T
The420Guy
Guest
Law Enforcement Dazed and Confused, Suffering Denial
"Alaska citizens have the right to possess less than four ounces of
marijuana in their home for personal use." - Alaska Court of Appeals,
Noy v. State, August 29, 2003
The Alaska Court of Appeals ruled August 29 that Alaska residents may
possess up to four ounces of marijuana in their own homes without any
criminal or civil penalty. The ruling, which cites a 1975 Alaska
Supreme Court finding that the Alaska constitution's privacy
provisions protect the personal possession and use of marijuana in the
home, once again makes Alaska the only state in the country with legal
marijuana in the home. (After the 1975 Ravin v. Alaska decision, the
Alaska legislature eventually removed criminal penalties for
possession of less than four ounces, but a 1990 voter initiative
cheerlead by then drug czar William Bennett recriminalized simple pot
possession. It has taken until now for the appeals courts to rule on a
case that challenged the constitutionality of the 1990 vote.)
While sources in the Alaska Attorney General's office told DRCNet the
state would appeal the ruling, as of last Friday the Court of Appeals'
decision is the law of the land. But Alaska law enforcement, starting
with the attorney general's office, doesn't seem to get it. Law
enforcement spokesmen asked by DRCNet how they were reacting to the
decision responded with a mixture of confusion and determination to
keep on arresting domestic pot smokers and possessors.
For police in Anchorage, the state's largest city, it's business as
usual. "We are still enforcing the law the way we were before this,"
said Anchorage Police Department public affairs officer Ron McGee. "As
far as that goes, there has been no change," he told DRCNet. "And it's
still illegal under federal law," he added.
Greg Wilkinson, spokesman for the Alaska Bureau of Alcohol and Drug
Enforcement, told DRCNet bureau representatives were meeting with
other state law enforcement officials this week to try to figure out
how to respond. "We are approaching this from two angles," he said.
"One feeling is that is will be business as usual. The other was that
it will not." Busting personal users in their homes is not a high
priority, he said, adding that the bureau's focus was on large-scale
commercial operations, but that agents who encountered personal
marijuana may still act. "The feeling is that we may end up just
confiscating the marijuana now," he said. He could not explain on what
basis police would seize people's legal property.
And Alaska Chief Assistant Attorney General Dean Guaneli was reading
from the same script. "When police come into a home, whether on a
domestic violence call or something else, and see marijuana, we are
not in a position to tell them to turn their back on it," he told
DRCNet. "We are telling the police it is not legal to possess. We will
continue to do as we have done, we will file charges and leave it up
to the courts."
When Guaneli was asked his position squared with the Court of Appeals'
unanimous and unequivocal ruling -- "Alaska citizens have the right to
possess less than four ounces of marijuana in their home for personal
use" -- he in turn asked, "What does that mean? If tomorrow a new
medical study showed marijuana has the same addictive properties for
long-term users as cocaine or heroin, does that mean the state is
prevented from prosecuting those cases? We've think if we have the
chance to go into court, we can show that the reasons for making
marijuana possession a crime are important enough to override our
constitutional right to privacy," Guaneli argued. "It is not quite
right to say this ruling makes it completely legal. If we can go in
right, we can get the court to change this."
Unsurprisingly, Fairbanks defense attorney Bill Satterberg, who
successfully argued the ground-breaking case as well as other related
cases (The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #295), begged to
differ with Guaneli's interpretation of the ruling. "Is the possession
of less than four ounces of marijuana in your own home legal in
Alaska?" he asked. "The answer is, under state law, yes; under federal
law, no," he told DRCNet. "We are moving into an area where a state
constitution grants greater freedom than the US Constitution." As a
practical matter, Satterberg added, federal prosecutions for simple
marijuana possession are highly unusual.
But if state and local law enforcement is going to argue that it can
make marijuana possession arrests because of federal law, they could
be in for some tough sledding, he suggested. "If state law enforcement
officers attempt to override state constitutional guarantees to
prosecute federal laws, they will be treading on dangerous ground,"
Satterberg said. "The police need to get some good legal advice. These
officers are sworn to uphold the law, and what I'm hearing them say is
they're not going to. If the police are saying they are not going to
follow state law, I find that incredible."
While Satterberg deemed himself incredulous at the prospect of police
recalcitrance, Allan St. Pierre of the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws - NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws) was less shocked. "It
is not surprising," he told DRCNet. "Certainly, in California and
other states, there have been pockets of police that are resistant to
living with new marijuana laws."
But police in Alaska have not been abiding by the law since 1990, when
a voter initiative recriminalized simple possession in the home, St.
Pierre argued. "The 1975 Alaska Supreme Court ruling legalizing
personal use of small amounts of marijuana in one's home has been the
law of the land, despite the unconstitutional initiative. Since that
ruling had never been revisited or overruled, the onus was on Alaska
law enforcement to enforce the Supreme Court decision. If the police
were to obey the law of the land, they would not have been arresting
people for the use of marijuana in their homes. That has always been
our position, and this ruling only reinforces our interpretation."
As of last Friday, Alaska has the most liberal marijuana possession
laws in the United States. The Alaska Supreme Court would have to
overturn its own 1975 decision in Ravin v. Alaska to undo the Court of
Appeals decision, and there is little indication it will do so,
despite Chief Assistant Attorney General Guaneli's fervent hope that
it will find differences between the marijuana of 1975 and the
marijuana of today so great as to override the privacy protections the
Supreme Court cited.
Visit Noy v. State (8/29/2003) ap-1897 to read the Alaska
Court of Appeals opinion online.
Pubdate: Fri, 05 Sep 2003
Source: Drug War Chronicle (US Web)
Contact: psmith@drcnet.org
Website: StoptheDrugWar.org | raising awareness of the consequences of prohibition
"Alaska citizens have the right to possess less than four ounces of
marijuana in their home for personal use." - Alaska Court of Appeals,
Noy v. State, August 29, 2003
The Alaska Court of Appeals ruled August 29 that Alaska residents may
possess up to four ounces of marijuana in their own homes without any
criminal or civil penalty. The ruling, which cites a 1975 Alaska
Supreme Court finding that the Alaska constitution's privacy
provisions protect the personal possession and use of marijuana in the
home, once again makes Alaska the only state in the country with legal
marijuana in the home. (After the 1975 Ravin v. Alaska decision, the
Alaska legislature eventually removed criminal penalties for
possession of less than four ounces, but a 1990 voter initiative
cheerlead by then drug czar William Bennett recriminalized simple pot
possession. It has taken until now for the appeals courts to rule on a
case that challenged the constitutionality of the 1990 vote.)
While sources in the Alaska Attorney General's office told DRCNet the
state would appeal the ruling, as of last Friday the Court of Appeals'
decision is the law of the land. But Alaska law enforcement, starting
with the attorney general's office, doesn't seem to get it. Law
enforcement spokesmen asked by DRCNet how they were reacting to the
decision responded with a mixture of confusion and determination to
keep on arresting domestic pot smokers and possessors.
For police in Anchorage, the state's largest city, it's business as
usual. "We are still enforcing the law the way we were before this,"
said Anchorage Police Department public affairs officer Ron McGee. "As
far as that goes, there has been no change," he told DRCNet. "And it's
still illegal under federal law," he added.
Greg Wilkinson, spokesman for the Alaska Bureau of Alcohol and Drug
Enforcement, told DRCNet bureau representatives were meeting with
other state law enforcement officials this week to try to figure out
how to respond. "We are approaching this from two angles," he said.
"One feeling is that is will be business as usual. The other was that
it will not." Busting personal users in their homes is not a high
priority, he said, adding that the bureau's focus was on large-scale
commercial operations, but that agents who encountered personal
marijuana may still act. "The feeling is that we may end up just
confiscating the marijuana now," he said. He could not explain on what
basis police would seize people's legal property.
And Alaska Chief Assistant Attorney General Dean Guaneli was reading
from the same script. "When police come into a home, whether on a
domestic violence call or something else, and see marijuana, we are
not in a position to tell them to turn their back on it," he told
DRCNet. "We are telling the police it is not legal to possess. We will
continue to do as we have done, we will file charges and leave it up
to the courts."
When Guaneli was asked his position squared with the Court of Appeals'
unanimous and unequivocal ruling -- "Alaska citizens have the right to
possess less than four ounces of marijuana in their home for personal
use" -- he in turn asked, "What does that mean? If tomorrow a new
medical study showed marijuana has the same addictive properties for
long-term users as cocaine or heroin, does that mean the state is
prevented from prosecuting those cases? We've think if we have the
chance to go into court, we can show that the reasons for making
marijuana possession a crime are important enough to override our
constitutional right to privacy," Guaneli argued. "It is not quite
right to say this ruling makes it completely legal. If we can go in
right, we can get the court to change this."
Unsurprisingly, Fairbanks defense attorney Bill Satterberg, who
successfully argued the ground-breaking case as well as other related
cases (The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #295), begged to
differ with Guaneli's interpretation of the ruling. "Is the possession
of less than four ounces of marijuana in your own home legal in
Alaska?" he asked. "The answer is, under state law, yes; under federal
law, no," he told DRCNet. "We are moving into an area where a state
constitution grants greater freedom than the US Constitution." As a
practical matter, Satterberg added, federal prosecutions for simple
marijuana possession are highly unusual.
But if state and local law enforcement is going to argue that it can
make marijuana possession arrests because of federal law, they could
be in for some tough sledding, he suggested. "If state law enforcement
officers attempt to override state constitutional guarantees to
prosecute federal laws, they will be treading on dangerous ground,"
Satterberg said. "The police need to get some good legal advice. These
officers are sworn to uphold the law, and what I'm hearing them say is
they're not going to. If the police are saying they are not going to
follow state law, I find that incredible."
While Satterberg deemed himself incredulous at the prospect of police
recalcitrance, Allan St. Pierre of the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws - NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws) was less shocked. "It
is not surprising," he told DRCNet. "Certainly, in California and
other states, there have been pockets of police that are resistant to
living with new marijuana laws."
But police in Alaska have not been abiding by the law since 1990, when
a voter initiative recriminalized simple possession in the home, St.
Pierre argued. "The 1975 Alaska Supreme Court ruling legalizing
personal use of small amounts of marijuana in one's home has been the
law of the land, despite the unconstitutional initiative. Since that
ruling had never been revisited or overruled, the onus was on Alaska
law enforcement to enforce the Supreme Court decision. If the police
were to obey the law of the land, they would not have been arresting
people for the use of marijuana in their homes. That has always been
our position, and this ruling only reinforces our interpretation."
As of last Friday, Alaska has the most liberal marijuana possession
laws in the United States. The Alaska Supreme Court would have to
overturn its own 1975 decision in Ravin v. Alaska to undo the Court of
Appeals decision, and there is little indication it will do so,
despite Chief Assistant Attorney General Guaneli's fervent hope that
it will find differences between the marijuana of 1975 and the
marijuana of today so great as to override the privacy protections the
Supreme Court cited.
Visit Noy v. State (8/29/2003) ap-1897 to read the Alaska
Court of Appeals opinion online.
Pubdate: Fri, 05 Sep 2003
Source: Drug War Chronicle (US Web)
Contact: psmith@drcnet.org
Website: StoptheDrugWar.org | raising awareness of the consequences of prohibition