cannabisnews.com: Appeals Court Just Says No To Pot Case





Appeals Court Just Says No To Pot Case
Posted by CN Staff on November 15, 2003 at 07:45:54 PT
By Dan Rice, Staff Writer
Source: News-Miner 
The Alaska Court of Appeals will not reconsider its August decision allowing adults to possess as much as a quarter-pound of marijuana in their home. In an opinion released Friday, the court denied the Alaska attorney general's petition to rehear the case, which invalidated a 1990 voter initiative criminalizing all amounts of marijuana by calling the resulting ban on personal pot use in the home unconstitutional.
The court rejected all the assertions the attorney general's office made in arguing that the decision was flawed in the case of Noy v. State, which resulted in Attorney General Gregg Renkes instructing all state law enforcement agencies not to arrest or cite adults for personal marijuana use in their home. Renkes has vowed since the day of the Noy decision that the state would appeal the case and try to restore its ability to prosecute citizens for possessing small amounts of marijuana in their home. The Court of Appeals spent nearly all of the nine-page denial detailing reasons for rejecting the state's petition. The appeals court based the Noy decision on the landmark 1975 Alaska Supreme Court case Ravin v. State, which held that the government's interest in preventing possession of marijuana for personal use in the home was not great enough to violate the privacy clause contained in the state constitution. The appeals court decision declared Ravin is still the law--and hence personal possession in the home is legal--despite the 1990 criminalization initiative. The appeals court judges determined that 4 ounces or less is the personal-use standard. "In its petition for rehearing, the state argues that this (Court of Appeal's) initial opinion is flawed in some half-dozen ways, but most of the state's arguments ultimately rest on one underlying assertion: that we misunderstood the nature of the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Ravin," wrote Judge David Mannheimer in Friday's opinion denying the rehearing. Mannheimer then described the reasons the appeals court believes its interpretation of the Ravin decision, that is as a legal authority restricting the government from enacting laws prohibiting personal marijuana use in the home, was not flawed. At one point, he wrote that the "state's proposed interpretation of the Ravin decision would seemingly put us on the road to legal chaos." Despite what appeared to give all indications of a negative ruling for the state, the attorney general's office issued a press release Friday classifying the decision as at least a partial victory. While the decision denied a rehearing, the release states, it did give the state permission to challenge the Ravin decision. Dean Guaneli, chief assistant attorney general, said the office based this interpretation of the decision on the last sentence, which reads "the state remains free in the future to challenge the continuing vitality of Ravin." The original Noy decision was ambiguous as to whether the state could challenge Ravin as an out-of-date legal authority, he said, and the last sentence clarifies that it can challenge the 28-year-old opinion. He said the challenge would come in the form of a prosecutor at the trial-court level arguing to a judge that a defendant should not be able to use Ravin as a defense for marijuana possession because the opinion does not comply with today's standards and values. A prosecutor would then likely have to present medical and scientific evidence about marijuana to try to sway the judge into not abiding by the Ravin decision, Guaneli said. He added that the attorney general's office and Gov. Frank Murkowski consider marijuana a far more dangerous and prevalent drug than it was at the time of the Ravin opinion, which classified pot as "a relatively innocuous substance, at least as compared with other less-restricted substances." However, Guaneli stopped short of saying that prosecutors and police would start prosecuting people again for personal marijuana use in the home in an effort to bring the debate into court."I don't believe that our instructions are going to be any different than they have been," he said, explaining the state has never put significant energy or resources into prosecuting small marijuana cases. "Neither we nor the police are going to open a floodgate of prosecutions." The last sentence of Friday's appeals court decision does give them that option if the right case comes along, he said. Bill Satterberg, the defense attorney who represented David Noy, said he was baffled by the state's classification of Friday's opinion as a victory. The Court of Appeals took nine pages to articulate why it rejected the state's petition for a rehearing, a rarity for a court that usually issues a document stating only "granted" or "denied" in petition for rehearing cases, said Satterberg, who represented Noy after his 2001 arrest then took up the case on appeal for free. He added that the state has always had the right to challenge Ravin and the last sentence of Friday's opinion did nothing to change that. "What are they smoking down there in Juneau?" he said. "(Renkes) is the first guy I know to pull victory from defeat. Well, let me be the first to congratulate him on his resounding victory." Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)Author: Dan Rice, Staff WriterPublished:  Saturday, November 15, 2003Copyright: 2003 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc.Contact: letters newsminer.comWebsite: http://www.news-miner.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Marijuana Taking High Profile in Alaska http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17539.shtmlAlaska Court Ruling Sparks Hope for Advocateshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17221.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by CorvallisEric on November 15, 2003 at 19:53:37 PT
About DEA Watch (comments 8 and 9)
Disclaimer: this is from memory many months ago; things may be different now, I could be wrong, etc.There are oddities about the site. The guy who ran it, a Mr. Coleman I think, is African-American, obviously a Democrat, had an enormous dislike for former DEA head Thomas Constantine, probably wasn't too crazy about Asa Hutchinson, and had a generally skeptical attitude about Federal bureaucracy. He certainly presented a variety of viewpoints ranging from reasonable to rabid. The "morale problem" was ever-present in discussion.I found myself developing an odd empathy toward some of these extremely anonymous people. When I have more time and oomph, I'll visit again. I think it's really important to try to understand the other side's point of view. The quote in comment #8 is good, as is Jose's answer and linked webpage.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by mayan on November 15, 2003 at 17:51:07 PT
Slapped in the Face
"In its petition for rehearing, the state argues that this (Court of Appeal's) initial opinion is flawed in some half-dozen ways, but most of the state's arguments ultimately rest on one underlying assertion: that we misunderstood the nature of the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Ravin," wrote Judge David Mannheimer in Friday's opinion denying the rehearing.Once again, the state insults the intelligence of the judiciary and gets slapped in the face. Great news!Here are a couple drug-war related articles...On drugs, and on the job - Between July 1999 and December 2002, 143 workers and applicants for work at local power plants tested positive for drugs or alcohol: 
http://ydr.com/story/foi/15642/Teens Turn Legal Plant Into Dangerous Drug:
http://www.local6.com/family/2637576/detail.htmlThe way out is the way in...9/11 Questions Still Circling - Where Was the FAA? Where Was NORAD?
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0346/mondo4.phpThe Recruiters of 9/11:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP311B.htmlRelatives of 9/11 victims criticize agreement about secret-document access:
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2426370,00.htmlDeal on 9/11 Briefings Lets White House Edit Papers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/national/14TERR.html?ex=1069390800&en=70c69c176c881b65&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by gloovins on November 15, 2003 at 16:36:58 PT
Any Alaskan lawyer....??
I have to ask, if it comes down to changing/amending your constitution who does that? You have a referendum obviously but does the legislature amend it, your state constitution? Howz that work? And if its possible, do you think it'll pass in 2003?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on November 15, 2003 at 15:58:19 PT
What is Morality?
The word morality is thrown around so much that I'm not sure if people really understand what having good morals really means in my opinion. I'll try to explain. Years ago when I took prescription drugs I was waiting in line to get my prescription refilled. In front of me was this frail and very old lady. Her bill for her medicine came up to $250. I watched as she counted her one dollar bills and change to finally come up with the $250. Someone said to her that her prescription was expensive. She sweetly said yes it was because this is all the money I have.That is immoral to me that anyone needs to count every penny just to come up with medicine they so desperately need. Canada has been a help to people all over that are in the same position as that sweet old lady. There I feel better.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Jose Melendez on November 15, 2003 at 15:32:39 PT
 I suppose that it would be murder...
Re:" . . . the gentleman asked me what DEA would do to a person or company who prevented him and his wife from buying prescription drugs in Canada, and one or both of them died as a result of not being able to afford the same medication here in the U.S."There are at least three answers.1. It is murder, and the person or group should have charges pressed against them. Go directly to John Ashcroft and recite: "You have the right to remain silent . . ."2. Dismiss the comment out of hand, to do otherwise would require you to admit your industry is a sham.3. Scream "FREEZE" and proceed to do what you would have done if the elderly couple had just offered you a hit off their water pipe.
Print and Distribute
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Had Enough on November 15, 2003 at 14:43:55 PT
From the mouths of elderly
Found this on DEA Watch. The fourth paragraph (4th if you count the one liner as a paragraph) contains the most interesting part. I would like to see this asked in a public debate on national TV.15 Nov 2003, 12:15 PST, 1st Edition"From the mouths of elderly...":I had a very interesting conversation with an elderly couple last night...My wife an I occasionaly like to stop by (D/W redacted) on the way home from the show for hot chocalate... the best in (D/W redacted)... the girls there always greet us with, "Here comes our friendly neighborhood DEA agent."An elderly couple seated at one of the tables overheard our greeting and asked to speak to me after we got our chocolate. I told my wife to pay for our chocalate and I went right away to their table. I figured they must has some important information to report to DEA. The gentleman and his wife were very polite. They introduced themselves and I told them my name. The gentleman told me he was very troubled about drugs coming in from Canada. Right away I suspected he must be on to something going on in his neighborhood. He asked me what we (DEA) would do to someone we caught bringing illegal drugs into our country. I told him we would, of course, arrest the individual. He then asked me what we would do to the criminal if he sold drugs to someone who later died from those drugs. Naturally, I told him the criminal would be charged with murder.The gentleman was silent for a moment as he exchanged glances with his wife. Right away I began suspecting that they might know someone who had brought illegal drugs in from Canada that caused the death of someone the elderly couple knew or were related to... or perhaps they were related to the criminal. Then the gentleman asked me what DEA would do to a person or company who prevented him and his wife from buying prescription drugs in Canada, and one or both of them died as a result of not being able to afford the same medication here in the U.S.Right about this time my wife joined us. We both looked at each other in silence for a few moments. Noticing I didn't have an answer for that powerful question my wife shook her head and said, "I don't think anyone ever thought of that... but I suppose that it would be murder... wouldn't it, honey?" I was still speechless.Does anyone have an answer I can give the couple the next time I see them at (D/W redacted)?http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by global_warming on November 15, 2003 at 14:04:10 PT
Great News
I love to hear good news, the antis must be in a tizzy over this ruling..Make no mistake, the antis are foaming at the mouth, and they will come back with vengence, for they are a bloodthirsty bunch, they care not about freedom they care not about life, they seek to inhibit any freedom, for they are the ones who killed the Christ.gw
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on November 15, 2003 at 11:07:55 PT
EJ I Don't Recognize The Candy
I did a search and found this though. I still don't remember the candy. http://www.oldtimecandy.com/walnettos.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on November 15, 2003 at 10:59:13 PT
Now I want a Walnetto
I guess they don't make those any more.But I noticed that Clove Gum has gone back on sale.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 15, 2003 at 10:35:24 PT
Order in the Courtroom!
Here comes the judge! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on November 15, 2003 at 10:28:43 PT
Here comes the judge!
Anyone remember Laugh In?Here comes the judge!Here comes the judge!Here comes the judge!And here comes the judge!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Arthropod on November 15, 2003 at 08:50:15 PT:
Bill Satterburg
Satterburg has a real way with words. I like what he said about the attorney general, mainly because it reminds me of how prohibition propaganda works. "What are they smoking down there in Juneau?" he said. "(Renkes) is the first guy I know to pull victory from defeat. Well, let me be the first to congratulate him on his resounding victory." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on November 15, 2003 at 08:20:54 PT
Freedom
A great win for the constitution and freedom.The walls of prohibition are coming down.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment