disparity in marijuana arrests along race and socio-economic lines. These disparities have negatively impacted black people, Hispanics, and other oppressed groups. The efforts, however, are not producing immediately successful results. A report from New Frontier Data is showing that even now black and Hispanic suspects are arrested at nine times the rate of suspects who are white, despite the fact that data shows the three subgroups sell cannabis at similar rates.

According to the data, from 1997 to 2016, marijuana arrests made up more than 40 percent of drug-related arrests, totaling 15.7 million. Arrests overall from cannabis-related offenses have declined slightly in recent years, down from their height in 2007. This is likely reflective of states expanding marijuana legalization, though the numbers are not significantly lower than the overall average since 1997. For example, arrests for possession hit a low in 2015 of 575,000, but went up again in 2016 to 588,000, neither of which is much lower than 599,000 way back in 1998. Considering 30 states now allow provisions for medical marijuana and nine, plus Washington, D.C., have recreational laws on the books, these numbers should be improving more drastically over the 20-year-old stats. The data sets delved more deeply into what these arrests meant specifically for black and Hispanic people. A look at New York City is revealing that even the best intentions cannot overcome racial profiling and decades of anti-marijuana propaganda. Mayor Bill De Blasio made a campaign promise to address the inequity in marijuana arrests and convictions in the city. He took office in 2014, giving us data that is more reflective of a time when public perception of marijuana has been more favorable. Yet in spite of the improved climate and a mayor dedicated to change, disparity marched on. Black people in New York from 2011-2013, before De Blasio’s election, accounted for 51 percent of cannabis arrests. From 2014-2017 that percentage drops only slightly to 48.3 percent. During those same time periods, Hispanic people accounted for 34.3 percent and 38 percent of marijuana-related arrests respectively, meaning they actually grew in their share of overall arrests. Furthermore, 2018 isn’t shaping up to be any better, with 4,000 possession arrests in the first four months, 89 percent either being black or Hispanic. The percentage of cannabis arrests attributed to white people, meanwhile, went from 10.6 percent in 2011-2013 to 9 percent in 2014-2017.

Our Orange County marijuana arrest lawyers will be interested to see if New York will see broader changes now that the mayor is working on a path to legalization for the city and is planning to direct police not to arrest people for public consumption. In the meantime, the data acts as a cautionary tale that public opinion and good intentions are not enough to protect the people most affected by the bunk “War on Drugs.”

Practical marijuana laws need to be on the books, if not federally than at least similar to those here in California. Proposition 64 is designed to not only reduce cannabis-related arrests, but undo some of the damage done in the past. Even as such, recent data from the state attorney general shows Hispanic and black Californians are disproportionately being arrested, but because overall felony arrests have dropped by 74 percent from 2016 to 2017 after recreational legalization, a huge burden has been lifted from those communities. The law also allows for those with past marijuana convictions to petition to have their case reviewed, with most misdemeanors being erased completely and some higher level crimes being reduced depending on severity. Many cities are even doing the leg work on their own to review the records and set things straight for Californians. Our legal team is here to defend Southern Californians who find themselves in cannabis-related legal trouble, but we hope to see continued decriminalization efforts across the state and nation.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients, defendants, workers and those facing criminal marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

National Arrests for Cannabis-Related Offenses 1996-2016, July 8, 2018, New Frontier Data

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana Possession Arrests Up in NYC, Despite Decriminalization, June 14, 2016, Cannabis Law Group

In one case, there was an expansion of the exception to a long-standing rule that unlawfully-gathered evidence had to be discarded. In the second ruling, the court held that those who deal drugs – even those who only selling locally to their neighbors – were in effect a part of some larger interstate commerce.

As Phillip Smith of StopTheDrugWar.org pointed out, these two decisions:

• Widen local police’s ability to sidestep the law without accountability;
• Give prosecutors the muscle of the federal government to crush small-time, low-level drug dealers and other criminals.

The high court has long deferred to the position of law enforcement officers. But this is often done to the detriment of the public at-large.

Let’s look at each case individually.

First up is Utah v. Strieff, in which a detective investigating possible drug sales at a private residence stopped defendant absent reasonable cause as soon as he stepped outside his home. During this encounter, the officer discovered defendant had an outstanding traffic warrant. At that point, officer arrested defendant and searched him. In the course of that search discovered meth and paraphernalia, for which defendant was charged.

Defendant sought a motion to suppress evidence of the items discovered in the search because it was the result of an investigatory stop that was unlawful. At both the trial and the appellate court, he lost. However, his conviction was overturned by the state high court, which determined the “attentuation doctrine” – which is an exception to the exclusionary rule – was not applicable. However, the U.S. Supreme Court did not agree and reversed.

The attenuation doctrine, for those not familiar, is the principle that evidence unlawfully obtained can be used even if it is the result of a search that is affected by an unlawful initial detention if there is a circumstance that is intervening. The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision determined the police misconduct was basically not severe enough to suppress the evidence. But of course, that’s pure speculation, and one that or Los Angeles marijuana lawyers believe takes a rosy view of law enforcement.

The second case, Taylor v. U.S., the high court ruled that federal prosecutors can use federal law to pursue those who commit robbery against drug dealers – even when the dealers are only peddling marijuana that is locally grown and there is no evidence the sales were occurring across state lines.

That decision, which was reached 7-1, was the latest in a string of cases that has ruled in favor of the federal government’s use of the interstate commerce clause in drug cases. Another was the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, in which the high court upheld the right of the federal government to take action against those who grow and sell marijuana, even in states where doing so is legal.

In Taylor, defendant as part of a gang that targeted marijuana cultivators and dealers for robbery. The majority ruled he could be charged federally per the Hobbs Act. The sole dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas ruled the use of the commerce clause in these cases granted too much power to the federal government.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Supreme Court Opens Door for More Lawless Police Searches, June 20, 2016, By Phillip Smith, The Daily Chronic

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana Possession Arrests Up in NYC, Despite Decriminalization, June 14, 2016, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

That’s according to the latest from The Coloradoan, which also noted the district court judge tacked on two years of probation as well.

Defendant had pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of providing marijuana to a person who was younger than 21. However, she was deemed not guilty of the felony charge of witness tampering.

Our L.A. marijuana defense lawyers know that had this case unfolded in California, this mother would likely be looking at a more serious charge. That’s because marijuana is only legal via medical prescription from a doctor. Distributing a Schedule I narcotic to someone without a prescription is a crime that becomes much more serious when the person receiving the drug is a minor. She likely would have been looking at felony charges had the case been filed here in Orange County.

But in Colorado, where this case occurred, marijuana is legal for recreational use. But just like alcohol, marijuana is regulated to prevent minors from having ready access – unless there is a medical reason for it and they have a doctor’s prescription.

The incident in question occurred in April 2015. It was then the 39-year-old defendant’s 19-year-old son threw himself out of a third-story window. It occurred shortly after 9 p.m. He suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries as a result of his fall.

The teen reportedly admitted to investigators that he had consumed edible marijuana. Investigators already knew that he had consumed it at some point because a drug test completed at the hospital revealed it was the only drug in his system. However, it was only later that he conceded he had consumed the drug that night and in edible form. At the time, he had refused to say who supplied him with the pot brownie.

The case was reminiscent of a 2014 case in which a 19-year-old college student from Wyoming plummeted to his death in Denver after jumping from his hotel room window while under the influence of a cannabis-infused cookie. His autopsy indicated intoxication by marijuana was a significant contributing factor.

Now this case – and another in which a Colorado man accused of murdering his wife blames a marijuana-infused candy he consumed – are raising questions about if and how states and the federal government should regulate edible marijuana products.

According to the news report, the teen’s mother purchased the marijuana for his roommate, who was also then just 19.

The witness tampering charge stemmed from a statement by the roommate to police in which he said the injured teen urged him to lie about where he’d gotten the brownie.

At her sentencing hearing, defendant insisted she thought that a marijuana edible she purchased from a dispensary would be safe and she would never have purchased it if she had known this type of reaction was possible.

The judge indicated that while he believed defendant to be “a good person,” as noted by the numerous individuals who testified on her behalf as to her character, he noted that in a pre-sentencing self-evaluation, she indicated there was “no victim” for her alleged crime. The judge was quick to say this was not a victimless crime.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

30 days in jail for mom in marijuana window-jumper case, June 1, 2016, By Jacy Marmaduke, The Coloradoan

More Blog Entries:

LA County Democratic Party Endorses Adult Use of Marijuana Act, May 23, 2016, Orange County Marijuana Lawyer Blog