-------------------------------------------------------------------
House OKs statewide drunken-driving car forfeiture measure (The Associated
Press says the Oregon House of Representatives voted 32-16 Tuesday for HB
3304, which now goes to the Senate. Rep. Bill Witt, R-Portland, opposed the
bill because people charged with driving drunk but not necessarily convicted
could lose their cars. And Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said he feared the
bill could result in a hodgepodge of forfeiture laws around the state because
local governments wouldn't be bound by the state guidelines.)
Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Wed, June 02 1999
Source: The Associated Press (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Associated Press
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: no byline
House OKS statewide drunken-driving car forfeiture measure
SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Motorists charged twice with drunken driving could lose
their cars under a bill narrowly passed by the House.
The measure's sponsor, Rep. Judy Uherbelau, D-Ashland, said the aim of the
measure is to establish a statewide framework on auto forfeitures for
drunken driving.
Uherbelau said while some cities have ordinances permitting forfeitures in
drunken-driving cases, officials of other local governments and the State
Police are reluctant to adopt forfeiture policies without more authority.
"Forfeiture is not mandatory," she said, adding that the measure sets
minimum standards and is not intended to interfere with current local
ordinances.
But Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said he feared the bill could result in
a hodgepodge of forfeiture laws around the state because local governments
wouldn't be bound by the state guidelines.
"It seems only appropriate for Oregonians to travel on all highways and know
what will apply to them." he said.
Rep. Bill Witt, R-Portland, opposed the bill on grounds that people charged
with driving drunk but not necessarily convicted could lose their cars.
Uherbelau said the civil forfeiture system would have to become a more
complex criminal procedure if it was linked to convictions because drunken
driving carries criminal penalties.
A non-criminal process can have serious consequences, Witt said.
"Civil forfeiture should not be taken lightly," Witt said, adding that
someone forced to relinquish a car could lose a vehicle of considerable
value as well as essential transportation.
Rep. Rob Patridge, R-Medford, argued that the measure isn't necessary
because current laws give local governments enough leeway to set up auto
forfeiture processes in drunken-driving cases.
The bill, HB3304, passed 32-16 on Tuesday and now goes to the Senate. It
requires 31 votes to pass a bill in the House.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate backs bills to get medical marijuana program going (The Associated
Press says two bills approved Wednesday by the California Senate would
require the state to develop a plan to distribute marijuana to people who
have a doctor's recommendation to use it; and allocate $1 million for the
first part of a three-year study to determine whether marijuana is a safe,
therapeutic drug. Sponsored by Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, the
bills are similar to measures the senate passed last year but which died in
the assembly.)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:01:41 EDT
Originator: friends@freecannabis.org
Sender: friends@freecannabis.org
From: Tim Perkins (tperkinsj@worldnet.att.net)
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: Calif. Senate Backs Two Medical Marijuana Bills
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:35:17 -0700
From: Steve Kubby (steve@kubby.org)
(Note: It saddens me that the best our legislators can do is pretend to
implement Prop. 215 while really attempting to appease law enforcement.
Real medical marijuana bills would defend the rights of patients against
illegal arrests and seizures. Real efforts to enforce our new law would
focus on punishing those who abuse the medical and Constitutional rights of
sick and dying people. Real efforts to enact 215 would accept that the IOM
million dollar study has already demonstrated that marijuana is a safe and
therapeutic drug. Still, I suppose we should be grateful for a few token
bones when thrown our way. - steve)
***
Wednesday, June 2, 1999
Senate backs bills to get medical marijuana program going
SACRAMENTO (AP) -- Two bills designed to jump-start California's embattled
medical marijuana program have won Senate approval.
One measure, sent to the Assembly 21-12 Wednesday, would require the state
to develop a plan to distribute marijuana to people who have a doctor's
recommendation to use it.
The other, approved 27-7, would allocate $1 million for the first part of a
three-year study to determine whether marijuana is a safe, therapeutic drug.
Both bills are by Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, and similar to
measures that passed the Senate last year but died in the Assembly.
California voters approved a ballot measure in 1996 that let people with
AIDS, cancer and other diseases use marijuana as recommended by a doctor to
ease pain or nausea.
Medical marijuana distribution centers popped up across the state in open
defiance of federal law, which still classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.
Many of the centers were shut down by federal agents and then-state Attorney
General Dan Lungren.
Supporters of the research bill say there won't be any change in federal law
until more studies are done to determine if marijuana use is beneficial.
Several Republicans joined Democrats in backing the research bill.
One of them, Sen. Maurice Johannessen, R-Redding, said it was "high time
that we lay aside that paranoia" about marijuana and conduct the study.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob DeArkland's cannabis returned by police (California medical-marijuana
patient/activist Bob Ames says the Placer County sheriff's department today
returned some growing equipment and a small amount of medicine, eight months
after taking them. They made their point, though - DeArkland won't grow again
until local prohibition agents tell him how many plants is too many.)
Subject: DPFCA: Bob DeArkland Cannabis returned by police
To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: bob@rush.com (Bob Ames)
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Greetings,
Today, the placer county sheriff's department returned medical cannabis
to Bob DeArkland. Several patients were on hand to support Bob, including
Carrie Becker, Ryan Landers, and Bob Ames.
Sheriffs made everyone wait for over an hour after the scheduled
appointment time. Ryan Landers was spotted by a reporter medicating
in front of the Sheriff's Department. The reporter ran over and asked
for permission to photograph Ryan, who explained that since we had to
wait so long, he needed to medicate, and he's permitted to do so anyway
by California Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5.
Sheriffs returned some growing equipment and a small amount of cannabis,
which appeared better than might be expected after spending 8 months
in police custody. Bob indicated he would probably throw away the
dead cannabis.
Bob said he wouldn't grow again until Police inform him how many plants
he can grow without risking arrest.
Bob's $10 Million lawsuit was rejected for bogus reasons, with
the county claiming that the lawsuit hadn't been filed on time.
***
My very own trial on medical cannabis charges is presently scheduled for
June 22, 1999. Assuming it isn't postponed again, I hope to see you here!
Bob Ames
bob@rush.com
916-991-0585
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical pot case against journalist dropped (The San Francisco Bay Guardian
notes the state of California has dropped charges against Chico journalist
and medical-marijuana patient Pete Brady. Meanwhile, the federal government
successfully prosecuted B.E. Smith for growing 87 marijuana plants at his
Trinity County home, despite his attempt to invoke Proposition 215.)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:04:10 EDT
Originator: friends@freecannabis.org
Sender: friends@freecannabis.org
From: Tim Perkins (tperkinsj@worldnet.att.net)
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: SF Bay Guardian: Medical pot case against journalist dropped
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:20:40 -0700
From: Steve Kubby (steve@kubby.org)
Source: SF Bay Guardian (CA)
Copyright: 1999 SF Bay Guardian
Pubdate: Sun, 2 June 1999
Website: http://www.sfbg.com/News/33/35/follow/index.html#3
Author: "Randall Lyman" (randall_lyman@sfbg.com)
Medical pot case against journalist dropped
The Butte County district attorney has dropped its case against Pete Brady.
The Chico journalist was charged with possession of marijuana despite being
a lawful medical marijuana user under California's 1996 Compassionate Use
Act, enacted by voters as Proposition 215 (see "Reefer Madness," 4/7/99).
"The District Attorney's Office is signaling its willingness to work
humanely with medical marijuana defendants," Brady, who represented himself
in court, told us. "We need a truce in this drug war, so people on all sides
of the issue can be compassionate with each other and work toward win-win
outcomes."
Brady was arrested in January after a four-agency task force, composed of
local and federal drug agents, observed him at the Lake Tahoe home of Steve
Kubby, the Libertarian Party's candidate for governor, whom Brady was
interviewing.
Kubby and his wife, Michelle - both medical marijuana users and activists
- are awaiting trial in Placer County on a total of 19 counts of possession,
cultivation, and distribution of marijuana. A court date has been set for
July 20.
In a setback for medical marijuana advocates, however, a federal district
court in Sacramento found B.E. Smith guilty May 21 of growing 87 marijuana
plants at his Trinity County home.
Although Smith says he was growing medical marijuana for himself and others,
Judge Garland Burrell Jr. refused to admit into the trial any testimony on
medical marijuana or the Compassionate Use Act, ruling that a state law had
no relevance to federal charges. Smith's was the first case brought against
a medical marijuana user under federal rather than state law.
The ruling provoked a tense moment during the trial. Actor Woody Harrelson,
an outspoken marijuana and hemp activist who testified for Smith, argued
with the judge and finally asked, "How do you sleep at night?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berkeley Pot Arrests Soar (A press release from California NORML says the
city of Berkeley's use of felony arrests for petty pot sales as a tool to rid
city sidewalks of street people almost tripled the number of marijuana
arrests there last year, from 38 to 109. A 1979 ordinance directs police to
make pot enforcement their "lowest priority.")
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:37:25 -0700
To: dpfca@drugsense.org
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Subject: DPFCA: Berkeley Pot Arrests Soar!
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
California NORML Press Release - June 2, 1999
BERKELEY MARIJUANA ARRESTS SOAR
Crackdown on Street Dealers Fuels Felony Cases
Berkeley's campaign to rid city sidewalks of street people produced
a dramatic doubling in the number of marijuana arrests last year. Police
statistics show nearly a threefold increase in felony pot arrests in the
wake of a city crackdown on petty pot dealers in the Telegraph Ave. area.
Critics complain that the crackdown violates Berkeley's 1979 marijuana
ordinance, which orders police to make pot enforcement "lowest priority."
"It's one thing to try to clean up the streets; it's another thing to do so
with felony arrests." argues California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer,
a nearby resident. Unlike other forms of disorderly conduct, such as
prostitution or public drunkenness, petty pot sales are a mandatory felony
under state law. In addition to imprisonment, offenses are punishable by loss
of welfare benefits and eligibility for student loans, plus possible "Three
Strikes" enhancements.
The war on pot has fueled a record 2,000% increase in marijuana prisoners in
California over the past two decades, yet the level of pot use has been
relatively constant. California NORML argues that marijuana prohibition is a
waste of taxpayers' money, and that the best solution is to legalize sales in
coffee houses. Short of such a major shift, NORML proposes that minor pot
offenses be downgraded from felonies to misdemeanors to reduce enforcement
costs.
MARIJUANA ARRESTS - BERKELEY CA
Jul-Dec 97 Jan-Jun 98 Jul-Dec 98
Felony Total 38 86 109
Misdemeanor Total 69 80 88
Total 107 166 197
Source: Berkeley Police Dept, Semi-Annual Report on Marijuana Enforcement
***
Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml@igc.apc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pot Advocate Sows Seed of Doubt (The San Francisco Chronicle notes the U.S.
Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed yesterday that the indictment of
Hawaiian hemp activist Ernest Anderson for "promoting a detrimental drug -
marijuana," by purchasing legal, sterilized hemp seed, may have been
politically motivated and based on evidence that the prosecutor knew was
false. The San Francisco court overturned the U.S. District Court in Hawaii,
ruling that a lawsuit filed by Anderson should go to trial. At issue is
whether Hawaii County should pay damages for violating Anderson's free speech
rights by offering to dismiss charges if he would quit writing letters to
local newspapers. Plus an e-mail with more details about the case from
Anderson's original co-defendant, Roger Christie.)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 10:06:12 -0500
From: "Frank S. World" (compassion23@geocities.com)
Organization: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7417/
To: DPFCA (dpfca@drugsense.org)
Subject: DPFCA: US HI SFC: Pot Advocate Sows Seed of Doubt
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Wednesday, June 2, 1999
(c)1999 San Francisco Chronicle
POT ADVOCATE SOWS SEED OF DOUBT
Appeals court grants trial -- indictment may have violated free-speech right
Bill Wallace, Chronicle Staff Writer
On the surface, the Hawaiian hemp bust looked like real chicken feed: In
1991, a grand jury on Hawaii's big island indicted Ernest Anderson for
possessing 25 pounds of birdseed that contained sterilized hemp. The grand
jury charged Anderson with promoting a detrimental drug - marijuana.
The charges were eventually dismissed, however, and yesterday the U.S. Court
of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the indictment may have violated
Anderson's constitutional rights.
In a 20-page decision, appeals Judges Susan Graber, John Noonan and Jerome
Farris ruled that the county prosecutor who sought the original indictment
may have known that a deputy in his office had submitted falsified evidence
in support of the charges, and had offered to dismiss the case if Anderson,
an advocate of legalizing marijuana, would stop writing letters about the
case to local newspapers.
The judges ruled that a lawsuit filed by Anderson should go to trial in
order to determine whether the government in Hawaii County is liable for
cash damages for violating Anderson's constitutionally protected right to
free speech.
According to the court's opinion, Anderson and another marijuana advocate,
Roger Christie, were indicted by a Hawaii County grand jury in 1991 for
purchasing 25 pounds of sterilized hemp seed.
Nobody else in the island's history had ever been charged with buying
sterilized hemp seed, a material that is often mixed with other vegetable
seeds and used as bird and hamster feed, and which is available commercially
in Hawaii from such public sources as Wal-Mart.
However, Christie and Anderson were active with the Hawaii Hemp Council, an
organization that advocates legalizing growing industrial hemp. Local
authorities saw their purchase of the material as part of their campaign to
legalize industrial hemp.
When somebody known as a potential marijuana grower buys 25 pounds of hemp
seed, the purchase ``is very vocally, very outwardly advocating the
legalization of marijuana,'' Deputy Prosecutor Kay Iopa told jurors when the
case came to trial in 1992.
To secure the indictment, the court opinion says, Iopa produced falsified
evidence that seeds seized from Christie and Anderson had germinated, when
they actually had not.
Later, as Anderson and Christie were awaiting trial, Iopa offered to drop
the charges against them if they would agree to stop writing letters about
the case to local newspapers.
Charges against Christie were dismissed in October 1995. Last year, the
charges against Anderson were dropped after the jury hearing the case
deadlocked.
Meanwhile, Anderson and Christie filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court
in Hawaii, claiming that Iopa and her boss, County Prosecutor Jay Kimura,
had violated their free speech rights.
In 1997, the U.S. District Court in Hawaii awarded a summary judgment to the
county and prosecutors, in effect dismissing the lawsuit. In yesterday's
ruling, the appeals court said the lower court's ruling against Christie had
been correct, but that Anderson had raised questions about Kimura's role in
the prosecution that made it necessary to take the case to trial.
(c) 1999 San Francisco Chronicle Page A17
***
From: CLaw7MAn@webtv.net (Mike Steindel)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: cp@telelists.com
Subject: [cp] Cannabbis Advocate Sows Seed of Doubt
Message From: pakaloha@gte.net (Roger Christie) Date: Thu, Jun 3, 1999
Re: "Cannabis Advocate Sows Seed of Doubt"
Hello Mike, and other friends of cannabis freedom,
Thanks for sending me the email from Kubby about our Hawai'i hempseed
'caper'. Yes, it's true! I have seen about 8 notices of this terrific
decision on the net today, including marijuananews.com. Great!
I (Roger) was arrested in 1991 when I heard that my friend Aaron was at
the police station in Hilo over the fed-xed box of 25 pounds of STERILE
hemp birdseed.
Legal, common, hemp bird seed. (Aaron was a target of the police for
some years, and this lame excuse of an arrest was their chance to GET
him. Ha-ha!) Into the station I went with the purchase order for the
seeds from a large feed company in Fargo, receipts, etc. When they heard
that Aaron and I were 'partners' in the Hawaii Hemp Council, to whom the
shipment was addressed, they arrested me, too!
What they didn't know was that our shipment of 500 pounds of hempseed
came right through! We even got the delivery on video.
The sterile seeds did NOT germinate when the police tried to grow them.
Then they did NOT germinate again. For the third test someone (police)
put fresh, local high-potency cannabis seeds into the mix, and wonder-of
wonders, they GREW! (At 'discovery' we noticed the VERY different seeds
in the evidence.) Plot thickens.
Even thicker, the (married) detective and the (married) woman prosecutor
were having an affair with each other at the time. (Pillow talk?) An
anonymous call to me revealed THAT little matter, and on the witness
stand the detective admitted as much, one second before the prosecutor
shot-up out of her chair shouting, "OBJECTION!!!" Too late. :-)
Of course the seeds were a further demonstration of the value of
cannabis in our lives, muddying the law of cannabis prohibition. We were
kind-of thrilled to have the arrest. The publicity, the platform, the
'standing', and the potential for a lawsuit against the county in
federal court, etc.
I was under indictment for 6 years. YEARS! For "conspiracy to obey the
law", as Chris Conrad put it. Aaron was under indictment for 7 years.
Being practicing metaphysicians we had a pretty great time of most of
it. Although we lost the momentum to develope a hempseed food business
(We were some of the very FIRST in the modern day to be into it as
nutrition.) we kept our humor going and kept our advocacy going.
Obviously hemp HAS come a long way, baby, since 1991.
In our small way we helped, although we had wanted to help while
producing hempseed bagels, hempseed carrot cakes, etc.
{By the way, Aaron and I have not only the same birthday, June 15th, but
we are 12 years apart, making us the SAME sign in the 12-year cycle
Chinese calendar. We are "gemini-oxen". Aaron is going to be 62, and I
will be 50 this June 15th. We are definitely on a similar 'wavelength'
and enjoy each other's company. We own land here on the Big Island 4
lots apart from each other.}
The federal appeals court judges have been great to us now 3 times! This
decision being the very best and most definitive. Now it's BACK to jury
trial in Honolulu for Aaron. I was EX-cluded from the case in this
decision, although I am very much a part of the entire action.
What else to say? Any further questions, just ask away.
All the best to you and yours,
Roger Christie
(808) 965-7008
P.S. This June 15th is the grand opening of my new cannabis hemp center
and store on the Big Island. You are invited! :-)
P.P.S. Would you please forward this email to the cp list. I am out of
memory due to email overload. Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Talks Of Son's Alleged Molestation (UPI says syndicated radio talk show
host Art Bell's mysterious but temporary departure from the airwaves last
year was due to his son being kidnapped and sexually molested by a gay,
HIV-positive substitute teacher at his school in Nye County, Nevada. Bell
said his 16-year-old son, Arthur, was heavily plied with alcohol and
marijuana by Brian Eugene Lepley, who bound the boy in chains, took him to
Tecopa Hot Springs, Calif., and forced him to perform sex acts. Lepley was
convicted and is serving a life sentence for the assault. The boy told
authorities he never would have been lured into such a position if it weren't
for the drugs.)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:37:14 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NV: WIRE: Bell Talks Of Son's Alleged Molestation
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: EWCHIEF
Pubdate: Wed, 02 Jun 1999
Source: United Press International
Copyright: 1999 United Press International
Author: SHELLEY M. JOHNSON
BELL TALKS OF SON'S ALLEGED MOLESTATION
PAHRUMP, Nev., June 2 (UPI) - Syndicated radio talk show host Art Bell
said on his program that his teenaged son was allegedly molested by a
gay teacher who is HIV-positive.
An amended lawsuit was filed Friday against the Nye County, Nev.,
school district and the former substitute teacher. It seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.
The lawsuit was previously filed last November listing the boy's
parents as ``John and Jane Doe.'' Bell was forced to go public after a
Las Vegas judge threatened to dismiss the case.
Bell said on his show that he has been living a ``personal hell.'' He
said the alleged incident was the primary reason he abruptly left the
airwaves for several weeks last year.
Bell said he was further prompted by allegations made on two other
radio talk shows that he himself was a child molester and convicted
pornographer.
Bell said ``as a broadcaster, you don't allow this kind of thing to be
said on the air unless you can damn well prove it's true. And there is
no word of truth to it.''
Two defamation lawsuits have been filed in Davidson County, Tenn., and
Los Angeles County, Calif., for the alleged broadcasts.
Bell said his teenaged son Arthur was heavily plied with alcohol and
marijuana by substitute teacher Brian Eugene Lepley, 34, on May 16,
1997. The boy was 16 at the time. Bell's son was bound in chains and
taken to Tecopa Hot Springs, Calif., and forced to perform sex acts on
Lepley.
Bell said the teacher never informed the boy he had tested positive
for HIV. Lepley was convicted and is serving a life sentence for the
assault.
The boy told authorities he would never have been lured into such a
position if it weren't for the drugs.
Bell said his son began to give away all of his belongings and often
discussed that his life didn't matter anymore. Bell said his son
``didn't care if he lived or died.''
He said his son's attitude caused him to leave the airwaves ``to
reclaim what was left of my family's life.''
``I would like to tell you that my son is all right, but he is not,
and I pray he will be,'' Bell said.
***
[For what it's worth, CBS's "Extra" reported 6/5/99 that Bell's son is not
HIV positive, at least not yet. - ed.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals Court Throws Out Man's Conviction For Possession Of Marijuana
(According to the Associated Press, the Wisconsin 3rd District Court of
Appeals ruled today that Michael Wilson of Antigo was wrongly convicted
because a policeman unlawfully invaded a porch area immediately outside the
back door of his home before smelling burned marijuana.)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:21:23 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US WI: WIRE: Appeals Court Throws Out Man's Conviction For
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Frank S. World
Pubdate: Wed, 02 Jun 1999
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1999 Associated Press
Author: Robert Imrie
APPEALS COURT THROWS OUT MAN'S CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
WAUSAU, Wis. (AP) -- An Antigo man was wrongly convicted of possessing
marijuana because a policeman unlawfully invaded the man' s home and
then smelled the odor of burning marijuana, a state appeals court
ruled today.
At issue was whether a porch area immediately outside the back door of
Michael Wilson's home was an area in which he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
In overturning the conviction, the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled
the porch area was "intimately related to Wilson's home activities"
and thus constitutionally protected against unreasonable police searches.
The officer's "intrusion into this area . . . was without legal
authority and consequently his discovery of marijuana odor was without
legal justification," the three-judge panel said.
Antigo Policeman Kevin Ison went to Wilson's home March 8, 1997,
suspecting a juvenile girl wanted as a runaway might be at the home,
court records said.
Ison asked a child playing in the back yard if she had seen the wanted
girl. When the child said no, Ison asked the child if her parents were
home and then followed the child to the back door, where he detected
the smell of marijuana odor coming from the basement, court records
said.
When Wilson emerged from the basement, the officer asked about the
odor. Ison refused to allow Wilson to leave to go to the bathroom,
searched the suspect and found a plastic bag containing what appeared
to be marijuana, court records said.
Wilson was arrested and gave statements to police.
Langlade County Judge James Jansen rejected Wilson's argument that
Ison had invaded the privacy of Wilson' s home before obtaining the
harmful evidence.
Wilson then pleaded guilty to his second offense of possessing
marijuana, court records said. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail and
his driver's license was revoked for six months.
In ordering a new trial today, the appeals court said prosecutors
cannot use any evidence seized from Wilson because it was illegally
obtained nor can they use his confession because it was related to the
illegally seized evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug-Dealing Matriarch Receives 65-Year Prison Term (According to the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Circuit Judge Timothy G. Dugan tacked on a
25-year term of probation for Nancy K. Ezell, 47. Ezell is the ninth person
in the 10-defendant crack-cocaine case to go to prison, including one of her
daughters who was sent away for 45 years. Ezell had previously been involved
in a 1987 "John Doe investigation" into drug use among police officers.)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:37:32 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US WI: Drug-Dealing Matriarch Receives 65-Year Prison Term
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Frank S. World
Pubdate: Wed, 2 June 1999
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Copyright: 1999, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: 414-224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Forum: http://www.jsonline.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimate.cgi
Author: David Doege of the Journal Sentinel staff
DRUG-DEALING MATRIARCH RECEIVES 65-YEAR PRISON TERM
A woman who ran a large cocaine ring with her two sisters, a brother and
three daughters was sentenced Tuesday to 65 years in prison, to be followed
by 25 years of probation.
Nancy K. Ezell, long a notorious figure in local narcotics trafficking,
carefully called the shots from the background as others took the chances,
including a daughter who wound up with a 45-year prison term for acting as
the ring's lead negotiator.
After she was arrested, Ezell, convicted three previous times for drug
trafficking, insisted she had been used by her children.
But Circuit Judge Timothy G. Dugan agreed with a prosecutor that Ezell, 47,
was the ringleader.
"You were evil as far as the community is concerned because you were selling
for profit," Dugan told Ezell.
Ezell's sentencing came more than 10 months after she pleaded guilty to
seven drug trafficking counts and one count of receiving stolen property.
Her sentencing was delayed for months because she fired two attorneys,
underwent five angioplasties and open heart surgery and tried unsuccessfully
to withdraw her guilty plea.
"She's been afraid of this day for a long time," her attorney, Curt Rogers,
told Dugan.
Ezell, a controversial figure in a 1987 John Doe investigation into drug use
among police officers, was sentenced as the central figure in a crack
business that included a fencing operation for stolen goods. It came after a
four-month inquiry during which she and her relatives made a series of crack
and powder cocaine sales to undercover police officers.
At times, drug or stolen goods transactions were delayed or postponed
because her daughters could not waken a deep-sleeping Ezell to complete the
deals or arrange the narcotics deliveries, records indicate.
The criminal complaint says that for one of the many crack deals, Ezell's
3-year-old granddaughter accompanied her mother. During another deal,
Ezell's 12-year-old nephew looked on as cocaine was being poured onto a
scale. During the weighing, the nephew allegedly announced, "Some of this is
mine."
It wasn't until several weeks and several drug transactions into the sting
operation that undercover officers got to meet Ezell face to face. Before
that, they dealt with her sisters, daughters and acquaintances.
Ezell also eventually finalized the stolen goods transactions, expressing a
keen interest in hot televisions, videocassette recorders and video cameras.
Ezell is the ninth person in the 10-defendant case to go to prison.
Nicole Ezell, 25, received a 45-year prison term and another daughter,
Shelonda, 19, received a five-year term. A third daughter, Sheronda, also
19, still is being sought on an arrest warrant.
"I think the phrase that best sums up the defendant's character is 'user, "
Assistant District Attorney Patrick J. Kenney told Dugan on Tuesday. "She
uses people. She did not want to deal with anyone. That is why she used
other people."
Kenney noted that Ezell's former home in the 3700 block of N. 6th St. was
the target of seven search warrants dating to 1995.
"Every time the Police Department executed warrants it was difficult to make
a case because there was a large number of people present, including
children," Kenney said of the residence he termed "a notorious drug house.
Proving ownership of the drugs that were found was impossible."
The house was finally ordered vacated after the city filed a civil lawsuit.
Ezell then moved to a home in the 8000 block of W. Sheridan Ave., where
police concluded their undercover investigation, leading to the charges in
April 1998.
Ezell declined to make a statement before she was sentenced Tuesday.
Before handing down the sentence and $7,000 in fines, Dugan termed Ezell's
crimes "extremely aggravated" and her livelihood "a large drug operation."
"Sadly," Dugan told her, "it's destroyed your family."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana Ruling Rocks DUI Docket - Hundreds of Cases Threatened by Georgia
Court Action (APBNews.com says the Georgia Supreme Court has nullified a law
presuming any driver to be illegally impaired who tests positive for
marijuana. The court apparently reasoned that the law was unconstitutional
because Georgia, under a 1981 law, said police would have to prove a
medical-marijuana patient was driving dangerously in order to make an arrest.
But the more recent DUI law arbitrarily and unfairly created a different
burden of proof for "recreational" users.)
From: CLaw7MAn@webtv.net (Mike Steindel)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: cp@telelists.com
Subject: [cp] MARIJUANA RULING ROCKS DUI DOCKET
Toward the end of the article the prosecution makes a poor attempt at
comparing being high on Cannabis to a .30 blood alchol content. Point 30
is 3 to 4 times the legal limit in most every state in the union and
would render most incapable of crawling. In study after study those high
on Cannabis while driving have been found to be no lees safe than
drivers who are not high. mike
***
MARIJUANA RULING ROCKS DUI DOCKET
Hundreds of Cases Threatened by Georgia Court Action
June 2, 1999
By Hans H. Chen
ATLANTA (APBNews.com) -- Hundreds of cases of driving under the
influence of drugs may be tossed out because of a state Supreme Court
ruling striking down a law designed to keep drivers high on marijuana
off the streets.
The court found the law unconstitutional because it had created
different burdens of proof for recreational and medicinal users of
marijuana.
For users of medicinal marijuana, the police had to prove the person was
driving dangerously to win a conviction. But for recreational users, the
mere presence of the drug in a blood or urine sample had been enough for
a conviction, even if the driver was operating safely.
"This law made 'DUI drug' the easiest thing for them to prosecute. Now,
it'll make it the hardest thing for them to prosecute," said David E.
Clark, a lawyer from Lawrenceville who successfully argued the case.
Arrests for secondhand smoke?
The court found that the state had a right to prosecute drivers high on
marijuana. But because drivers high on medicinal marijuana are just as
dangerous as drivers high on casual-use marijuana, the court found the
state's exemption for medicinal marijuana users unconstitutionally
arbitrary.
Police can still arrest marijuana users of any sort for driving
dangerously, but Clark said Monday's ruling eliminates a law that
unfairly penalizes people with absolutely no driving impairments.
Marijuana lingers in the blood and urine long after the effects of the
drug have worn off.
"One of the justices said he was frightened that you could inhale
secondhand smoke and be arrested," Clark said.
Public safety concerns
In 1981, the Georgia Legislature passed a law setting up a state office
to regulate the medicinal use of marijuana. The office never opened, but
the law remained on the books.
The ruling this week began with the arrest of Everette Bryan Love, a
21-year-old University of Georgia student who was stopped in May 1996
for speeding. After the police officer smelled marijuana smoke, he
ordered a drug test for Love, which revealed marijuana in his blood and
urine.
The man who prosecuted Love said the court's ruling threatened public
safety.
"I would cautiously make the statement that it probably is going to
affect the motoring public's safety, as well as those on the sidewalk
too. Anybody within damn hitting distance of the road," said Gerald
Blainey, the solicitor for Gwinnett County.
Blainey said he plans to petition the court to reconsider its ruling,
even though he did not expect it to change the decision.
Hundreds of cases affected
While the decision does not affect anyone already convicted under the
law, pending DUI cases involving marijuana use may be affected.
"There are hundreds of cases pending in Georgia right now that are going
to be trash," Clark said.
The state attorney general's office said the ruling applied only to DUI
cases involving marijuana.
"Our initial reading of this, and this is subject to further revision,
is that it is not a sweeping case that is going to eliminate our DUI
statues," said Daryl Robinson, the deputy counsel to Attorney General
Thurbert E. Baker.
But Blainey said he feared the ruling could be interpreted to apply to
all drugs, not just marijuana. Because of that worry, Blainey said he
will no longer try any cases in which a safe driver is arrested for a
high blood-alcohol limit.
"Say I drive up to road check, and I'm a .30 [blood-alcohol level], but
there's no 'less safe' driving because all I do is drive up to the road
check. And say I refuse to do any sobriety evaluations," Blainey said.
"I'm of the opinion that case couldn't be prosecuted even though I was a
.30."
Hans H. Chen is an APBNews.com staff writer (hansc@apbnews.com).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Court Strikes DUI Law For Marijuana Users (The version in the Fulton County
Daily Report, in Georgia)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:57:26 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US GA: Court Strikes DUI Law For Marijuana Users
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: EWCHIEF
Pubdate: Wed, 2 Jun 1999
Source: Fulton County Daily Report (GA)
Website: http://www.dailyreportonline.com/
Copyright: 1999 American Lawyer Media
Fax: (404) 523-5924
Author: Lawrence Viele
COURT STRIKES DUI LAW FOR MARIJUANA USERS
The state Supreme Court Monday set aside a DUI law that punishes
marijuana-using motorists for even trace amounts of pot.
The law violates constitutional equal protection rights by exempting
prescription users of the drug, even though the effect of the drug is the
same on them and on public safety as it is for recreational users, the
unanimous court ruled.
'ZERO TOLERANCE' CHALLENGED In the DUI case, Everette Bryan Love, 21,
challenged one of the state's so-called "zero tolerance" drug laws. This one
punishes motorists who have barely detectable amounts of marijuana in their
systems. The University of Georgia student was charged with DUI after a
Lawrenceville policeman pulled him aside for speeding on Interstate 85. Love
v. State, No. S99A0509 (Sup. Ct. Ga. June 1, 1999).
Testing showed Love had trace amounts of marijuana in his system, so he was
convicted of driving under the influence.
The case prompted lively debate before the court in March, with one justice
postulating whether he could be found guilty of DUI after being trapped in a
closet with a pot smoker. Another justice wondered about the people who
smoke the substance in Amsterdam, where use is tolerated, and come home
sober but with a detectable amount of pot in their systems.
The court found no equal protection problem in the fact that unimpaired
drivers with traces of the substance in their systems can be prosecuted
under the law.
But the justices did find an equal protection problem on another front.
Benham, who wrote for the unanimous court, said the law treats those who use
marijuana for medicinal purposes differently from those who use it for mere
recreation, even though the effects are the same.
Benham pointed out that "the expert testimony given in this case stated that
the pharmacological effects of prescribed marijuana are no different from
the effect of 'recreational' use marijuana," although the statute does not
apply to those who have prescriptions."
"We are unable to hold that the legislative distinction between sanctioned
and unsanctioned users of marijuana is directly related to the public safety
purpose of the legislation ... . Accordingly we conclude that the
distinction is arbitrarily drawn, and the statute is an unconstitutional
denial of equal protection," Benham wrote.
Love was represented by David E. Clark and Jessica R. Towne of
Lawrenceville's Clark & Towne.
The lawyers did not expect the court to rule in their favor, much less to
agree with their argument that the law arbitrarily changes the burden of
guilt for prescription marijuana users.
"We didn't expect to prevail. We were extremely surprised," says Towne,
speaking from Charleston Tuesday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Deployed In Drug War (The Associated Press says thermal imaging
cameras are the item that state and local police request most often from the
Office of National Drug Control Policy's technology "transfer," that is,
giveaway program, funded by Congress since last year. No bigger than
camcorders yet so sensitive they can detect a temperature variance of a
quarter of a degree, the $13,000 thermal cameras are used by police to find
out if people are growing marijuana in their homes or handing over baggies
containing "narcotics" - although the wire service doesn't say how the
cameras can ascertain what is in a baggie. General Barry McCaffrey, the
ONDCP director, contradicted his oft-stated assertion that "we can't arrest
our way out our drug problem," saying, "We know these systems work, and we
know the cops need these tools." He is seeking yet more money from Congress
for more technology transfers.)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:37:12 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: WIRE: Technology Deployed In Drug War
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: EWCHIEF
Pubdate: Wed, 02 Jun 1999
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1999 Associated Press
Author: Kalpana Srinivasan
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYED IN DRUG WAR
WASHINGTON (AP) - Customs inspectors peering into the tractor trailer
at the Colombia-Solidarity Bridge along the U.S. border saw nothing
more threatening than a cargo load of cookies.
But after passing the truck through an X-ray machine the size of a car
wash, agents caught a look at the real treat stashed in the truck:
more than 5,600 pounds of marijuana.
The $7.8 million bust in February at the bridge near Laredo, Texas,
offers just one glimpse of how officials along the border and in local
communities are taking advantage of advanced technology to outsmart
drug traffickers and criminals.
"We're not out to push the state-of-the-art for its own sake," says
Ray Mintz, director of the applied technology division of the U.S.
Customs Service.
But with such tools as a thermal imaging camera no bigger than the
average camcorder police officers can find out whether someone is
growing marijuana at home or is handing someone a baggie containing
narcotics.
They can even do it in the dark.
The thermal camera equipment relies on very slight differences in
temperature to create an image with light and dark contrasts. The tool
is so sensitive it can detect a change of a quarter of a degree. So if
a suspect carrying drugs decided to rid himself of the evidence, the
drugs still warm from being close to his body would show up a
different shade than the screen background. Greenhouse-like lights
needed to produce marijuana inside a home give off excess heat that
the camera picks up.
The device has made work less precarious for police officers in
Brownsville, Texas, who patrol the border and sometimes face gunfire
from smugglers bringing in marijuana at night.
"Usually, they can see us before we see them," said Ben Reyna, chief
of the Brownsville police. "Now, we're starting to turn that around."
The thermal camera is the most requested item in the Office of
National Drug Control Policy's technology transfer program. Funded by
Congress since 1998, the program gives state and local police, like
Reyna's unit, advanced equipment from the federal government. More
than 110 of the $13,000 cameras have been provided to law enforcement
officials nationwide.
"We know these systems work, and we know the cops needs these tools," said
Barry McCaffrey, the administration's drug control policy director. He
is seeking more money for the program.
Other innovations have focused on the same goal of giving law
enforcement a better and faster glimpse of a situation. Wearing a
tactical video device mounted on a black-armored vest, officers on a
drug interdiction team can run through a home and give teammates
sitting in a van outside an exact peek at the inside layout and any
possible suspects.
Developed for the U.S. Coast Guard, the 6-pound equipment set features
a camera the size of a grapefruit atop the vest's shoulder. A
communications system is tucked into a pocket on the back. Color
images that can be encrypted are transmitted to PCs at another location.
The U.S. Customs service still relies on its mainstay X-rays to
inspect drugs or other smuggled goods. But these systems use four or
more times as much energy as the machines that scan luggage at the
airport.
The cargo X-ray machine along the Southwest border can scan a 40-foot
truck in minutes. A driver brings his truck onto a moving platform,
where the vehicle is dragged between two X-ray systems looking for
hidden goods.
The machines which cost about $3.5 million each can catch fake walls
or other compartments stashed with illegal drugs. One tractor passing
through the X-ray at the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso was found
to have several hundred pounds of cocaine concealed in its front tires.
With seven such systems in place, Customs officials conducted 57,000
examinations in fiscal year 1998, seizing 23,000 pounds of drugs,
Mintz said. By August, railroad cars crossing the border at Laredo
will pass through a similar system.
A minibuster density meter about the size of a chalkboard eraser
also helps to detect whether drugs might be hidden in surfaces.
Not everyone is impressed by the new advances. Some immigrant rights
groups say money and attention devoted to improving technology could
be used to boost basic conditions under which migrants are found and
deported.
"The border control strategy has been very long on high-tech, but very
short on human decency," said Claudia Smith, border project director
of the California Rural Legal Aid Assistance Foundation. Night-vision
goggles and special censors can't make up for the lack of working
vehicles and holding areas in which to place migrants, she said.
"Maybe there can be some more balance."
For their part, federal agencies say they hope their advances will
make searches and enforcement activity less intrusive. At Miami
International and New York's Kennedy airport, travelers selected for a
pat-down can opt instead for a body-imaging machine. The low-radiation
imaging looks through clothing, and can reveal drugs fixed to a
person's body.
A gadget that looks like an oversized beeper and can even be turned to
vibrator mode like most pagers enables officials to locate
radioactive material without even checking individual items. The
device sounds whenever radioactive material is in the vicinity.
In some cases, the innovations amount to nothing more than some
creative uses for existing technology. A scope used by doctors to
probe patients' organs takes on new life in drug enforcement:
authorities slip it into vehicles' gas tanks to look for drugs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Landers: Alcohol and Drugs Do Not Cause Domestic Violence (A letter in
the Washington Post to the syndicated advice columnist, from an assistant
district attorney in Albany, New York, says alcohol and other drugs do not
cause domestic violence. Abuse is about power and control, although the
abuser may use alcohol and other drugs as an excuse to seek forgiveness. To
some, that may seem like an overgeneralization, unless the prosecutor
can cite even one case from his experience involving a cannabis consumer who
habitually or even occasionally stoked up on marijuana, and no other
substances, before abusing his family.)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:47:07 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Column: Alcohol And Drugs Do Not Cause Domestic Violence
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jo-D Harrison Dunbar
Pubdate: Wed, 02 June 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: C12
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: D.J. Rosenbaum, assistant district attorney, Albany, N.Y.
Note: Headline by Newshawk
ANN LANDERS
ALCOHOL AND DRUGS DO NOT CAUSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Dear Ann: I am an assistant district attorney who prosecutes domestic
violence cases. I want to comment on your response to "Gave Up in
Pennsylvania," whose neighbor refused to press charges against her abusive
boyfriend. You said alcohol and drugs can be a major factor in abusive
situations and she should not stop calling the police.
I agree with that advice but would like to clarify something. Alcohol and
drugs do not cause domestic violence. Abuse is about power and control.
Drugs and alcohol can be an excuse that the abuser uses to seek forgiveness.
"I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing" allows her to give him another
chance.
A woman who has spent years at the hands of a batterer is likely to be
completely controlled by him and literally unable to act against his wishes.
She probably has been isolated from her friends and family and is
financially dependent on her batterer. He has no doubt told her if she
leaves, he will find her and kill her. He may have told her that he will
take the children away and she will never see them again. She believes him.
Often, an abused woman takes her abuser back into her life not because she
wants to but because she believes it is the safest course of action. She
knows she could survive a beating, but if she tries to escape, she could be
killed. And it's true. Studies show that a battered woman's level of danger
rises dramatically when she leaves her abuser. Many women, knowing a violent
episode is imminent, will "choose" the moment so that their children won't be
home or their neighbors can hear the screams. It is a terrible position to be
in.
I want to tell "Gave Up" that her emergency call to the police stopped that
moment's cycle of violence. Please tell her to keep calling 911 so this woman
can stay alive until she reaches the point where she can help us to help her.
D.J. Rosenbaum, assistant district attorney, Albany, N.Y.
Thank you for some excellent advice. I am sure I speak for my millions of
readers when I say your counsel is greatly appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bar Raised For Drug Convictions (The Washington Post says the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled 6-3 yesterday that a jury must unanimously agree not only that
drug trafficking racketeers committed a particular series of offenses, but
also on which specific violations they committed. Unless jurors are forced to
focus on specific acts, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority,
jurors may "simply conclude from testimony, say, of bad reputation, that
where there is smoke there must be fire." The court threw out the conviction
of Eddie Richardson, the leader of a Chicago street gang. During Richardson's
1997 trial, the judge told jurors that to convict, they must agree Richardson
committed at least three alleged offenses. But the judge refused Richardson's
request that he tell jurors they must agree on which three particular
offenses were committed.)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:47:05 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Bar Raised For Drug Convictions
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jo-D Harrison Dunbar
Pubdate: Wed, 02 June 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A02
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Joan Biskupic, Washington Post Staff Writer
BAR RAISED FOR DRUG CONVICTIONS
Court Says Jury Must Agree on Acts in Kingpin Cases
The Supreme Court yesterday raised the threshold for federal prosecution of
drug kingpins accused of running ongoing narcotics enterprises.
By a 6 to 3 vote, the court ruled that a jury must unanimously agree not
only that such defendants committed a series of drug violations but also on
which specific violations they committed.
Unless jurors are forced to focus on specific acts, Justice Stephen G.
Breyer wrote for the majority, jurors may "simply conclud[e] from testimony,
say, of bad reputation, that where there is smoke there must be fire."
Dissenting justices - Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg - contended that the ruling misreads federal law and will
drastically affect how prosecutors draft their indictments and plot trial
strategy. The Justice Department had no immediate response yesterday, but
its lawyers had warned in a brief that requiring juror unanimity on details
of wide-ranging criminal activities could allow some drug ringleaders to
escape conviction.
With its ruling, the court threw out the conviction of Eddie Richardson, the
leader of a Chicago street gang called the Undertaker Vice Lords, who
oversaw a heroin and cocaine ring in the 1980s and early 1990s. During his
1997 trial, prosecutors presented an array of possible drug violations that
could fall under the continuing-criminal-enterprise law, and the judge
instructed the jurors that they must be in agreement that Richardson
committed at least three of them. The judge refused Richardson's request,
however, that he tell jurors they must agree on which three particular
offenses Richardson committed. The jury convicted Richardson and sentenced
him to life in prison.
A federal appeals court had upheld the jury instruction, but other courts
have made contradictory rulings in similar cases. The Supreme Court's ruling
in Richardson v. United States yesterday set a national standard, declaring
that the law's language, as well as legal tradition and potential
unfairness, requires that each "violation" be a separate element of the
crime that jurors agree upon.
Also yesterday, the court rejected an appeal by the Cable News Network of a
lower court decision that said the media could be sued for violating privacy
rights during a police raid. The case arose from a Montana dispute, decided
last week, in which the justices said that when police allow the media to
enter a private home, the police can be held liable for damages for
violating privacy rights.
In that ruling, the high court did not address the question of whether media
organizations could also be held liable in such situations. Yesterday the
justices sidestepped the issue again in their one-sentence order letting
stand a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that could require CNN to
defend itself against a claim that it breached a Montana couple's privacy
rights when its camera crew accompanied federal agents on a search of their
ranch.
The practical effects of Cable News Network v. Berger could be limited: Last
week, the court said that because privacy law was not yet clearly
established in 1993 when the raids in question occurred, police had
retroactive immunity from suits that preceded the court's ruling. By
extension, the media may be protected from liability for earlier ride-alongs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
High Court Tightens Drug-Lord Conviction Rules (The Houston Chronicle
version)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:27:16 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: High Court Tightens Drug-Lord Conviction Rules
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Art Smart
Pubdate: Wed, 02 Jun 1999
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Page: 12A
Copyright: 1999 Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Website: http://www.chron.com/
Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html
Author: Steve Lash
HIGH COURT TIGHTENS DRUG-LORD CONVICTION RULES
Series Of Offenses Must Be Proved One By One
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to the
federal government's war on drugs, ruling that prosecutors seeking to
convict suspected drug lords of engaging in crime sprees must
specifically prove each alleged offense and not merely show generally
that the suspects broke the law multiple times.
In its 6-3 decision, the high court read narrowly a federal law that
subjects drug dealers to at least 20 years in prison if they engage in
a "continuing criminal enterprise," defined in the statute as a
"series" of narcotics offenses.
The justices, in a ruling hailed by defense lawyers, said a jury must
unanimously conclude not only that a defendant violated the law
multiple times but must agree on what the specific violations were.
The federal government, citing the difficulty of prosecuting drug
crimes, had argued in vain that a jury must only conclude that a
series of crimes were committed and need not be unanimous as to the
specific offenses.
The government had maintained that it would impose too onerous a
burden on prosecutors to require them to single out for jurors a list
of specific offenses from the multitude of violations drug kingpins
commit.
But the high court, rejecting the government's argument, said it would
be unfair to people on trial if juries were allowed to convict them of
committing crimes without agreeing unanimously on how or when specific
laws were violated.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers lauded the
court's decision.
"The inviolable right to a jury trial in criminal cases ... must not
be diluted by the government simply throwing multiple charges against
the wall of justice to see if any of them stick," NACDL President
Larry Pozner said.
"Our cherished liberties cannot be protected from governmental
overreaching unless juries are instructed that overcoming the
presumption of innocence requires their unanimous agreement as to each
and every element of the accusation."
The Justice Department, which argued the case before the high court,
had no comment Tuesday.
Writing for the court's majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said
jurors have an obligation to deliberate on whether a defendant has
committed a specific offense and to render their decision unanimously.
The government's argument that jurors need not be unanimous as to
specific offenses would lead to defendants being convicted without
juries engaging in a full discussion of the facts, he said.
"Jurors, unless required to focus upon specific factual detail, will
fail to do so, simply concluding from testimony, say, of bad
reputation, that where there is smoke there must be fire," Breyer wrote.
The case the justices decided, Richardson vs. United States, did not
address the merits of so-called "three strikes and you're out" laws,
which impose long prison terms on people convicted of three felonies
over the course of their lives. Instead, the case addressed the
prosecution's burden under a federal law that requires drug lords
convicted of engaging in a series of felonious drug offenses with at
least five subordinates to be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in
prison.
With its decision, the high court overturned the conviction of Chicago
gang leader Eddie Richardson, whom a jury found guilty of violating
federal drug laws on at least three occasions The justices said the
trial judge erroneously told the jurors that they could convict
Richardson even if they failed to agree on how or when the three
offenses were committed.
Despite ruling in Richardson's favor, the high court indicated that
his future looks bleak. In their decision, the justices said enough
damning, specific evidence of multiple drug crimes probably exists to
support his conviction at retrial.
Joining Breyer's opinion were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter and
Clarence Thomas.
In a vehement dissent, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy assailed the
majority for a decision that "rewards those drug kingpins whose
operations are so vast that the individual violations cannot be
recalled or charged with specificity."
Joining Kennedy's dissent were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg.
to the 1999 Daily News index for May 28-June 3