City of Garden Grove v. Sup. Ct. Orange County - Recent California Marijuana Case

Case Name: City of Garden Grove v. Sup. Ct. Orange County, District: 4 DCA ,
Division: 3 , Case #: G036250
Opinion Date: 11/28/2007 , DAR #: 17553

Case Holding:
Health and Safety Code section 11473.5, subdivision (a), permitting the return of controlled substances lawfully possessed by the defendant, is consistent with the Compassionate Use Act [CUA] (Health & Saf. Code, sec. 11362.5) and is not superseded or preempted by federal drug laws. Following a traffic stop by Garden Grove Police officers for failing to yield at a right light, Mr. Kha consented to a search of his car and a small amount of marijuana was seized from a cloth bag. Marijuana possession charges were subsequently dismissed by the prosecution when Mr. Kha provided a statement from his doctor authorizing the use of medical marijuana and the trial court then granted Mr. Kha¢s motion for return of the marijuana. The City of Garden Grove filed the instant petition for writ of mandate/prohibition, challenging the order. The court found the city had standing because constitutional concerns respecting the relationship between state and federal law were implicated and the city would not otherwise be able to obtain judicial review of the trial court¢s order. The court then ruled that for purposes of state law, Mr. Kha, by virtue of meeting the criteria of the CUA, was in legal possession of the marijuana. The City argued that the federal Controlled Substance Act [CSA], prohibiting marijuana possession, nevertheless, justified destruction of Mr. Kha¢s property legally held under the state law. But judicial enforcement of the CSA is precluded because possession of medical marijuana does not constitute an offense under both federal and state laws. (People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433 [state courts have no authority to enforce federal statutes].) The court also rejected the claim that the supremacy clause [Article VI of the U.S. Constitution] allowed the court to find the federal drug laws preempted state law insofar as allowing return of medical marijuana to qualified users. There is an assumption against preemption and in enacting the CSA, Congress made it clear that it did not intend to preempt the states on the issue of drug regulation. (Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 251.) Although the court found against preemption, it made it clear that the CUA does not exempt medical marijuana possession from federal prosecution. Finally, the court found that under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, due process does not permit police to retain a person¢s legally possessed property and Mr. Kha¢s property was ordered returned to him. In light of the finding that federal law does not control in this case, the court did not reach the argument that destruction of Mr. Kha¢s marijuana would violate the Tenth Amendment which reserves residual powers of the federal government to the states.

Woman pleads guilty to drunk-driving deaths

P-I STAFF

A 20-year-old Jefferson County woman pleaded guilty Tuesday to two counts of involuntary manslaughter in U.S. District Court in Tacoma.

Sela Kalama admitted that in the hours before crashing her car, she had numerous bottles of beer at a party on the Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Reservation, just outside Port Angeles, in Clallam County.

Under sentencing guidelines, Kalama could face up to 36 months in prison. Sentencing is set for March 7. Kalama lives in Queets, near the western edge of the Olympic National Park.

According to reports, Kalama had six teenage passengers in her car March 18 when she drove into the Elwha River at 3 a.m. Four of her passengers escaped, but two passengers, Vanna Francis, 16, and Ronnie Scroggins, 15, were not able to get out of the car and drowned.

Witnesses also said Kalama was texting on her cell phone when the accident happened. She sent one text message about 90 minutes before the car went in the water stating "I'm drunk."

The case was investigated by the FBI, the Clallam County Sheriff's Office and the Lower Elwha Tribal Police.

Judge's "shocking" words at meeting lead to censure

By Stephanie Rice
The (Vancouver, Wash.) Columbian

Clark County Superior Court Judge John Wulle has been censured for "demeaning, offensive and shocking" behavior at a training conference last year.

Wulle, 57, appeared before the state Commission on Judicial Conduct on Friday in SeaTac.

The judge and seven other people from Clark County, including a deputy prosecuting attorney, a juvenile probation officer and a defense attorney, attended "Planning Your Juvenile Drug Court," July 24 to 28, 2006, in Los Angeles.

According to a nine-page document posted on the commission's Web site, Wulle used profanity, made an obscene gesture in response to a request to lower his voice, and referred to Clark County's group facilitator as "the black gay guy" while at the Los Angeles event. Also, after the facilitator said, "Clark County gets a star" for finishing an assignment, Wulle said, "I don't need a star. I'm not a Jew."

Several witnesses said Wulle smelled of alcohol, according to the censure order.

"[Wulle] denies consuming alcohol at any time during the conference," the order reads. "He recalls suffering from a cold and taking cough syrup, and suggests the odor from the cough syrup may have been misconstrued as an odor of alcohol."

For sanctions, Wulle must take 10 hours of judicial-ethics courses and obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation. If a counselor recommends treatment, then the counselor must submit progress reports to the commission every six months.

Wulle must also take seven hours of racial, religious, sexual-orientation and diversity training.

A censure is the most severe disciplinary action the commission issues, short of asking the state Supreme Court to suspend or remove a judge. Wulle is the first Clark County Superior Court judge to be censured, and only the second local Superior Court judge to be disciplined.

In 1995 a judge was "admonished," the lowest form of discipline, for providing written testimony on behalf of a friend in a child-visitation case in another county. Judges are not supposed to give such opinions without a subpoena.

Wulle said Friday he will use the incident as a learning experience.

"It was never my intent to offend anyone, and I apologize to anyone who was offended," he said.

When Wulle first responded to the allegations in February, he denied impropriety. He wrote to the commission that he has learned "that I cannot step out of my role as a judge even when I'm 2,000 miles away."

But Wulle was sent to the conference in the first place because of his role, the commission noted.

"Because of the special position judges hold in society — as standard bearers of fairness and impartiality — a judge's conduct of personal behavior must, at all times, be above reproach," the commission wrote.

"[Wulle's] actions not only reflected poorly on himself, but also on his fellow team members, his court, Clark County and the state of Washington," the commission wrote. "[Wulle's] inappropriate behavior significantly undermined the team's respect for him. Witnesses at the conference variously described his actions as embarrassing, demeaning, offensive and shocking. Several team members discussed [Wulle's] problematic behavior with their colleagues and supervisors — further eroding public regard for him and the judiciary."

The commission said Wulle's conduct "appears to have been an aberration" and that witnesses do not think Wulle is racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic.

Wulle's reputation is "generally that of a thoughtful jurist," the commission wrote.

But the commission said it censured Wulle, as opposed to a less-severe sanction, partly because of his attitude.

Wulle has demonstrated a lack of personal insight, had never apologized and, when confronted by witnesses or other judges who heard about his behavior, has been "dismissive" of their concerns, the commission wrote.

Wulle, a former assistant attorney general, was appointed by Clark County commissioners to the District Court bench in 1997.

In 2000, he was elected to an open seat on the Superior Court bench. He will be up for re-election next year.

Clark County did start a juvenile drug court this year, but after presiding Superior Court Judge Robert Harris learned about Wulle's behavior at the conference he reassigned the project to Judge James Rulli.

Harris was out of town Friday, but Judge Barbara Johnson, the second-most senior member of the bench, said the censure order is taken seriously.

"We hope that the appropriate steps are taken to learn from it and move on," she said.

Justices: Judges can slash crack sentences

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal judges have the discretion to give "reasonably" shorter prison terms for crack-cocaine crimes to reduce the disparity with crimes involving cocaine powder.

The 7-2 ruling represents a victory for lawyers who argued that crack-cocaine offenders were unfairly targeted under U.S. sentencing guidelines.

Current federal penalties for selling 5 grams of crack cocaine can warrant the same prison sentence as dealing 500 grams of the powdered variety.

The Supreme Court case centered around Derrick Kimbrough of Norfolk, Virginia, who according to court records, pleaded guilty to distributing more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. Federal sentencing guidelines called for 19 to 22.5 years behind bars. But Judge Raymond Jackson instead gave the defendant a 15-year sentence, calling the case "another example of how crack-cocaine guidelines are driving the offense level to a point higher than is necessary to do justice."

A federal appeals court overturned the case and sent it to a higher court, saying Jackson's discretion was "unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses."

Said Kimbrough's attorney, Michael Nachmanoff in October, "A sentence of 19 years for a man with no felony convictions who served his country honorably, who had never spent a night in jail ... that was ridiculous."

Kimbrough is a veteran of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and is African-American.

African-Americans were nearly 82 percent of defendants sentenced in federal court for dealing crack, but only 27 percent of those sentenced for dealing powder cocaine, according to 2006 federal statistics. Each year, federal courts handle about 11,000 cocaine sentences, which are roughly evenly divided between crack and cocaine cases.

The issue long has been a source of contention between government prosecutors and civil rights advocates, who argue crack dealers are often targeted for longer prison terms because that drug is prevalent in urban and minority communities, while the powdered version is more commonly associated with higher-income users.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took a practical approach, saying it is important to preserve judicial discretion, while ensuring most sentences remain within federal guidelines established two decades ago to ensure a measure of uniformity.

Ginsburg said a federal judge was right to give a crack offender a lesser prison term than the guidelines called for, since federal law "mandates only maximum and minimum sentences," she wrote. "It says nothing about appropriate sentences within those statutory guidelines."

Ginsburg noted the trial judge "honed in on the particular circumstances of Kimbrough's case and accorded weight to" reports by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that show "the crack/powder disparity yields unjustifiably harsh sentences for crack offenders."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in the Kimbrough case. Thomas said it will now be up to courts "to assume the legislative role of devising a new sentencing scheme," something Congress never intended.

The government had no immediate reaction to the high court's ruling.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission -- an independent federal agency that advises all three branches of government on sentences -- recently cut the gap in recommended prison time for crack-cocaine offenses. The guidelines took effect November 1 after Congress decided not to overturn the changes.

The commission is scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether to make those guidelines retroactive for prisoners convicted in the past of crack dealing.

Almost 20,000 inmates could be eligible for shorter sentences under the proposed changes.

Congress recently has introduced at least four bills that would reduce the current disparity in cocaine sentences. One widely circulated proposal led by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, would revise the cocaine ratio downward to 20-to-1. That ratio is also supported by the Sentencing Commission.

Harsher sentences for crack offenses came after a social epidemic of crack cocaine began destroying many urban areas in the 1980s.

"The crack-cocaine guidelines were put in place because crack was fueling crime waves across the country, in particular with respect to street violence," said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami who comments on legal matters for CNN. "And it is clear that crack cocaine and white powder cocaine had a very different impact in terms of not only the lives of the users but the impact on the community."

The case is Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330)