Law-enforcement officers who smell marijuana coming from a vehicle can't arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
By Leslie Anne Jones
Seattle Times staff reporter
Law-enforcement officers who detect the odor of marijuana from a vehicle can't arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn't enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search, the court determined, it doesn't warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.
Defense attorneys on Thursday called it a right-to-privacy victory. Law-enforcement officers say it won't greatly affect the way they make arrests.
The ruling stems from a traffic stop in April 2006 in Skagit County.
Jeremy Grande was riding in a car driven by Lacee Hurley when they were pulled over by State Patrol Trooper Brent Hanger, court documents said. Hanger stopped the car for windows too darkly tinted, he testified.
Hanger said he smelled pot in the car, so he arrested and handcuffed Grande and Hurley, court documents said.
A search of Grande revealed a glass pipe with marijuana in his pocket, according to court papers. Hanger searched the car and found a joint in an ashtray, which Hurley said belonged to her, court documents said. Both were charged with marijuana possession. Grande was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, court documents said.
The case initially came before the Skagit County District Court, which found there was no probable cause for Grande's arrest. But the state appealed the ruling and the county's Superior Court reversed the order, court documents said. The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Summing up the state Supreme Court's decision, Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote: "Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual." In the case of the Skagit County traffic stop, the court found the mere presence of the odor of marijuana was not enough probable cause to warrant the arrest of Grande.
Attorney David Zuckerman, who brought the case before the state Supreme Court, said the problem is that arresting someone based solely on the odor of marijuana can affect innocents.
"The smell of marijuana smoke can linger for weeks," Zuckerman said. "You could have a perfectly innocent citizen get into a car where somebody smoked marijuana at some point ... and an officer can just pull you out of a car and book you based on that."
Zuckerman said Grande was delighted with the decision. (more)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Medical Marijuana: Employment Rights Bill Passes California Assembly
A medical marijuana employment rights bill that would protect California patients from being fired because their medication is marijuana passed the California Assembly Wednesday. Introduced by leading legislative medical marijuana defender Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), and cosponsored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), the bill, AB 2279, would overturn a January California Supreme Court decision, Ross v. Raging Wire.
In that case, the state Supreme Court upheld the ability of employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana even if they are patients. That decision left the state's estimated 150,000 registered medical marijuana patients facing renewed job insecurity.
AB 2279 would undo that ruling. It would "declare it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person's status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, or a positive drug test for marijuana, except as specified."
The bill also provides authorization for those who have been discriminated against by employers because of their medical marijuana use to sue for damages, seek injunctions and other appropriate relief. It would not prevent an employer from firing an employee who is impaired on the job because of medical marijuana use.
"AB 2279 is not about being under the influence while at work. That's against the law, and will remain so," said Leno, the bill's author. "It's about allowing patients who are able to work safely and who use their doctor-recommended medication in the privacy of their own homes, to not be arbitrarily fired from their jobs. The voters who supported Proposition 215 did not intend for medical marijuana patients to be forced into unemployment in order to benefit from their medicine," Leno continued.
"The California Assembly has acted to protect the right of patients to work and be productive members of society," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the medical marijuana advocacy group that argued the case before the Court and is now a supporter of the bill. "The state Senate now has the important task of passing this bill with the aim to protect the jobs of thousands of Californians with serious illnesses such as
cancer and HIV/AIDS."
"It's important that we not allow employment discrimination in California," said Gary Ross, the former plaintiff in Ross v. Raging Wire. "If the Court is going to ignore the need for protection, then it's up to the legislature to ensure that productive workers like me are free from discrimination."
The bill has broad support from labor, business, civil rights, and medical groups. It now heads to the state Senate.
(more)
In that case, the state Supreme Court upheld the ability of employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana even if they are patients. That decision left the state's estimated 150,000 registered medical marijuana patients facing renewed job insecurity.
AB 2279 would undo that ruling. It would "declare it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person's status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, or a positive drug test for marijuana, except as specified."
The bill also provides authorization for those who have been discriminated against by employers because of their medical marijuana use to sue for damages, seek injunctions and other appropriate relief. It would not prevent an employer from firing an employee who is impaired on the job because of medical marijuana use.
"AB 2279 is not about being under the influence while at work. That's against the law, and will remain so," said Leno, the bill's author. "It's about allowing patients who are able to work safely and who use their doctor-recommended medication in the privacy of their own homes, to not be arbitrarily fired from their jobs. The voters who supported Proposition 215 did not intend for medical marijuana patients to be forced into unemployment in order to benefit from their medicine," Leno continued.
"The California Assembly has acted to protect the right of patients to work and be productive members of society," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the medical marijuana advocacy group that argued the case before the Court and is now a supporter of the bill. "The state Senate now has the important task of passing this bill with the aim to protect the jobs of thousands of Californians with serious illnesses such as
cancer and HIV/AIDS."
"It's important that we not allow employment discrimination in California," said Gary Ross, the former plaintiff in Ross v. Raging Wire. "If the Court is going to ignore the need for protection, then it's up to the legislature to ensure that productive workers like me are free from discrimination."
The bill has broad support from labor, business, civil rights, and medical groups. It now heads to the state Senate.
(more)
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Editorial: Dying over drug politics
Past time to resolve conflict
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The conflict over state and federal medical marijuana laws must be resolved.
California and 12 other states now allow the use of medical marijuana, yet the federal government does not.
That means sick people with authorization from their doctors to use marijuana are still in legal jeopardy, that California employers can fire workers who use marijuana recommended by a physician, and that people in need of an organ transplant can be barred from organ-transplant waiting lists.
Too bad there is not a common-sense transplant.
The Star wrote last month about a Seattle man, Timothy Garon, denied a spot on an organ-transplant list because he had used medical marijuana, authorized by his physician, for symptoms related to Hepatitis C.
The University of Washington Medical Center, which has strict rules about organ recipients' drug use, denied Mr. Garon a shot at a new liver, in part, because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
He died May 1.
Now, the University of Washington Medical Center is using the same sorry reason to deny a spot on its organ-transplant list to Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Seattle, according to a May 19 article in The Los Angeles Times.
The Times reported Mr. Simchen, a diabetic with failing kidneys and pancreas, was also denied a spot in Seattle's Virginia Mason Hospital transplant program because of his use of medical marijuana.
Mr. Simchen cannot afford to wait for Congress to get around to resolving the state-federal law conflict. It has already been three years since the U.S. Supreme Court recommended that Congress act.
However, medical centers do not have to base life-and-death decisions on the federal government's inane, outdated 1970s drug-war policies.
There is no reason why, in 2008, marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it is deemed to have no medical use, when drugs such as cocaine and morphine are listed as Schedule 2 drugs, available by prescription.
Medical-marijuana use, authorized by a physician, should never be a reason for denying anyone a shot at receiving a life-saving organ transplant. Indeed, people in need of organ transplants are some of the most-likely people to benefit from medical marijuana.
We understand there might be political risks to a member of Congress who takes this on. What we don't understand is why any physician would put politics before patients.
more
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The conflict over state and federal medical marijuana laws must be resolved.
California and 12 other states now allow the use of medical marijuana, yet the federal government does not.
That means sick people with authorization from their doctors to use marijuana are still in legal jeopardy, that California employers can fire workers who use marijuana recommended by a physician, and that people in need of an organ transplant can be barred from organ-transplant waiting lists.
Too bad there is not a common-sense transplant.
The Star wrote last month about a Seattle man, Timothy Garon, denied a spot on an organ-transplant list because he had used medical marijuana, authorized by his physician, for symptoms related to Hepatitis C.
The University of Washington Medical Center, which has strict rules about organ recipients' drug use, denied Mr. Garon a shot at a new liver, in part, because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
He died May 1.
Now, the University of Washington Medical Center is using the same sorry reason to deny a spot on its organ-transplant list to Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Seattle, according to a May 19 article in The Los Angeles Times.
The Times reported Mr. Simchen, a diabetic with failing kidneys and pancreas, was also denied a spot in Seattle's Virginia Mason Hospital transplant program because of his use of medical marijuana.
Mr. Simchen cannot afford to wait for Congress to get around to resolving the state-federal law conflict. It has already been three years since the U.S. Supreme Court recommended that Congress act.
However, medical centers do not have to base life-and-death decisions on the federal government's inane, outdated 1970s drug-war policies.
There is no reason why, in 2008, marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it is deemed to have no medical use, when drugs such as cocaine and morphine are listed as Schedule 2 drugs, available by prescription.
Medical-marijuana use, authorized by a physician, should never be a reason for denying anyone a shot at receiving a life-saving organ transplant. Indeed, people in need of organ transplants are some of the most-likely people to benefit from medical marijuana.
We understand there might be political risks to a member of Congress who takes this on. What we don't understand is why any physician would put politics before patients.
more
Los Angeles Times: marijuana and organ transplants don't mix
Patients who have used doctor-prescribed pot are being turned away from
hospital transplant programs.
By Stuart Glascock
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2008
SEATTLE — Should using doctor-prescribed marijuana be a deal-breaker for
someone needing an organ transplant? It is not a theoretical question but a
pressing and emotional one confronting hospitals and patients in states
where medical use of marijuana is legal.
This month, Timothy Garon, 56, a Seattle musician, died after being turned
down for a liver transplant. He was rejected partly because he had used
medical marijuana.
Now, a second critically ill patient in Washington state says he has been
denied a spot in two organ transplant programs because he uses
doctor-prescribed marijuana.
Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Fife, a town south of Seattle, is a diabetic whose
kidneys and pancreas have failed.
He said he was removed from the transplant program at Virginia Mason
Hospital in Seattle because he admitted using medical marijuana. Later, he
said, University of Washington Medical Center transplant officials refused
to accept him because of the medical marijuana issue.
"I'm just so discouraged," said the community college student, who wants to
be a teacher. "I've lost all remnants of hope. I look at my life right now
as if it is a prison term. I just have to serve each day."
The lawyer who represented Garon has taken on Simchen's case.
Douglas Hiatt argues that his clients are the victims of a loosely defined
transplant policy, one not based on science.
"They are really killing people over this," he said. (more)
hospital transplant programs.
By Stuart Glascock
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2008
SEATTLE — Should using doctor-prescribed marijuana be a deal-breaker for
someone needing an organ transplant? It is not a theoretical question but a
pressing and emotional one confronting hospitals and patients in states
where medical use of marijuana is legal.
This month, Timothy Garon, 56, a Seattle musician, died after being turned
down for a liver transplant. He was rejected partly because he had used
medical marijuana.
Now, a second critically ill patient in Washington state says he has been
denied a spot in two organ transplant programs because he uses
doctor-prescribed marijuana.
Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Fife, a town south of Seattle, is a diabetic whose
kidneys and pancreas have failed.
He said he was removed from the transplant program at Virginia Mason
Hospital in Seattle because he admitted using medical marijuana. Later, he
said, University of Washington Medical Center transplant officials refused
to accept him because of the medical marijuana issue.
"I'm just so discouraged," said the community college student, who wants to
be a teacher. "I've lost all remnants of hope. I look at my life right now
as if it is a prison term. I just have to serve each day."
The lawyer who represented Garon has taken on Simchen's case.
Douglas Hiatt argues that his clients are the victims of a loosely defined
transplant policy, one not based on science.
"They are really killing people over this," he said. (more)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
