopyright.com.
Read more
Mike Cann
Massachusetts marijuana legalization!
Videos:
http://www.examiner.com/x-26780-Boston-N
http://www.examiner.com/x-26780-Boston-N
http://www.examiner.com/x-26780-Boston-N
http://www.masscann.org/legal-reform/60-
Medical Lobby Day at the State House
http://www.masscann.orgRead more
Videos:
http://www.examiner.com/x-26780-Boston-N
http://www.examiner.com/x-26780-Boston-N
http://www.examiner.com/x-26780-Boston-N
http://www.masscann.org/legal-reform/60-
Medical Lobby Day at the State House
http://www.masscann.orgRead more
Tom Kubica
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=99
Drug Policy Alliance
U.S. Ready to Make Marijuana Legal-
People across the U.S. are recognizing the failures of the drug war and calling for an end to marijuana prohibition. Read Newsweek's article discussing the drug policy reform movement:
Source: www.newsweek.com
The son of a respected rabbi, Harvard grad, and former Princeton professor might seem like an unlikely advocate for legalizing marijuana. But when you meet Ethan Nadelmann, it all makes a lot of sense.
