cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Ruling Puts Police on Hold 





Marijuana Ruling Puts Police on Hold 
Posted by CN Staff on September 07, 2003 at 15:07:02 PT
By Phil Hermanek
Source: Peninsula Clarion 
Law enforcement authorities on the Kenai Peninsula are in a holding pattern right now with regard to a recent appellate court ruling involving the state's marijuana possession law.In an opinion overturning a jury's verdict in a Fairbanks case, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled Alaskans may possess less than 4 ounces of marijuana in their homes for personal use.
Essentially the decision changes the state possession law back to the way it was before Alaska voters took a zero tolerance stance on pot in 1990.Before a 1990 ballot initiative, Alaskans were allowed to possess no more than 4 ounces of marijuana in their homes without fear of criminal prosecution.In the general election of 1990, voters approved a ballot proposition that made possession of any amount of marijuana less than 8 ounces a class B misdemeanor.In reversing the Fairbanks verdict Aug. 29, however, the appellate court considered a 1975 Alaska Supreme Court opinion in a case known as Ravin v. State. That opinion said Alaskans can possess personal-use marijuana in their homes because prohibiting them from doing so violates their constitutional right to privacy.Other features of the state's marijuana statute have not changed. It is still illegal to sell pot, transport it, drive under the influence of it or possess it in a public place.Kenai District Attorney Dwayne McConnell said Friday that his office is waiting to hear from the state Department of Law before putting out any instructions to local police or Alaska State Troopers here.Attorney General Gregg Renkes has indicated he plans to petition the Alaska Supreme Court for a review of the constitutional issues raised by the court of appeals."We get so few of those cases," McConnell said of possession cases involving small amounts of pot."If an officer calls now saying 3.9 ounces of marijuana were found at (someone's) house, I'd say we're not going to prosecute."We're not talking about very many of these cases," McConnell said."If the Supreme Court does take the matter up for review, it would be at least months and months away," he said.State troopers also are awaiting instructions from the Attorney General, according to trooper spokesperson Tim DeSpain."Nothing has been presented to us yet," he said. "Everything is status quo right now."Law officers from Soldotna and Kenai police departments are not planning any changes in procedure, either."We're not going to change what we're doing," said Soldotna Police Officer Greg Landeis. "Normally when we find such small marijuana amounts, it's incident to something else."Asked to describe 4 ounces, or one-fourth of a pound of pot, Soldotna Police Sgt. Todd McGillivray said, "You can get about 1,000 joints from a pound."In Kenai, Police Chief Chuck Kopp said the appellate court is very clear in its decision."They want the Alaska statute to go back to pre-1990," he said."We will follow the direction of the Department of Law. We're not going to be charging people with less than 4 ounces unless the Department of Law successfully appeals," Kopp said.He also said federal law supersedes state law noting that possession of any amount of marijuana under federal law is illegal."Marijuana is a significant problem in Kenai," he said."We serve 12 to 15 search warrants a year on marijuana (growing operations). In 2002, we had 285 drug-related arrests in Kenai. Marijuana is the vast majority," Kopp said.Asked Friday when the last marijuana growing operation was found in Kenai, Kopp said, "We served a search warrant yesterday on a residence."Source: Peninsula Clarion (AK)Author: Phil HermanekPublished: Sunday, September 7, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Peninsula ClarionContact: levans peninsulaclarion.comWebsite: http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/Related Articles:Cops At Odds on Pot Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17225.shtmlAlaska Court Ruling Sparks Hope for Advocateshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17221.shtmlMarijuana Ruling Smokes Foeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17189.shtmlAlaska Court: Drug Ban Unconstitutionalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17184.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by global_warming on September 08, 2003 at 02:51:27 PT
Medical Marijuana Prohibition: 
http://bbsnews.net/bw2003-09-07a.htmlhttp://www.ddleague-usa.net/http://bbsnews.net/inbw.htmlMedical Marijuana Prohibition: "Unconstitutional Elitist Con Game" BBSNews - 2003-09-07 -- By Stephen Neitzke - The issue in the medical marijuana controversy is not whether federal drug law trumps state drug law. The issue is that federal law is prohibited, through the Constitution's 10th Amendment, from dictating medical treatment policy in the states. The setting of medical treatment policy is a 10th Amendment right of the states. That states right has been generally recognized in federal law thoughout our history. 
Arresting people for using a medicinal plant is criminal. 
The federal government's "Controlled Substances Act" goes too far, when, in 21 USC Section 812, it defines Schedule I drugs to have "... a lack of accepted safety ... under medical supervision". That statement assumes and dictates federal government control of "medical supervision" in the states and is patently unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant the federal government control over medical treatment policy in the states. And the Constitution does not bar the states from setting medical treatment policy. The 10th Amendment applies. Any attempt by the federal governmnet to control medical treatment policy -- through statute law inferior to the Constitution's fundamental law -- is patently unconstitutional. From Congress, to the executive agencies, to the judiciary, every sworn official who has insisted on the implementation of, or failed to recognize the unconstitutionality of 21 USC Section 812 in legislative lawmaking or official rulings has violated his/her oath to uphold the Constitution. These "misunderstandings" do not happen by accident. It's far past time to understand that many powerful individuals in the governing elites specialize in violating our constitutions for wealth-driven and class-driven purposes far outside the rule of law. Violation of our constitutions by officials sworn to uphold them is, in my humble opinion, the single biggest problem in our nation's political history. Civil society must find some way to recognize, investigate, and prosecute those offenders. Please -- put a stop to this unconstitutional elitist con game that is overwhelming state-legal medical marijuana. My diabetes/cardiac/kidney problems are not getting any better. I'm not alone, as everyone knows. There are millions suffering unnecessarily because of this federal government sham, fronted by predators whose contempt for the people is second only to their criminal violations of our fundamental law. 
Medical Marijuana Prohibition: "Unconstitutional Elitist Con Game" 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by bongman439 on September 07, 2003 at 22:48:50 PT
Marijuana Ruling Puts Police on Hold
Again with a Police Chief saying that "Marijuana is a significant problem..".  He then once again blows his own case out of the water when the only examples of problems that he can cite are serving warrants on grow ops and that marijuana arrests represent the vast majority of drug arrests they make: Two problems that are a direct result of prohibition.  And 'round and 'round we go....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by aolbites on September 07, 2003 at 21:10:02 PT
Covert wearables
"I've been wondering whether I could ever purchase those wireless video sunglasses to have the image sent to a Website, besides a video camera, so that if the cops get cute and impound my video camera, I would have the image on my Web site, so I can sue them!"-------------------well, here is where to get the cameras and wireless gear ... http://www.supercircuits.com hit a computer store to get the web link so you could stream it ... best bet tho would be to hide a 12 hr recorder in a wall somewhere they cant find ... having a obvious Bait recorder in the open somewhere... something they can steal .. 
Covert wearables
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Lehder on September 07, 2003 at 15:48:01 PT
good luck, RPZ
we're walking around "free" yet we gotta think like jailhouse lawyers.**fcc regulations on private video transmissions limit the xmit power to such low levels that the signal can be received at a distance of only about 100 - 150 feet, in ideal weather. over a larger distance you would have to use a cable.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on September 07, 2003 at 15:41:15 PT:
THE CONSTITUTION PRE-EMPTS A LAW .
It would seem to me that a court decision on the State Constitution would pre-empt a law made by the legislature. Perhaps legal research into the doctrine of pre-emption is necessary.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on September 07, 2003 at 15:33:14 PT:
WE NEED TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE FOR STATE CONST.
We need to push the envelope for protection under the State Constitution. The federal constitution has the Bill of Rights at the end of the document. The State Constitutions, on the other hand, have the individual freedoms AT THE BEGINNING of the the document. Doesn't that give you some idea of the intended priority? The New Jersey Supreme Court recently reversed a marihuana conviction, in State v. Holland. The cops had appeared on a call to a neighboring apartment, with the ambulance. During the call, one of the police orificers smelled pot. At the end of the call, the policeman called backup, whom traced the smell to a particular apartment. Cops went to the back door, while cops knocked on the front door. One moron from the apartment ran out the back door and dropped a few buds. The cops busted the runner, I believe obtained incriminating statements from the runner to the effect that more pot was inside the apartment, then went inside the apartment WITHOUT a warrant and busted the occupants. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed for a determination of whether the independent source doctrine [exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment] justified the forced entry into the apartment to bust the occupants. The courts said that pot smell in New Jersey is a disorderly person offense, but that since the home is most protected under the Fourth Amendment, generally, a warrant would issue for forced entry into somebody's apartment only if it was a felony offense being committed. THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED: IF THE COPS COME TO YOUR DOOR, DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR AT ALL. TELL THEM THEY MAY NOT ENTER WITHOUT A WARRANT. MOST OF ALL: DO NOT RUN OUT THE BACK DOOR AND DROP BUDS!!!!!!!!!!!! If they do force their way into your home, make sure you impress upon your attorney, or if you are proceeding in pro se, to make a motion to suppress based on the analogous State Constitution search and seizure provision!! Sue them under that State Constitutional provision, too, demanding a jury trial!! I've been wondering whether I could ever purchase those wireless video sunglasses to have the image sent to a Website, besides a video camera, so that if the cops get cute and impound my video camera, I would have the image on my Web site, so I can sue them! I'm suing cops now, Richard Paul Zuckerman, Plaintiff, vs. Borough Of Highland Park, et al., Defendants, Docket Number MID-L-3743-00, pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division, Hon. Nicholas J. Strountsos, Jr., presiding. In this lawsuit, though, I do not have the benefit of video coverage of the incident. Instead, I have a number of their discrepancies and contradictions down on paper! I'm waiting for the United States Supreme Court to make a final decision on the indigence motion and petition for certiorari from the "disorderly conduct" conviction before the state civil rights case proceeds onward bound! I look forward to it! In New Jersey, a municipal court conviction is INADMISSIBLE in the related civil action. See, e.g., Trisuzzi v. Tabatchnik, 285 N.J.Super. 15, 25, 666 A.2d 543 (App. Div. 1995), perhaps because no jury trial is permitted in these municipal court trials, only judges who rubber-stamp the police testimony!"NOTHING DOTH MORE HURT IN A STATE THAN THAT CUNNING MEN PASS FOR WISE." Sir Francis Bacon.Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, N.J., 08840-0159, (Cell telephone number)(908) 403-6990, richardzuckerman2002 yahoo.com.
Diploma in Paralegal, New York University, 2003;
Diploma in Truck Driving, Smith & Solomon School of Truck Driving, Edison, N.J., 1995;
B.A. in Political Science, with so many criminal justice courses I needed special permission to graduate, Kean College of New Jersey [subsequently renamed Kean University], 1987.
Member of: www.normlnj.org; www.norml.org; www.aclu-nj.org; www.fija.org; www.njlp.org; www.GreenParty.org; www.cannabisculture.com; www.hightimes.com; www.jpfo.org; www.fromthewilderness.com; www.njmilitia.org.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on September 07, 2003 at 15:22:15 PT
Good News
By why did they serve a search warrant then?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment