Justin Scheck
The Recorder
September 14, 2007 Critics pan the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for any number of reasons, from its size to its politics, but if there's one thing above reproach, it's the court's nuanced view of moral turpitude. The court has been known to engage in long, esoteric debates on what Merriam-Webster defines as "inherent baseness" or "depravity." On Wednesday, the evolving definition settled here: Drunken driving isn't turpitude. Drunken driving without a license is. That's the stark message resident aliens will have to keep in mind, because moral turpitude is grounds for deportation. Writing for the majority in Marmolejo-Campos v. Gonzales, 07 C.D.O.S. 10982, Judge Consuelo Callahan found that, when combined, the two factors sink to the level of turpitude. "Driving while intoxicated is despicable, and when coupled with the knowledge that one has been specifically forbidden to drive, it becomes 'an act of baseness, violence or depravity in the private and social duties which a person shows to a fellowman or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty,'" Callahan wrote, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court definition of turpitude. She was joined by Senior Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California, who was sitting by designation. Senior Judge Dorothy Nelson disagreed, with vehemence, going so far as to accuse her colleagues of sophistry. She said that despite the fact that the definition of turpitude is "nebulous," it's clear to her that driving drunk without a license doesn't qualify. "It is well settled that driving while intoxicated is not a morally turpitudinous act," she wrote. "Nonetheless, the majority concludes that Campos's act of drunk driving was transformed into a turpitudinous offense because he was not legally licensed to drive." Nelson pointed out that certain crimes -- such as fraud, murder and child abuse -- always entail turpitude. "On the other hand," she continued, "burglary, assault and battery, malicious mischief, alien smuggling, assault with a deadly weapon, indecency, rioting, and money laundering have all been found not to involve moral turpitude." In the case of Armando Marmolejo-Campos -- who had a history of drunken-driving offenses preceding the one at issue -- Nelson said the most serious of his offenses was driving while drunk. And since the 9th Circuit has previously ruled that multiple instances of intoxicated motoring didn't amount to turpitude, the less serious violation of driving without a license shouldn't change the depravity level of the crime. "In sum," she concluded, "while I certainly recognize that driving while intoxicated can have serious and harmful consequences, I am unable to concur in an opinion that contravenes well-established law and is belied by logic." For its vocal dissent and majority opinion that includes a non-circuit judge, the Marmolejo-Campos case could be ripe for en banc review. If so, it would be the second time in the last year that an expanded panel has taken on questions of turpitude: In December, an en banc panel heard arguments on whether being an accessory to a crime involves turpitude after a three-judge panel had split on the issue. The judges haven't ruled on that case yet.
Experienced legal counsel to cannabis businesses, entrepreneurs, and patients.
Seattle, Washington (206) 728-0200
Friday, September 14, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
WA - 60 Day MJ Supply Workshops
Nathan Miller, MPP legislative analyst
Yesterday, the Washington state Department of Health wrapped up the second of four workshops to determine what constitutes a 60-day supply of medical marijuana.
The workshops have gone well so far, with many people pointing out issues and submitting their thoughts on what they believe should constitute a 60-day supply of medicine. Visit http://www3.doh.wa.gov/policyreview/ViewAllComments.asp?ID=416&DocumentTitle=WAC%20246-XXX%2060-Day%20Supply%20of%20Medical%20Marijuana to read the comments that have been posted so far.
Next week's workshops will be held September 17 and 19, in Vancouver and Yakima respectively. If you attend, please dress professionally and be courteous to everyone in attendance, including any opposition. Visit http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/MtgLoc.htm for more information.
If you cannot attend, you may submit comments by going to the Department of Health's Web site at http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/ and clicking on "post comment," located on the right-hand side of the page. You may submit your comments anonymously.
To sign up for updates from the Department of Health on this issue, send an e-mail to medicalmarijuana@doh.wa.gov and ask to be put on their mailing list. You can also visit https://ssl.capwiz.com/mpp/issues/alert/?alertid=10298521 to send your comments about the 60-day supply issue directly to the Department of Health.
Please visit our Web site at http://wa.mpp.org to stay up-to-date on the status of marijuana policy reform in Washington. You may also send an e-mail to Nathan@mpp.org if you have any questions. Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project and all of our allies.
Yesterday, the Washington state Department of Health wrapped up the second of four workshops to determine what constitutes a 60-day supply of medical marijuana.
The workshops have gone well so far, with many people pointing out issues and submitting their thoughts on what they believe should constitute a 60-day supply of medicine. Visit http://www3.doh.wa.gov/policyreview/ViewAllComments.asp?ID=416&DocumentTitle=WAC%20246-XXX%2060-Day%20Supply%20of%20Medical%20Marijuana to read the comments that have been posted so far.
Next week's workshops will be held September 17 and 19, in Vancouver and Yakima respectively. If you attend, please dress professionally and be courteous to everyone in attendance, including any opposition. Visit http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/MtgLoc.htm for more information.
If you cannot attend, you may submit comments by going to the Department of Health's Web site at http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/ and clicking on "post comment," located on the right-hand side of the page. You may submit your comments anonymously.
To sign up for updates from the Department of Health on this issue, send an e-mail to medicalmarijuana@doh.wa.gov and ask to be put on their mailing list. You can also visit https://ssl.capwiz.com/mpp/issues/alert/?alertid=10298521 to send your comments about the 60-day supply issue directly to the Department of Health.
Please visit our Web site at http://wa.mpp.org to stay up-to-date on the status of marijuana policy reform in Washington. You may also send an e-mail to Nathan@mpp.org if you have any questions. Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project and all of our allies.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
CLARIFYING THE RULES OF MEDICAL MJ
Clarifying The Rules
SPOKANE -- The Washington State Legislature wants the Health
Department to clarify the rules surrounding the use of medical
marijuana. In 1998, voters approved an initiative allowing doctors to
legally recommend marijuana for some medical conditions.
The state allows patients who have doctor's permission to possess a
sixty day supply of medical marijuana but there's no definition of
much a sixty day supply is. The State Department of Health is now
holding public meetings across the state to determine a definition but
it hasn't been easy.
In a passionate plea Steve Sarich joined dozens of others at Spokane
Community College urging the State Department of Health not to define
a two month supply of medical marijuana. Sarich says to calm his aches
and pains he's turned to marijuana after becoming nearly addicted to
prescription pain killers. He believes the barriers place by his
doctor are enough.
"My doctor puts down how much marijuana I can have for a sixty day
period, why should the Department of Health do that?" said Steve
Sarich.
Blake Maresh with the State Department of Health says while patients
may not like it, without one will make it hard for authorities to know
who's following the law. After holding public hearings, Maresh says
clarity will be hard to provide.
"We really got a wide range of answers, from a few ounces to several
pounds," Blake Maresh said.
Maresh has also heard a variety of ways patients are ingesting
marijuana and what ailments they're using it for. He believes specific
uses for specific problems might have to be spelled out in the new
law. This might only create more confusion for those trying to monitor
it.
Sarich believes it's all a waste of time and thinks lawmakers should
shift their focus to other pain killers.
"I was almost addicted to prescription narcotics, that's the biggest
drug problem in our country right now," Sarich said.
The Department of Health is also looking into safe and effective ways
to distribute medical marijuana. Many patients are forced to buy it
off the black market right now and pay at a premium. The department
plans to present its findings to the state legislature next summer.
http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect_rank=2§ion_id=560&story_id=14203
SPOKANE -- The Washington State Legislature wants the Health
Department to clarify the rules surrounding the use of medical
marijuana. In 1998, voters approved an initiative allowing doctors to
legally recommend marijuana for some medical conditions.
The state allows patients who have doctor's permission to possess a
sixty day supply of medical marijuana but there's no definition of
much a sixty day supply is. The State Department of Health is now
holding public meetings across the state to determine a definition but
it hasn't been easy.
In a passionate plea Steve Sarich joined dozens of others at Spokane
Community College urging the State Department of Health not to define
a two month supply of medical marijuana. Sarich says to calm his aches
and pains he's turned to marijuana after becoming nearly addicted to
prescription pain killers. He believes the barriers place by his
doctor are enough.
"My doctor puts down how much marijuana I can have for a sixty day
period, why should the Department of Health do that?" said Steve
Sarich.
Blake Maresh with the State Department of Health says while patients
may not like it, without one will make it hard for authorities to know
who's following the law. After holding public hearings, Maresh says
clarity will be hard to provide.
"We really got a wide range of answers, from a few ounces to several
pounds," Blake Maresh said.
Maresh has also heard a variety of ways patients are ingesting
marijuana and what ailments they're using it for. He believes specific
uses for specific problems might have to be spelled out in the new
law. This might only create more confusion for those trying to monitor
it.
Sarich believes it's all a waste of time and thinks lawmakers should
shift their focus to other pain killers.
"I was almost addicted to prescription narcotics, that's the biggest
drug problem in our country right now," Sarich said.
The Department of Health is also looking into safe and effective ways
to distribute medical marijuana. Many patients are forced to buy it
off the black market right now and pay at a premium. The department
plans to present its findings to the state legislature next summer.
http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect_rank=2§ion_id=560&story_id=14203
Monday, September 10, 2007
New WA Supreme Court Opinions
The Washington State Supreme Court issued two opinions last week regarding right to counsel and search and seizure issues.
In State v. Everybodytalksabout, the Court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a corrections officer spoke to him in jail without his attorney present, and without contacting the attorney prior to the interview, for the purposes of preparing a presentence investigation report. The Court ruled that incriminating statements made during that interview should have been suppressed.
In State v. Hatchie, the Court held that a misdemeanor arrest warrant gives police limited authority to enter a home to arrest a person within the home, just as would a felony arrest warrant. The Court reasoned that both types of warrants require the same standard for issuance, and therefore the authority provided by each was indistinguishable. Further, the court found that the police must only have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is a resident of the home to enter the home in order to effectuate the arrest warrant. If the police do not have such probable cause, a search warrant is required for entry. The Court further cautioned that the arrest warrant provides police with authority only to enter, arrest a person, and leave, not to search the home
In State v. Everybodytalksabout, the Court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a corrections officer spoke to him in jail without his attorney present, and without contacting the attorney prior to the interview, for the purposes of preparing a presentence investigation report. The Court ruled that incriminating statements made during that interview should have been suppressed.
In State v. Hatchie, the Court held that a misdemeanor arrest warrant gives police limited authority to enter a home to arrest a person within the home, just as would a felony arrest warrant. The Court reasoned that both types of warrants require the same standard for issuance, and therefore the authority provided by each was indistinguishable. Further, the court found that the police must only have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is a resident of the home to enter the home in order to effectuate the arrest warrant. If the police do not have such probable cause, a search warrant is required for entry. The Court further cautioned that the arrest warrant provides police with authority only to enter, arrest a person, and leave, not to search the home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)