Another Set Back

[killerweed420]

Whatever happened to a presumption of innocense?
C/P
Court: Doc's marijuana OK doesn't preclude search

By GENE JOHNSON Associated Press Writer

The Washington State Supreme Court says a doctor's permission to use medical marijuana doesn't preclude police from arresting a patient or searching his home.


Story Published: Jan 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM PST

Story Updated: Jan 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM PST

SEATTLE (AP) - A doctor's permission to use medical marijuana doesn't preclude police from arresting a patient or searching his home, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court upheld the conviction of Jason Fry, a Stevens County man busted with 2 pounds of marijuana in 2004. Justices said sheriff's officers who smelled marijuana smoke at his home had probable cause to believe a crime was committed - even after the man presented them with an authorization from his doctor.

Eight of the nine justices said Washington's law only allows patients to present a medical marijuana defense at trial, and does not protect them from arrest or searches. It's hard to imagine how police could determine whether someone was complying with the law - such as by only possessing a 60-day supply of marijuana - without conducting a search, they said.

"Possession of marijuana, even in small amounts, is still a crime in the state of Washington," Justice James Johnson wrote in the lead opinion. "A police officer would have probable cause to believe Fry committed a crime when the officer smelled marijuana emanating from the Frys' residence."

Justice Richard Sanders dissented on that point, saying such an analysis would neuter the state's compassionate use law, passed by voters in 1998. While the law does create a defense against marijuana charges to be used at trial, he said, it also states that qualifying patients "shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege" for using marijuana under the act.

Under the court's ruling, a patient could be searched, arrested and hauled to court every time an officer smells marijuana at his or her home, even absent any evidence the patient is breaking the medical marijuana law, Sanders argued.

"I do not find the mercy of the people of Washington for individuals with terminal or debilitating illnesses to be so fickle," Sanders wrote.

Five justices also ruled that generally, judges must allow a jury to decide whether someone is a qualifying patient under the law. In this case, a Stevens County judge ruled on his own that Fry was not a qualifying patient.

Nevertheless, Fry's conviction was upheld because a defense lawyer conceded that his severe anxiety and depression are not conditions covered by the law.

Many pro-marijuana activists in Washington are frustrated that patients continue to be arrested and prosecuted, and some prosecutors have also expressed frustration over the difficulty of determining what's legal and what's not under the state's law.

One group, Sensible Washington, cites the confusion as one reason it's pushing a ballot initiative this year that would remove all state criminal penalties for adult use, possession, growing and delivery of marijuana.

On Wednesday, a state House committee rejected two other marijuana-reform measures - one that would make adult possession of small amounts punishable by a fine only, and one that would legalize marijuana for those 21 and older.

killerweed420 Reviewed by killerweed420 on 01-21-2010. Another Set Back Whatever happened to a presumption of innocense? C/P Court: Doc's marijuana OK doesn't preclude search By GENE JOHNSON Associated Press Writer The Washington State Supreme Court says a doctor's permission to use medical marijuana doesn't preclude police from arresting a patient or searching his home. Story Published: Jan 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM PST Rating: 5

[Telurmomisaidhi]

That is a load of crap. Its unfortunate he was convicted but i would understand the ruling as he did not have a proper qualifying condition. I have severe anxiety myself, i know that it helps in this situation, but i could never use that in court for my condition. Severe anxiety, and depression were rejected by the DOH some time ago as not having enough research on the benefits of the medical use for Anxiety.

This is what i am so concerned with. I understand that some mmj patients are able, and in a phsical state where thay can present themselve to a jury. But most terminaly ill patients are not able to do so, and are in no condition to have this great inconvenience.

If proper documentation is presented, and you are within the perameters of the laws in this state, there is no reason why one should have to endure this persecution.

[killerweed420]

They are working on it here in Washington to cover anxiety. And it should be covered. For anyone thats ever smoked, we know that is one of the primary benefits of MMJ. But its called the "high" and the legislature doesn't want anyone getting high off medicine.lol

[gypski]

Five justices also ruled that generally, judges must allow a jury to decide whether someone is a qualifying patient under the law.

On other words, a jury can tell a doctor he's full of shit??? If a person is in compliance, they should not be brought before the court. This simply nullifies the doctor's authorization and adds considerable burden on the patient to have to hire an attorney to defend what is true. Judicial activism at its worse. Hopefully, the initiative will nullify the courts out of bounds ruling. And, the bottom line, since he wasn't a qualifying patient, this is a poor precedent setting or test case.

Bottom line......How would they have decided if a fully authorized patient went through the same action???? Does this need to be run through the system too. I think not because again, it represents judicial activism against the will of the people. It also places an unnecessary burden upon a defendant to prove they are innocent.

[gypski]

And the lawyer who appealed this non-authorized person was an idiot. He must have had political pressure from somewhere. Is the defendant that weatlhy that he tried to push this past the court????? Fucked up decision and test case if you ask me again.

[gypski]

And on another note, how does this effect the decision by Seattle's New city Attorney not to prosecute marijuana offenses? Does it now force him to prosecute or does he still have leeway not to? :wtf:

[gypski]

Compare this decision to this one from California.

Calif. high court strikes down medical pot limits

[jamessr]

Well I guess my case is the one too kick the shit out of our justices. It is absolute TORTURE for them too rule this way....I read the accual court ruling on nexis lexis and will post it tommarrow in the legal section. Tonight I am just too sick too post it....

[jamessr]

And the lawyer who appealed this non-authorized person was an idiot. He must have had political pressure from somewhere. Is the defendant that weatlhy that he tried to push this past the court????? Fucked up decision and test case if you ask me again.

The court noted it was a THCF authorization from Dr. Orvald. Fry was an authorized qualifying patient, the Dr. is the one who fucked it all up because he didn't write the correct info. in the correct places. Fry has severe back pain unrelieved by standard meds and treatment, yet it was not noted as a qualifying condition by the damn stupid M.D. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr this just fry's my hide.....:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

[gypski]

The court noted it was a THCF authorization from Dr. Orvald. Fry was an authorized qualifying patient, the Dr. is the one who fucked it all up because he didn't write the correct info. in the correct places. Fry has severe back pain unrelieved by standard meds and treatment, yet it was not noted as a qualifying condition by the damn stupid M.D. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr this just fry's my hide.....:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

Then the patient needs to double check their authorization so that it states explicitly what is qualifying them. Passing the buck gets nowhere.