California has allowed the use and exchange of marijuana for medical use for well over a decade now, but the federal government still considers marijuana to be a Schedule I narcotic, a group of drugs that includes dangerous substances like heroin and meth. The dichotomy between state and federal law creates a complicated situation for medical marijuana users and the people supplying them cannabis. As a result, you end up with federal cases where marijuana dispensary owners get sentenced to years in prison for operating as drug dealers.
One of the most high-profile and recent cases to showcase this phenomenon involves 32-year-old Joshua Hester, a San Diego resident who secretly operated several medical dispensaries in the downtown area. While no state authorities brought up charges against Hester’s marijuana operations, federal authorities launched an investigation that involved wire taps and surveillance in 2008. Two years later the feds indicted Hester and ten of his accomplices for their roles in violating the Controlled Substances Act.
Judge Irma Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court downtown stated that Hester was not being punished for his simple involvement with medical marijuana, but because he profited so highly from the operation. “You used state laws that allow people to benefit from these cooperatives for your own benefit,” Gonzalez said in court. Hester was ultimately handed an 8-year sentence for his role in the operation. Laura Duffy, the prosecutor in the case, said that the defendant exemplified the type of marijuana dealing that the feds were targeting in San Diego.
Despite Duffy’s claims that the federal government is only prosecuting dispensaries who operate as for-profit drug dealing businesses, 95 percent of medical marijuana dispensaries in the area have been effectively shut down. Advocates for medical marijuana claim that the feds are targeting all dispensaries, not just the most egregious ones. Federal law gives no special status to marijuana operations that properly follow California law regarding the exchange and use of medical cannabis.
William Sherman, head of the DEA office in San Diego, said that he never witnessed any legitimate use for the dispensaries in San Diego. Out of the hundreds of investigations the DEA has conducted on dispensaries in the last few years, “None of them have been true collectives or true cooperatives that are in the business of compassionate care,” Sherman said after the court hearing. “They are all in the business of making a profit. This is a big business.”
January 31, 2013
January 28, 2013
Can The Police Lie to You?
The short answer: YES
There is a popular perception among the public that law enforcement officers are dedicated to staying honest and truthful at all times, but this is simply not the case. If you are questioned by police in your home, or you are brought into the station for interrogation, officers can lie to you to get the information they need for a conviction. Officers can deceive and mislead whether they are known to be police or are working undercover, and it's a myth that undercover cops have to reveal their true identities when asked.
Police are allowed to deceive suspects during an investigation according the the supreme court case Frazier v. Cupp. The case involved a U.S. marine, Martin Frazier, who confessed to a murder after being falsely informed that his cousin had confessed and implicated him in the crime. Frazier partly appealed his conviction on the grounds that his confession was given involuntarily. The supreme court at the time, lead by Chief Justice Earl Warren, said Frazier's confession was not involuntary due to the "totality of the circumstances" at the time despite officers feeding him false information. The court also dismissed Frazier's argument that he wasn't given his Miranda rights; the majority opinion noted that the Miranda v. Arizona cased had not been decided at the time of the confession.
People find it hard to believe that anyone would confess to a crime they didn't commit, making a confession an extremely valuable piece of evidence in a trial. Defendants are often convicted during jury trials when the prosecution has nothing more than a signed written confession. Despite the presence of Miranda warnings in popular culture, many defendants waive their right to remain silent in the belief that they can convince officers of their innocence. This is a mistake. This video, Don't Talk to the Police, provides a clear understanding of your right to remain silent. The lecture is given by a law school professor and a police officer.
The 5th Amendment protects your right to stay silent when being questioned by the police. Innocent people have been sent to prison for long periods of time for saying incriminating things or making false confessions in front of cameras and officers. Interrogations, whether they take place in your home or in the police station, can be very intimidating to ordinary people. The best thing you can do if you're being questioned by police as a suspect is to ask for a San Diego lawyer and stay quiet. You cannot be punished by a court for staying silent, but a lot can go wrong if you say the wrong thing to an officer.
There is a popular perception among the public that law enforcement officers are dedicated to staying honest and truthful at all times, but this is simply not the case. If you are questioned by police in your home, or you are brought into the station for interrogation, officers can lie to you to get the information they need for a conviction. Officers can deceive and mislead whether they are known to be police or are working undercover, and it's a myth that undercover cops have to reveal their true identities when asked.
Police are allowed to deceive suspects during an investigation according the the supreme court case Frazier v. Cupp. The case involved a U.S. marine, Martin Frazier, who confessed to a murder after being falsely informed that his cousin had confessed and implicated him in the crime. Frazier partly appealed his conviction on the grounds that his confession was given involuntarily. The supreme court at the time, lead by Chief Justice Earl Warren, said Frazier's confession was not involuntary due to the "totality of the circumstances" at the time despite officers feeding him false information. The court also dismissed Frazier's argument that he wasn't given his Miranda rights; the majority opinion noted that the Miranda v. Arizona cased had not been decided at the time of the confession.
People find it hard to believe that anyone would confess to a crime they didn't commit, making a confession an extremely valuable piece of evidence in a trial. Defendants are often convicted during jury trials when the prosecution has nothing more than a signed written confession. Despite the presence of Miranda warnings in popular culture, many defendants waive their right to remain silent in the belief that they can convince officers of their innocence. This is a mistake. This video, Don't Talk to the Police, provides a clear understanding of your right to remain silent. The lecture is given by a law school professor and a police officer.
The 5th Amendment protects your right to stay silent when being questioned by the police. Innocent people have been sent to prison for long periods of time for saying incriminating things or making false confessions in front of cameras and officers. Interrogations, whether they take place in your home or in the police station, can be very intimidating to ordinary people. The best thing you can do if you're being questioned by police as a suspect is to ask for a San Diego lawyer and stay quiet. You cannot be punished by a court for staying silent, but a lot can go wrong if you say the wrong thing to an officer.
January 25, 2013
San Diego Teacher Charged with Child Pornography
A
San Diego school teacher in custody for child pornography charges
attempted suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center a little less
than a week after his arrest in North Park. Timothy James Hensley, an
award-winning science teacher at Bell Middle School in Paradise Hills,
is being held for charges of possessing child pornography. He was
arrested on January 15th after federal authorities, including agents
from Homeland Security, executed a search warrant at his apartment.
Agents stated that they found sexually explicit content involving minors
on 5 DVDs located in Hensley’s apartment. While he was free to leave at
the time of the search, Hensley was later arrested at a parking lot in
Balboa Park
The Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce is primarily responsible for the arrest and investigation. The multi-agency organization works to find individuals who knowingly possess, receive, distribute or produce images of children in sexually explicit conduct. The agency started in 1998 as a means to coordinate federal, state and local resources in the fight to stop the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The agency has a lot of resources at its disposal, and they are known for bringing very strong cases against defendants. Mounting a proper defense requires a defense attorney with experience in child pornography cases in San Diego.
Federal penalties for child pornography possession can be as high as 10-years in prison per count. Prosecutors follow the guidelines set out by the Federal Sentencing Commission. Several factors contribute to the total sentence imposed on each defendant: number of images, age of victims, use of a computer in the crime and criminal history. The base offense level for possession of child pornography is 18, requiring 27-33 months in prison; however, the median sentence for child pornography cases in southern California is 65 months, and nationally it’s 85 months. The result of a child pornography case can last far beyond the imposed prison sentence. Most defendants are required to register as sex offenders, affecting their ability to find a job and place to live after they have served their sentence.
Cases involving child pornography are very sensitive to defendants and their families. Most prosecutions involve significant social stigma regardless of the final verdict. It’s important to retain a defense attorney that knows the rights of defendants no matter how much emotion is involved in a case. As seen in the case above, many defendants feel like they have no way out, but everyone deserves a solid and hard-fought defense no matter what their crime.
The Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce is primarily responsible for the arrest and investigation. The multi-agency organization works to find individuals who knowingly possess, receive, distribute or produce images of children in sexually explicit conduct. The agency started in 1998 as a means to coordinate federal, state and local resources in the fight to stop the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The agency has a lot of resources at its disposal, and they are known for bringing very strong cases against defendants. Mounting a proper defense requires a defense attorney with experience in child pornography cases in San Diego.
Federal penalties for child pornography possession can be as high as 10-years in prison per count. Prosecutors follow the guidelines set out by the Federal Sentencing Commission. Several factors contribute to the total sentence imposed on each defendant: number of images, age of victims, use of a computer in the crime and criminal history. The base offense level for possession of child pornography is 18, requiring 27-33 months in prison; however, the median sentence for child pornography cases in southern California is 65 months, and nationally it’s 85 months. The result of a child pornography case can last far beyond the imposed prison sentence. Most defendants are required to register as sex offenders, affecting their ability to find a job and place to live after they have served their sentence.
Cases involving child pornography are very sensitive to defendants and their families. Most prosecutions involve significant social stigma regardless of the final verdict. It’s important to retain a defense attorney that knows the rights of defendants no matter how much emotion is involved in a case. As seen in the case above, many defendants feel like they have no way out, but everyone deserves a solid and hard-fought defense no matter what their crime.
January 22, 2013
San Diego and the War on Drugs
In an effort to curb the use of recreational drugs considered too harmful for casual consumption, federal, state and local governments fight a seemingly never-ending battle against producers, dealers and possessors of drugs in a phenomenon labeled "The War on Drugs." Major battles of this war are fought on the border between the United States and Mexico. Drug cartels funnel large amounts of marijuana, cocaine and other illegal substances through underground tunnels and other clandestine delivery systems. As a result, Mexican and American cities along the border find themselves embroiled in perpetual battle to keep drugs off the streets. San Diego state and federal courts are filled with drug cases, and the prisons are packed to the brim with traffickers and buyers.
Defense attorneys in San Diego like me see the results of the war on drugs in our offices and in court all of the time. Cases range anywhere from simple posession to full on trafficking and production in federal court. Drugs can already have a devastating impact on children and families, but when the justice system gets involved, things can get even worse. A drug conviction can result in difficulty finding a job, getting an apartment or keeping custody of children. It's important to get the best defense possible if you are ever arrested for posession, trafficking or dealing. Don't talk to the police until you have a lawyer by your side to defend you.
In San Diego, the war on drugs is in conflict with California state law when it comes to cannabis, creating a lot of confusion for medial users who think they are following the law. Medical marijuana was made legal in California in 1996 when voters passed Proposition 215. The law made posession and cultivation of marijuana legal for ill patients who were recommended cannabis by their doctor; however, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance according to the federal government's Controlled Substances Act. As a result, the DEA and other federal authories still routinely prosecute individuals for marijuana posession in San Diego.
If you're arrested by the DEA or other federal agencies for marijuana, flashing your medical card won't do you any good. You need to find a lawyer who has experience with federal drug cases.
Defense attorneys in San Diego like me see the results of the war on drugs in our offices and in court all of the time. Cases range anywhere from simple posession to full on trafficking and production in federal court. Drugs can already have a devastating impact on children and families, but when the justice system gets involved, things can get even worse. A drug conviction can result in difficulty finding a job, getting an apartment or keeping custody of children. It's important to get the best defense possible if you are ever arrested for posession, trafficking or dealing. Don't talk to the police until you have a lawyer by your side to defend you.
In San Diego, the war on drugs is in conflict with California state law when it comes to cannabis, creating a lot of confusion for medial users who think they are following the law. Medical marijuana was made legal in California in 1996 when voters passed Proposition 215. The law made posession and cultivation of marijuana legal for ill patients who were recommended cannabis by their doctor; however, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance according to the federal government's Controlled Substances Act. As a result, the DEA and other federal authories still routinely prosecute individuals for marijuana posession in San Diego.
If you're arrested by the DEA or other federal agencies for marijuana, flashing your medical card won't do you any good. You need to find a lawyer who has experience with federal drug cases.
January 18, 2013
Three-Strikes Law in San Diego
The late 1980s and early 1990s brought a dramatic increase in crimes of all types in California, including San Diego and the surrounding communities. Not only did crime in general increase, but the Los Angeles riots of 1992 ignited a desire in the population to impose harsher and more permanent sentences to habitual criminals. As lovers of baseball, Americans naturally gravitated toward a punitive measure based on striking out. If you commit three or more felonies, you'll be locked away for good. Three-strikes laws started showing up in states all across the U.S.. The most notorious, however, was in California.
In California, the proposition system allows the enactment of laws through direct democracy. Proposition 184, known as the Three Strikes Initiative, was on the ballot during the mid-term elections of 1994. It was meant to significantly strengthen the three-strikes law that had already passed in the California legislature earlier in the year. On November 8th, 72 percent of voters approved of the proposition. The success of the measure is often attributed to a few high-class cases involving repeat offenders that occurred in the preceding years, including the murders of Poly Class and Kimber Reynolds.
Even though California is not the only, nor the first, state with a three-strikes law, it does have the toughest. Habitual criminals can be locked away for 25 years to life for non-serious and non-violent offenses on their third strike; most other states demand a serious or violent crime for third-strike life sentences. In 1996, district attorneys from counties all across the state imposed life sentences in more than 1,700 cases as a result of the three-strikes legislation. These numbers dropped significantly in the following 15 years. There are currently about 200 three-strike life sentence cases per year in California.
Three-strikes laws have come under a lot of criticism in judicial and academic circles. Relatively minor offenses can often result in life sentences for repeat criminals in many cases. For example, Leandro Andrade is serving a 50-to-life-sentence for shoplifting after prosecutors elevated the offense to a felony according to three-strikes provisions. Andrade appealed his case all the way to the supreme court based on the argument that his sentence violated cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. The SCOTUS majority, however, did not find that his sentence was cruel and unusual under the framework of California law.
In California, the proposition system allows the enactment of laws through direct democracy. Proposition 184, known as the Three Strikes Initiative, was on the ballot during the mid-term elections of 1994. It was meant to significantly strengthen the three-strikes law that had already passed in the California legislature earlier in the year. On November 8th, 72 percent of voters approved of the proposition. The success of the measure is often attributed to a few high-class cases involving repeat offenders that occurred in the preceding years, including the murders of Poly Class and Kimber Reynolds.
Even though California is not the only, nor the first, state with a three-strikes law, it does have the toughest. Habitual criminals can be locked away for 25 years to life for non-serious and non-violent offenses on their third strike; most other states demand a serious or violent crime for third-strike life sentences. In 1996, district attorneys from counties all across the state imposed life sentences in more than 1,700 cases as a result of the three-strikes legislation. These numbers dropped significantly in the following 15 years. There are currently about 200 three-strike life sentence cases per year in California.
Three-strikes laws have come under a lot of criticism in judicial and academic circles. Relatively minor offenses can often result in life sentences for repeat criminals in many cases. For example, Leandro Andrade is serving a 50-to-life-sentence for shoplifting after prosecutors elevated the offense to a felony according to three-strikes provisions. Andrade appealed his case all the way to the supreme court based on the argument that his sentence violated cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. The SCOTUS majority, however, did not find that his sentence was cruel and unusual under the framework of California law.
January 15, 2013
DUI Checkpoints in San Diego
DUI checkpoints are a very common law enforcement tactic for catching drivers who are intoxicated on on the roadway. Checkpoints are popular during major party holidays (New Years, Saint Patrick's Day, 4th of July) and on late weekend nights. While checkpoints are allowed by the supreme court, there are certain limitations when it comes to how and where sobriety checks are conducted. The primary guideline involves the randomness of searches; officers cannot select cars to inspect based on their own criteria. Some critics of checkpoints have complained that police have violated this rule in places like Escondido.
Your Rights at a Checkpoint
No one should drive on the road under the influence of alcohol; however, that does not mean you should be forced to sacrifice your constitutional rights when you get stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. If you are stopped by an officer and they ask you to perform a sobriety test, including a breathalyser or field test, you have the right to refuse without penalty. If you are arrested for drunk driving, however, your refusal to submit to a blood alcohol content test can result in stiff penalties. This is because California law states that any driver on the road provides implied consent to any sobriety test.
Constitutional Concerns
The 4th Amendment of the U.S. constitution protects individuals from searches and seizures unless a warrant is issued by a court of law. The supreme court acknowledged that sobriety checkpoints violated this protection; however, Chief Justice Rhenquist argued that this minor violation of civil rights was justified by the overwhelming concern to get impaired drivers off the road. Many other justices at the time disagreed, saying that there should be no exceptions to constitutional protections.They also noted that there was little evidence to support the use of DUI checkpoints in reducing drunk driving incidents.
Immigration Checks in Escondido
Early in 2012, the City of Escondido was involved in a controversy surrounding their use of sobriety checkpoints to check the immigration status of drivers. For every driver caught drinking and driving, ten were found to be driving without proper documentation. Federal agents with ICE work with the Escondido police to help deport individuals discovered with an undocumented status at these checkpoints. Civil rights critics have complained that these sobriety checks unfairly target the Latino population of the area.
Your Rights at a Checkpoint
No one should drive on the road under the influence of alcohol; however, that does not mean you should be forced to sacrifice your constitutional rights when you get stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. If you are stopped by an officer and they ask you to perform a sobriety test, including a breathalyser or field test, you have the right to refuse without penalty. If you are arrested for drunk driving, however, your refusal to submit to a blood alcohol content test can result in stiff penalties. This is because California law states that any driver on the road provides implied consent to any sobriety test.
Constitutional Concerns
The 4th Amendment of the U.S. constitution protects individuals from searches and seizures unless a warrant is issued by a court of law. The supreme court acknowledged that sobriety checkpoints violated this protection; however, Chief Justice Rhenquist argued that this minor violation of civil rights was justified by the overwhelming concern to get impaired drivers off the road. Many other justices at the time disagreed, saying that there should be no exceptions to constitutional protections.They also noted that there was little evidence to support the use of DUI checkpoints in reducing drunk driving incidents.
Immigration Checks in Escondido
Early in 2012, the City of Escondido was involved in a controversy surrounding their use of sobriety checkpoints to check the immigration status of drivers. For every driver caught drinking and driving, ten were found to be driving without proper documentation. Federal agents with ICE work with the Escondido police to help deport individuals discovered with an undocumented status at these checkpoints. Civil rights critics have complained that these sobriety checks unfairly target the Latino population of the area.
January 3, 2013
San Diego Woman Charged with DUI Related Death Pleads Not Guilty
A court case involving the tragic death of 25-year-old woman on Route 52 in San Diego continued today. The defendant is accused of driving with an alcohol level around .2 percent, which exceeds the state legal limit of .08 percent. She allegedly crossed the highway's dividing line and collided her truck with a smaller vehicle. DUI cases in San Diego are treated very seriously by the police and prosecutors. Drunk driving incidents that involve the serious injury or death of another can be met with prison sentences of years or decades. In this case, the defendant faces up to 10 years if convicted. Life altering cases like these require legal representation from a DUI attorney who has extensive experience in this area of the law.
Here are some of the details according to CBS8 News:
"SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A woman who allegedly drove the wrong way while drunk on state Route 52, causing a head-on crash that killed the other driver, pleaded not guilty Thursday to a felony charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
April Thompson, 23, was ordered held on $250,000 bail. She faces up to 10 years in state prison if convicted.
Deputy District Attorney Michael Runyon said Thompson was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes of state Route 52 around 1 a.m. last Saturday when she crashed her Chevrolet truck head-on into a 1970 Volkswagen Beetle driven by 25-year-old Jayme Alan Midlam. He died at the scene and Thompson was treated at a hospital for moderate injuries."
Read the rest of the story here.
Here are some of the details according to CBS8 News:
"SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A woman who allegedly drove the wrong way while drunk on state Route 52, causing a head-on crash that killed the other driver, pleaded not guilty Thursday to a felony charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
April Thompson, 23, was ordered held on $250,000 bail. She faces up to 10 years in state prison if convicted.
Deputy District Attorney Michael Runyon said Thompson was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes of state Route 52 around 1 a.m. last Saturday when she crashed her Chevrolet truck head-on into a 1970 Volkswagen Beetle driven by 25-year-old Jayme Alan Midlam. He died at the scene and Thompson was treated at a hospital for moderate injuries."
Read the rest of the story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)