Medical Marijuana Is The Law — Any Questions?

By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

How do you say: “Game, set, match” in southern California? Here’s how:

High court won’t hear county’s marijuana challenge
via SignOnSanDiego.com

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up San Diego County’s challenge to state medical marijuana laws.

For more than three years the county has been fighting in court to overturn state laws that require counties to issue medical marijuana identification cards. The county contends federal law, which does not recognize medical marijuana usage, trumps the state law.

The county has lost that argument in state trial and appellate courts, and the state Supreme Court declined to take up the case, too. The county’s last, long-shot chance was to have the U.S. Supreme Court take up the case.

San Bernardino and Merced counties initially joined the suit, but Merced eventually dropped out. The high court also rejected San Bernardino’s petition to take up the case.

In other words, the oft-heard prohibitionist refrain that federal law trumps state medical marijuana laws has no legal merit.

None. Nada. Zero.

To anyone who has followed the unethical actions of the San Diego and San Bernardino Supervisors over the past three years, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear their appeal shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, the counties’ vapid arguments had previously been struck down — unanimously — by the Superior Court of the state of California the 4th District Court of Appeals.

In addition, the Legislative Counsel of California, the state Attorney General’s Office, and a majority of the California legislature had also previously determined that local politicians and law enforcement were obligated to uphold the provisions of California’s medical marijuana laws.

Finally, California’s constitution is also quite clear on this point — mandating that police have a sworn duty to uphold state law, not to enforce federal statutes.

Let’s be blunt: San Diego and San Bernardino’s protracted lawsuits — lawsuits that arguably cost county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and jeopardized the health and safety of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of citizens — were never about resolving legal ambiguity.

Rather, it was about the arrogance and recalcitrance of those who willfully chose to abuse their power and position to hamstring the will of the voters, the legislature, and the courts.

And while this particular legal battle is now over, our outrage shouldn’t be.

Supreme Court Hands Medical Marijuana Major Victory

The U.S. Supreme Court handed medical marijuana patients and advocates a resounding victory on Monday, refusing to hear a case brought by San Diego County, which has long chafed at implementing statewide medical marijuana laws.

The state of California, in an effort to systematize the 1996 voter-approved initiative, required localities to implement identification card programs for patients with doctor approval in 2004. Such ID cards are required to enter medical marijuana shops in California and can be shown to police officers who find patients in possession of marijuana.

San Diego County, however, argued that the federal ban on marijuana trumps the state law, meaning they are not required to follow the state law. The county filed suit in 2006. Both the San Diego Superior Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals rejected the argument, which was followed by the California Supreme Court's refusal to review the case in 2008.

The San Diego Board of Supervisors voted to appeal to the Supreme Court.

"The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt California's medical marijuana law and that local officials must comply with that law," said Joe Elford, chief counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group with a large presence in California. "No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California's medical marijuana law."

It is not the job, in other words, of local cops or municipalities to enforce federal laws. In fact, the federal government has never made such an argument. The California counties acted on their own.

The Supreme Court ruling, following the Obama administration's decision not to raid medical marijuana clubs acting in accordance with state law, removes one of the last barriers to full implementation of the state law.

ASA has now given notice to 10 conservative holdout counties (Colusa, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, San Bernardino, San Diego, Solano, Stanislaus, and Sutter) of their legal obligation to implement the ID card program. In January 2009, ASA, something of an industry trade group, filed a lawsuit in January against Solano County for its refusal to implement the state ID card program.

ASA was joined by the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project in assisting the California Attorney General in the case against San Diego. San Bernardino teamed with San Diego.

"The Supreme Court and the lower courts in California have blown away the myth that federal law somehow prevents states from legalizing medical marijuana," said Rob Kampia, executive director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Thirteen states have laws that allow certain folks to use medical marijuana if their doctor recommends it. Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York are currently considering medical marijuana bills in their state legislatures.

Ryan Grim is the author of the forthcoming book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America

Supreme Court OK's Searches based on Computer Errors

Drug evidence found during an unlawful arrest arising from a police computer error could be used at trial, a divided Supreme Court says.

The 5-4 decision on Wednesday means that the nation's high court is distancing itself from the so-called "exclusionary rule" that prohibits police from using evidence obtained from illegal searches. In this instance, the court ruled that there was an innocent mistake: an erroneous computer record about a motorist stopped in traffic by Alabama authorities stating he had an outstanding arrest warrant, which made him eligible for an automatic search.

Four dissenting judges said the search, which found drugs and a gun, violated Bennie Dean Herring's Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches.

"The most serious impact of the court's holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote (.pdf) in a dissenting opinion.

After an officer stopped Herring, a clerk messaged him that he was a fugitive who did not appear in court on a felony accusation. The officer subsequently searched Herring and found methamphetamine and a gun. Moments later, the clerk called back the officer and said the warrant had been vacated -- a fact that was not entered into the police's computer database.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said evidence could be used against the motorist because the police mistake was a "negligent bookkeeping error" and that the authorities did not deliberately violate Herring's rights.

Photo: functoruser
By David Kravets