GPS satellite (from noaa.gov)
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
A federal appellate court in Washington, DC, has trimmed law enforcement's wings a little in an important Fourth Amendment case.
Federal Courts
rogerchristie_0.jpg
Marijuana Church Founder "Too Dangerous" For Bail
Hawaii-based Roger Christie and his THC Ministry have been proselytizing for pot for years. Now, the feds have indicted him, and they've managed to persuade a federal judge that he's "too dangerous" to be allowed out on bail. Welcome back to Bizarro World.
Supreme Court Limits Right Against Self-Incrimination
Dear friends, Flex Your Rights' Associate Director and 10 Rules for Dealing with Police Co-creator Scott Morgan drafted this analysis of yesterday's decision. As is the case with most police-friendly court decisions, the key message is that asserting one's rights is a do-it-yourself job. ---------------------------------- The Supreme Court ruled today in Berghuis v. Thompkins that a criminal suspect must specifically invoke the right against self-incrimination in order for constitutional protections to apply. The case centered around the interrogation of murder suspect Van Chester Thompkins, who remained virtually silent for hours, before giving a few brief responses to police questions. Most significantly, Thompkins answered "yes" when asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" The statement was introduced at trial and Thompkins was convicted. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that criminal suspects who do not clearly state their intention to remain silent are presumed to have waived their 5th Amendment rights. Ironically, suspects must literally open their mouths and speak in order for their silence to be legally protected. The new rule will defer to police in cases where the suspect fails to unambiguously assert their right to remain silent. Naturally, Flex Your Rights is concerned about any retreat from the basic principle that criminal suspects should not be compelled or coerced into incriminating themselves. Today's ruling will undoubtedly create additional challenges for suspects who already understand too little about how their constitutional rights apply during police interrogations. Fortunately, however, the Berghuis decision leaves intact the best strategy for handling any police interrogation: keeping your mouth shut. Requiring suspects with limited legal knowledge to clearly assert their rights may seem a bit strict, but it's irrelevant if the suspect never says a word to begin with. The point of the 5th Amendment isn't to protect you after you've foolishly incriminated yourself; it's to remind you that you're not obligated to answer police questions in the first place. Ultimately, the burden is on each of us to understand our rights and use that information to make the best decisions. It's unlikely that any Supreme Court decision will ever change the fact that remaining silent is your best and only strategy if police ask you incriminating questions. ---------------------------------- Sincerely, Steve
|
Press Release: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 6/25/09
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; [email protected]
U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional
Ruling In ACLU Case Is Vindication of Students' Constitutional Rights
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.
"We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court. "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced."
Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen - 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil - in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.
After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.
In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.
"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,"
said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."
The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the strip search.
In response to today's ruling, Redding said, "I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to go through this, so I am pleased by the Court's decision. I'm glad to have helped make students feel safer in school."
The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity. In today's Supreme Court decision, despite deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified School district could be held liable.
"Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director. "Today's ruling eliminates any confusion that school officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point."
The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.
In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and Urban Justice Center, among others.
Today's decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40031lgl20090625.html
The ACLU's brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160lgl20090325.html
MPP Condemns Prison Sentence for Medical Marijuana Defendant Charles C. Lynch
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEÂ Â Â
JUNE 11, 2009
MPP Condemns Prison Sentence for Medical Marijuana Defendant Charles C. Lynch
Law-Abiding Medical Marijuana Collective Was Licensed by City
CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications, 415-585-6404 or 202-215-4205
                Aaron Smith, MPP California policy director, 707-575-9870
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA âThe Marijuana Policy Project strongly condemned today's federal sentencing of Charles C. Lynch, a California medical marijuana provider who worked scrupulously to follow state and local laws but now faces one year and one day in federal prison.
   "Years from now, Mr. Lynch may well be remembered as the last American to go to federal prison for a mistake, the final victim of an already repudiated policy well on its way to the ash heap of history, but whose mean-spirited effects still linger," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia. "This sentence is a cruel and pointless miscarriage of justice. Mr. Lynch and his attorneys say they plan to appeal, and we hope they succeed. With federal law enforcement at the Mexican border so overwhelmed that traffickers coming through with up to 500 pounds of marijuana are let go, even one more penny spent persecuting a man who is not a criminal in any rational sense of the word is an outrageous waste of resources."
   In February, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that henceforth the Drug Enforcement Administration would only conduct enforcement actions against medical marijuana defendants who were violating both state and federal law, reversing the Bush administration's policy of ignoring state medical marijuana laws.
   Lynch's medical marijuana collective was licensed by the city of Morro Bay, and officials routinely inspected the facility to monitor compliance with state and local laws. But because federal law makes no statutory allowance for medical marijuana, all evidence related to California's medical marijuana law was barred from his trial.
   With more than 27,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.
####
Press Release: Lepp Sentenced to 10 Years Mandatory Minimum for Medical Marijuana Grow
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 18, 2009
CONTACT: Dale Gieringer at (415) 563- 5858
EDDY LEPP RECEIVES 10 YEAR MANDATORY MINIMUM FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA
SAN FRANCISCO -- US District Judge Marilyn Patel sentenced Eddy Lepp to ten years mandatory minimum for having grown over 1,000 marijuana plants for a medical marijuana garden in Lake County.
Patel called the sentence "excessive," but said she had no choice under federal law. In addition, she sentenced Lepp to five years of supervised release with drug testing. She invited Lepp to file for a rehearing in case the law should change.
Lepp called it "very, very sad" that the government showed no compassion, saying"I've broken no laws of the state in which I reside." He asked that he be allowed to surrender himself voluntarily, noting that he had met every court date over the seven years of his case and that his daughter had health problems.
US attorney Dave Hall opposed the request, arguing that the government had new evidence of Lepp's involvement in a marijuana grow that was traced to a neighbor's property last week. Lepp's friends staunchly deny that he had any involvement in the grow.
Patel granted Lepp's request and set a surrender date of July 6th, while inviting the government to submit any additional incriminating evidence it might have to demand an earlier surrender.
Patel ruled that Lepp was ineligible for the "safety valve" exemption to the mandatory minimum on two grounds. First, the evidence showed that Lepp had been a leader or rganizer of other people in his activity. Secondly, the government claimed that he had failed give a full and truthful account of his activities. At his trial, Lepp had testified that he did not grow any marijuana, but simply let his land be used for cultivation by other patients. The
government had asked Lepp to recant this claim and admit that he grew the marijuana.
Lepp refused, saying he had testified truthfully.
"I've never seen a man work harder to get time in prison than Mr. Lepp," remarked Mr Hall.
""I would rather do ten years and be able to look myself in the eyes than never be able to look myself in the eyes again," said Lepp.
The courtroom burst into gasps and sobs as Patel pronounced her sentence. Lepp's attorney, Michael Hinckley, called it an "incredible sentence." Patel responded, "Incredible is what the law requires."
Patel noted that Lepp's driving passion appeared to be legalizing marijuana. "Maybe you want to be a martyr for the cause," she said.
California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer commented: "This case sadly illustrates the senselessness of federal marijuana laws. The last thing this country needs is more medical marijuana prisoners. Hopefully, we can change the law and get Eddy out of jail before he completes his sentence."
--
Press Release: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects California Counties' Challenge to State Medical Marijuana Laws
[Courtesy of ACLU]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 18, 2009
CONTACT: Dan Berger at (831) 471-9000 x26
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear an appeal brought by San Diego and San Bernardino counties challenging the validity of California's medical marijuana laws. The Court's order leaves intact the rulings of California's state courts, holding that state medical marijuana laws are entirely valid despite the federal prohibition on marijuana.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented California medical marijuana patients in the proceedings, had urged the Court to decline the counties' challenge. The following may be attributed to Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project:
"The Supreme Court's order marks a significant victory for medical marijuana patients and advocates nationwide. This case struck at the core of the contentious intersection between state and federal medical marijuana policy, and, once again, it is clear that state medical marijuana laws are fully valid. Coupled with the Department of Justice's recent pronouncements that the agency will respect state medical marijuana laws, the Court's order leaves ample room for states to move forward with enacting and implementing independent medical marijuana policies."
The ACLU's opposition brief to the Court can be found online at: http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/39603lgl20090415.html
###
Press Release: Supreme Court Squashes Challenge to Prop. 215
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEÂ Â Â
MAY 18, 2009Â Â Â
Supreme Court Squashes Challenge to Prop. 215
Advocates Press Counties to Issue ID Cards as Court Refuses to Hear San Diego/San Bernardino Suit
CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications ............... 415-585-6404 or 202-215-4205
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case brought by San Diego and San Bernardino Counties that sought to challenge the validity of California's medical marijuana laws, removing the last obstacle to medical marijuana ID cards being issued to qualified patients throughout California. Nine counties have failed to begin issuing the state-mandated cards, often citing the San Diego lawsuit as a reason.
    "The court has flattened the last faint justification for counties refusing to issue ID cards to legally qualified medical marijuana patients," said MPP California policy director Aaron Smith. "We expect all nine counties that have delayed issuing cards to start following the law immediately and stop putting patients at needless risk."
    San Diego County, which is required by California law to issue ID cards to legally qualified medical marijuana patients, had challenged the state law, claiming it was preempted by federal anti-marijuana statutes (a claim that had never even made by the federal government, despite its opposition to medical marijuana). San Bernardino County had joined the litigation. The preemption claim was firmly rejected by every court that reviewed the case. The California 4th District Court of Appeals wrote in its unanimous ruling, "Congress does not have the authority to compel the states to direct their law enforcement personnel to enforce federal laws." After the California Supreme Court refused to hear San Diego's appeal, the counties went to the U.S. Supreme Court with its claim of federal supremacy, and the U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear the case.
     "It's time for San Diego and San Bernardino Counties to end their war on the sick and obey the law," Smith said. "And taxpayers should hold to account the irresponsible officials who wasted their tax dollars on frivolous litigation."
    With more than 27,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.
####
Press Release: Will Charles C. Lynch Be the Last to Go to Federal Prison For a Misguided Policy?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEÂ Â Â
APRIL 22, 2009
Will Charles C. Lynch Be the Last to Go to Federal Prison For a Misguided Policy?
Advocates Call For Leniency in the Name of Justice
CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications ............... 415-585-6404 or 202-215-4205
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA -- The Marijuana Policy Project is calling for leniency in Thursday's federal court sentencing of Charles C. Lynch, a California medical marijuana provider who worked scrupulously to follow state and local laws but now faces five years in federal prison. MPP officials will be available by phone for comment after the sentencing, scheduled for 3 p.m. at the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.
    In February, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that henceforth the Drug Enforcement Administration would only conduct enforcement actions against medical marijuana defendants who were violating both state and federal law, reversing the Bush administration's policy of ignoring state medical marijuana laws. But Holder did not indicate whether this change would affect handling of older, leftover cases such as that of Lynch, who was convicted last year.Â
    "We can't help but wonder if Mr. Lynch will be the last American to go to federal prison for a mistake, the final victim of bad policy that has been repudiated but whose mean-spirited effects still linger," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia. "Putting Mr. Lynch in prison would be a cruel and pointless miscarriage of justice. At a time when federal law enforcement at the Mexican border is so overwhelmed that traffickers coming through with up to 500 pounds of marijuana are let go, even one more hour spent persecuting Mr. Lynch is an outrageous waste of resources."
    "Mr. Lynch's medical marijuana collective was licensed by the city of Morrow Bay, and officials routinely inspected the facility for compliance with state and local laws," said MPP California policy director Aaron Smith. "Because federal law still makes no statutory allowance for medical marijuana, any discussion of California's medical marijuana law was explicitly barred from his trial. In the interest of fairness, the judge should follow the example of Judge Charles Breyer in the 2003 case of Ed Rosenthal, and issue a token, one-day sentence. Charles Lynch is simply not a criminal in any rational sense of the term."
    With more than 27,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.
####
Important 4th Amendment Supreme Court Victory
Dear Friends: Today, the Supreme Court handed down a great ruling in Arizona v. Gant, which increases 4th Amendment protection against warrantless vehicle searches. We've been following the case for a while, and this outcome is exciting. Please visit our blog for FYR Associate Director Scott Morgan's analysis on the decision's likely impact. Sincerely,                                                                                                                    Â
Steve Silverman P.S. Flex Your Rights is the only organization focused solely on defending the 4th Amendment and teaching citizens to understand their rights during police encounters. If you support our efforts, please consider making a one-time tax-deductible donation today. As you know, we can't do this important work without your support. © 2009 Flex Your Rights Privacy Policy If you choose to unsubscribe from the mailing list, click here. |
