CNOA Bent On Increasing Arrests For Under An Ounce Of Medical Marijuana

[The General]

San Diego - If the California Narcotic Officers' Association didn't break your heart as a cannabis patient with their discovered and widely circulated "Marijuana is NOT Medicine" Training Manual, a new article found in their Summer 2014 Newsletter will surly do the trick. The article, titled "The Latest Medical Marijuana Case Law" focuses on small quantity arrests and how to obtain them using the ever-loosening police right to search your vehicle. The author of the piece found on Page 6 of "The California Narcotics Officer", Seth Cimino, is police officer in Citrus Heights, CA. He hints that driver disclosure of a doctor recommendation for medical cannabis could be enough to further a warrantless search and he suggests a number of questions designed to maximize potential harm in courts.

Cimino writes of medical cannabis patients during traffic stops: "You are more than likely to get cooperation from qualified patients if you use soft words. These people will normally talk to you." The article goes on to provide seven questions which, if answered, can be used to aid the prosecution in stripping patients of their medical marijuana defense. There are also strategies for getting dosage evidence that can potentially help prove patients are medicated during employment hours. If you disclose your cannabis dose to an officer you can expect this strategy, as the article reads: "Are they using before work, on their lunch break? What do they do for a living? Per 11362.785, an employer may terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana."

Virtually all top cops have shown very little respect for the Compassionate Use Act or Senate Bill SB420, both of which provide defenses to patients in court. Recently, Kim Raney of the California Police Chiefs Association called the application of medical marijuana laws "fraudulent" and law enforcement lobbyist John Lovell referred to the CUA as a "giant con job."

Meanwhile, here in San Diego, our City Attorney's office is advising the city council through the Public Safety and Livable Neighborhood Committee that criminal prosecutions of medical cannabis patients who operate un-zoned storefront co-ops are not panning out. The city is now using civil penalties to pressure landlords of co-ops to evict and penalty fees are racking up in the city coffers.

If the San Diego city attorney says criminal prosecution is not a viable strategy for storefronts why is the CNOA still rallying to help prosecute individual patients? Obviously, patients are not safe if this Russian roulette patchwork of police philosophy remains the only shield of protection in the state. And, how do patients and advocates respond, beyond the obvious "DON'T talk to the police"?

There are a number of ways to fight back, first, you can join ASA and be sure and check out VoteMedicalMarijuana.org so you are an informed voter. Additionally, become an informed juror and don't shirk your jury duty. Encourage others to perform jury duty and make it easy for them to do so. Check out FIJA.org for more information.

Over the years in San Diego we have seen a decline in criminal prosecutions and vindicated defendants Dennis and Deborah Little are now suing the chief of police and county sheriff in federal court. Recently, as many as five cases have been dropped here and evidence returned. In the case of Laura Sharp and SocalPURE, Inc. truckloads of medical cannabis products and grow equipment were returned in front of news cameras.

San Diegans are stopping prosecutions through the court system and it is working. Unfortunately for smaller towns like Citrus Grove, CA that could be years away. In the meantime, the only thing you should say to a cop is "Am I free to go, officer?" If you are not free to go, politely say you are going to stay silent and you would like an attorney. You can download the entire CNOA here: CNOA

News Moderator - The General @ 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: Safeaccesssd.com
Author: Terrie Best — San Diego Chapter — Americans for Safe Access
Contact: Contact Us
Website: California Narcotic Officers Association Bent on Increasing Arrests for Under an Ounce of Medical Marijuana

 

[wildjim]

Their mantra is and has always been "It's us and them." That's cops against we citizens, in plain english. Since when do they have the constitutional ability to judge whether a law is fraudulent?

WJ

 

[DRM Ranch]

Cimino writes of medical cannabis patients during traffic stops: "You are more than likely to get cooperation from qualified patients if you use soft words. These people will normally talk to you." The article goes on to provide seven questions which, if answered, can be used to aid the prosecution in stripping patients of their medical marijuana defense.

You should understand that an officer is going to use any method they have available to them to identify if you are breaking the law and build a case against you. That is their job, they should do a good job at it. I would expect nothing less.

As a medical marijuana consumer you retain the same rights as any other citizen and may if you so desire refuse to speak at any time, ask if you are free to go, or simply reply in whatever manner you please knowing that everything you say is likely to to be used against you down the road.

I like to say. Hello officer why did you pull me over today? and/or Here are my papers (drivers license, insurance, registration, etc.). If asked any other questions state I will be happy to have my attorney address your questions after I have had a chance to speak with her.

Sometimes going right to the attorney statement is needed followed by the papers statement, it really depends on your situation. I prefer to ask the officer, Will you let me know when I am free to go, they aren't likely going to do so but it is less ridiculous sounding than asking am I free to go over and over.

If pressed to speak, I simply state, My attorney will speak to that on my behalf. I have handed an officer my attorney's business card in one such encounter. I was issued a warning and sent on my way promptly. It is a good thing to have an attorney on retainer.

DRM Ranch

 

[s1ingblade]

They are supposed to SERVE and PROTECT, too bad they don't. Who pays there salaries? Shame

 

[DRM Ranch]

They are supposed to SERVE and PROTECT, too bad they don't. Who pays there salaries? Shame

But they do, not as well as a victim of any crime might like but lets look at it with some level of reason.

We can't afford to have an officer with us at every moment of the day, that simply isn't possible or even practical.

So police use statistics to better utilize their limited resources, statistics are not known to be accurate to a fine degree they mainly serve as an average guide.

Few people truly want the police to proactively protect us, so they are reactive in terms of how the protection is afforded. They catch criminals that have done something they don't stop law abiding citizens from becoming criminals and breaking the law. So the protection side is more of an after the fact prevention of liberty to those who are likely to conduct additional crimes against citizens.

They serve us by doing the above in a professional manner that is for the most part very structured and predictable.

I'll grant you that there are plenty of bad police out there just as there are plenty of bag grocery baggers that will put laundry detergent in the same bag as your pasta and bread (bread first of course).

If you do no wrong the chances of police interacting with you in a manner that is unpleasant is simply not very high at all.

Lets not project that a double standard is ok where we expect to be treated as individuals based on our own merits and not do the same for the police that do their job and all to often die or are seriously wounded in the process of doing their job.

There are 1 police officer for every 403 citizens in the USA, your only paying 2.5 tenths of one percent of any one officers salary, which isn't all that great in the first place.

DRM Ranch

 

[OnlyOrganic]

Policing is a business, no more and no less. The reputation of a police officer is built solely on how many (and with how much collateral) are fined and charged with crimes. Not a single police officer has the job of a compassionate humanitarian. Their mere existence is a threat to our rights and freedoms. They are an authoritative power that is above every single law [that they supposedly protect],and represent unfairness, inequality, and the absence of free will.

An officer who shoots someone on duty is not legally a murderer. An officer who steals medication from a cancer patient is not legally a thief. And those are the officers who will be first in line to receive pay raises and promotions. "Justice", "peace", "serve", "protect" are all sales terms. Nowhere in their job description do those things actually carry any weight. And the fact that those who don't agree with their presence are legally forced to pay their salaries is so very wrong.

 

[wildjim]

You are absolutely correct OnlyOrganic. That line between being a cop and a crook is a blue line. I've known many in my life in my job and family and none have been honest. They would steal and injure because they can. They run the largest protection racket in the country.

WJ

 

[DRM Ranch]

Policing is a business, no more and no less. The reputation of a police officer is built solely on how many (and with how much collateral) are fined and charged with crimes. Not a single police officer has the job of a compassionate humanitarian. Their mere existence is a threat to our rights and freedoms. They are an authoritative power that is above every single law [that they supposedly protect],and represent unfairness, inequality, and the absence of free will.

An officer who shoots someone on duty is not legally a murderer. An officer who steals medication from a cancer patient is not legally a thief. And those are the officers who will be first in line to receive pay raises and promotions. "Justice", "peace", "serve", "protect" are all sales terms. Nowhere in their job description do those things actually carry any weight. And the fact that those who don't agree with their presence are legally forced to pay their salaries is so very wrong.

I'm quite sure a rapist or murder does not agree with police presence, as is it likely that an inside trader is less than happy with police presence.

So long as they pay taxes they are paying for their own arrest and prosecution and it is quite right that they do.

A choice to do wrong by the laws of society in which you reside is a choice, a choice that has consequences.

So long as you view police as the enemy, you are going to live in fear. Such is a sad existence.

Aside from that, a police officer is afforded no more protection by law than any other person in a court. They are not above the law.

Where you see inequalities you need look no farther than the people the very citizens have elected into offices, and into judges chairs.

A citizen is not a murderer if they kill someone in defence of their own life, and in some cases they are not murderers if they kill someone they believe is about to cause lethal harm to another, a citizen is not charged with murder if they kill another in an unavoidable accident, this list could go on and on.

An officer who takes legally procured medication that is being used as proscribed and does so outside of the course of his or her duty can be found guilty of theft, there is enough case law supporting that this has happened. However what you call medicine and what the law regards as medicine may differ greatly. Do not confuse the two. Theft does not equal the collection of evidence against a person.

Please don't get me wrong here, I'm all for both the medicinal and recreational use of cannabis where it is legal. As well I would not testify against a person for a choice they make where the law does not support cannabis use.

I have always said and will continue to say, do what you can afford to do, it is your life, your decision.

DRM Ranch

 

[OnlyOrganic]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I will say that viewing the police as I do does not made me fear them. Exactly the opposite. I see them for what they are, and am that much more confident that I have nothing to fear because I live by principles that create honesty, positivity, and peacefulness... principles that are far and away separate from the duties of an officer. This is not a "sad existence", as you have put it.

We obviously have very, very different life experiences and perspectives. I'll leave it there, and with no judgment from my end.

 

[DRM Ranch]

Agreed, we see things differently, it is funny how we appear to be looking from the same vantage point though.

Peace my friend,
DRM Ranch

 

[Pinkstardust]

The only difference between these people and street thugs is that they are protected with laws that allow them to hurt us. I used to respect the police. But they are crooked and know they will be losing money so they terrorize people.

 

[J9BLACK]

I don't remember police being present to stop a murder, rapist or insider trader. My favorite law enforcer of all time couldn't put together a case against a Wall Street Bank.

Police officers and other gun fanatics live by this principle: "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." The calculus there being that cop's innocent life is somehow worth more than my innocent life. I don't agree with that.

 

[wildjim]

They used to be friendly and helpful. Now they are threatening and aloof. I've known many due to my electronics communications occupation. All were crooked. Corrupted by "want". Corrupted by fast money in the drug war. And the worst thing, their belief that they know what's best for us.

WJ

 

[DRM Ranch]

If the San Diego city attorney says criminal prosecution is not a viable strategy for storefronts why is the CNOA still rallying to help prosecute individual patients?

Because patients can unlawfully use the medicine they attained legally but under false pretenses.

A patient who is given narcotics to treat pain risks arrest if they do not use the medicine as directed.

Let's not confuse lawful use of cannabis with unlawful use. Cannabis use as a medicine is protected by California law, so long as it is used in accordance with the law.

Teaching officers how to effectively parse out who is using cannabis lawfully and who is not is an effective way to minimize arrests of those who are not breaking the law.

It is my opinion that all medical cannabis users should be well versed in the laws that govern the legal use of cannabis and abide by those laws explicitly. Further more it would be wise to not place ones self in a position where unlawful use or intent may be suspected. In all cases, get a lawyer on retainer, and always have your lawyer do your talking.

If you do your part your lawyer can effectively do hers.

My wife said it best, there is a huge difference between legally right and morally right. From that alone if you wish to remain on the free to go side of the bars, forget about what you think is morally right and learn what it means to be legally right.

DRM Ranch

 

[Pinkstardust]

Who governs the Police? They are fighting against legalization because they will no longer be able to steal money,weed,and whatever else they can snag from a raid. Every day in the news you see the rage of the police and the dea being poured out on people who are trying to get free of pain via a living plant. When is someone in the White House going to stop this?

 

[OnlyOrganic]

Who governs the Police? They are fighting against legalization because they will no longer be able to steal money,weed,and whatever else they can snag from a raid. Every day in the news you see the rage of the police and the dea being poured out on people who are trying to get free of pain via a living plant. When is someone in the White House going to stop this?

Below is an article entitled "Why Oregon Sheriffs Really Want To Keep Marijuana Illegal" that goes in depth about 'asset forfeiture', which is simply legalized theft. With every bust comes free stuff that they can take, which is why they will always want it illegal. You're absolutely right, but you can't expect the Fed to ever step in to stop it. They, themselves, have perfected this mode of business with the DEA and other anti-drug agencies. It all starts at the top, and it sets the example for everyone else to follow... the ultimate 'trickle down effect. The only ones who can stop it are normal citizens like us by protesting in every way imaginable. When enough people grow tired of what we're already aware of, only then will things change. But until that time, not enough regular people know, or care to know, about these atrocities.

When public money disappeared to bring Kevin Sabet to "educate" Oregonians about the perils of legalizing marijuana under Measure 91, the Oregon Sheriffs Association stepped up quickly to replace the $15,000 needed to pay Sabet and continue the Oregon Marijuana "Education" Tour & Summit that only happens in October when legalization is on the ballot the following November.

A look at the funding for the No on 91 Campaign shows that of the $167,425 they've reported as of today, a whopping 98.6% of that came from the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association and the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association... in fact, they are the only donors over $500.

Why do you suppose that the cops in Oregon are so hell-bent on ensuring that marijuana remains illegal in Oregon? After all, marijuana was decriminalized in 1973. It's no big deal, says No on 91 spokesperson Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis, “You didn’t get a free ride in a police car. You didn’t have a criminal record. That’s what less than an ounce of marijuana is in Oregon.” And, of course, we have 69,000 medical marijuana patients and another 34,000 or more caregivers and maybe 15,000 growers -- potentially well over 100,000 Oregonians whose marijuana cultivation and possession are protected under the law. So why the big push by cops to keep the greater-than-one-ounce possession and non-medical-cultivation-and-sales crimes on the books?

Simple. As my pal Rick Steves says, "follow the money."

The State of Oregon produces an annual report on Asset Forfeiture in the state. You may have read the Washington Post's story or seen John Oliver's segment on this practice. Basically, asset forfeiture is when cops steal your cash, car, home, and other valuables, under the pretense that it was all ill-gotten proceeds of criminal activity. The idea, pushed by then-Senator Joe Biden in the late 1980s, was to seize the sports cars, yachts, and cash from those Miami Vice cocaine kingpins and use the money to fund police efforts to catch them.

A laudable goal, but one that came with a really big unintended consequence: policing for profit. No longer was the idea to go after the cocaine kingpin who can afford an army of lawyers to defend himself in court, but rather the small-time drug user or dealer who had enough money worth taking but not enough means to fight to get it back. And it takes some means to fight back, as your property has no constitutional rights and is considered guilty until proven innocent. In fact, you personally don't even need to be charged with a crime (and usually aren't) in order for cops to steal your stuff on the basis that it was criminal stuff.

According to the Oregon 2013 Asset Forfeiture Report, criminal and civil asset forfeitures grossed $3.6 million for the state, $2.5 million of that in cash. After costs and distributions, the net proceeds were $1.7 million. 19 police agencies made 136 criminal seizures and 24 agencies made 258 civil seizures. Of these 394 seizures, 330 (84%) were uncontested by the owners -- it is somewhat difficult to hire a lawyer to get your seized cash when you have no cash for the lawyer, and often the cost of the lawyer exceeds the value of the cash seized.

This is where marijuana comes in. Of the 273 "prohibited conduct" crimes that led to a criminal forfeiture, 90% were drug crimes (there were multiple crimes involved in some of the 136 criminal seizures). Of those drug crimes, almost half were related to marijuana (and again, multiple drugs could be discovered in one seizure). On the civil side, of the 543 "prohibited conduct" crimes, 97% were drug crimes and 22% of those involved marijuana.

Any way you slice it, making marijuana no longer a contraband item will take a big chunk out of that net proceeds of $1.7 million annually, $1.4 million of which went to city, county, and state police and district attorneys.

Marijuana is unique among drugs in that it has a powerful smell and it is commonly used (1 in 9 adult Oregonians aged 21+ use marijuana monthly, 1 in 6.5 use annually ). When a cop pulls over a car he suspects is a worthy seizure, he need only claim he smells marijuana to establish the reasonable suspicion he needs to bring in the K-9 drug dog. When the drug dog then alerts -- which is a false alert 1 in 5 times around the perimeter of a car, or a 1 in 3 false alert once inside the car, or even a purposeful false alert thanks to cops surreptitiously smearing weed on a suspect vehicle beforehand -- the cop has probable cause to instigate a search of the vehicle and seize any thing he finds.

So when you look at it that way, spending about $180,000 to protect $1.4 million is a reasonable return on investment. Why, look at all the neat stuff cops and DAs got to buy last year...

 

[DRM Ranch]

Laws and regulations put into effect by the people you and I vote into office are what governs police.

In our democratic system it is the vote of the people that ultimately harbors responsibility for the formation of laws.

If a law is enacted that you oppose it is highly likely that you can thank yourself or your neighbors for its passing.

As much as you might like to think cops make their own laws, they don't have any say more than you do. And they are as free to lobby for more stringent cannabis laws as you are to lobby for less stringent laws regarding the same.

In my state it is still quite illegal to use cannabis in any form, period. So I don't. I will be in a state where it is legal soon enough though and when that time comes I will follow the law of that state and so long as there is a federal law against cannabis use, I will have an attorney on retainer. It really is that simple.

I will vote for pro cannabis laws and support pro cannabis political movements that I see fitting. That's how I prefer to live my life.

I do not want to be a high profile target, or even a low profile target. I aim to be the target that can't be hit. When you act in accordance with the laws that clearly protect your actions, you are safer than when you act on belief that you are doing good.

The desire to help people obtain cannabis as a medicine is an honorable one, and I as well as many others applaud you for it, however, to be effective you must be on the free to go side of the bars my friend. Americans are quick to forget those who fight the law and lose. You are in effect doing more harm than good if resisting current law is your choice of action.

DRM Ranch

 

[painkills2]

DRM Ranch:

I'm a very curious person, so when I read your posts, I have to wonder why your views are so... shall we say, elitist? Sure, I could have come to that conclusion just with your attorney-on-retainer remarks, as the only people I've known who have an attorney on retainer are... other attorneys (a rather elitist group). And I'm sure anyone who's been a victim of stop-and-frisk doesn't have an attorney on retainer either.

Your views of the police could be explained by your middle-class (or higher) position, but are rather confusing considering the militarized state of America's police forces. Police don't get away with stealing and murder? Huh? It's almost like you don't read the news.

But I also have to wonder if your view of the police has to do with where you're originally from -- as I noticed you used the British spelling of the word "defense." Perhaps, then, your view of the police is also based on law enforcement in other countries?

Don't mean to be intrusive or anything, just trying to satisfy my curiosity.

 

[Radogast]

Below is an article entitled "Why Oregon Sheriffs Really Want To Keep Marijuana Illegal" that goes in depth about 'asset forfeiture', which is simply legalized theft. With every bust comes free stuff that they can take, which is why they will always want it illegal. You're absolutely right, but you can't expect the Fed to ever step in to stop it. They, themselves, have perfected this mode of business with the DEA and other anti-drug agencies. It all starts at the top, and it sets the example for everyone else to follow... the ultimate 'trickle down effect. The only ones who can stop it are normal citizens like us by protesting in every way imaginable. When enough people grow tired of what we're already aware of, only then will things change. But until that time, not enough regular people know, or care to know, about these atrocities.

When public money disappeared to bring Kevin Sabet to "educate" Oregonians about the perils of legalizing marijuana under Measure 91, the Oregon Sheriffs Association stepped up quickly to replace the $15,000 needed to pay Sabet and continue the Oregon Marijuana "Education" Tour & Summit that only happens in October when legalization is on the ballot the following November.

A look at the funding for the No on 91 Campaign shows that of the $167,425 they've reported as of today, a whopping 98.6% of that came from the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association and the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association... in fact, they are the only donors over $500.

Why do you suppose that the cops in Oregon are so hell-bent on ensuring that marijuana remains illegal in Oregon? After all, marijuana was decriminalized in 1973. It's no big deal, says No on 91 spokesperson Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis, “You didn’t get a free ride in a police car. You didn’t have a criminal record. That’s what less than an ounce of marijuana is in Oregon.” And, of course, we have 69,000 medical marijuana patients and another 34,000 or more caregivers and maybe 15,000 growers -- potentially well over 100,000 Oregonians whose marijuana cultivation and possession are protected under the law. So why the big push by cops to keep the greater-than-one-ounce possession and non-medical-cultivation-and-sales crimes on the books?

Simple. As my pal Rick Steves says, "follow the money."

The State of Oregon produces an annual report on Asset Forfeiture in the state. You may have read the Washington Post's story or seen John Oliver's segment on this practice. Basically, asset forfeiture is when cops steal your cash, car, home, and other valuables, under the pretense that it was all ill-gotten proceeds of criminal activity. The idea, pushed by then-Senator Joe Biden in the late 1980s, was to seize the sports cars, yachts, and cash from those Miami Vice cocaine kingpins and use the money to fund police efforts to catch them.

A laudable goal, but one that came with a really big unintended consequence: policing for profit. No longer was the idea to go after the cocaine kingpin who can afford an army of lawyers to defend himself in court, but rather the small-time drug user or dealer who had enough money worth taking but not enough means to fight to get it back. And it takes some means to fight back, as your property has no constitutional rights and is considered guilty until proven innocent. In fact, you personally don't even need to be charged with a crime (and usually aren't) in order for cops to steal your stuff on the basis that it was criminal stuff.

According to the Oregon 2013 Asset Forfeiture Report, criminal and civil asset forfeitures grossed $3.6 million for the state, $2.5 million of that in cash. After costs and distributions, the net proceeds were $1.7 million. 19 police agencies made 136 criminal seizures and 24 agencies made 258 civil seizures. Of these 394 seizures, 330 (84%) were uncontested by the owners -- it is somewhat difficult to hire a lawyer to get your seized cash when you have no cash for the lawyer, and often the cost of the lawyer exceeds the value of the cash seized.

This is where marijuana comes in. Of the 273 "prohibited conduct" crimes that led to a criminal forfeiture, 90% were drug crimes (there were multiple crimes involved in some of the 136 criminal seizures). Of those drug crimes, almost half were related to marijuana (and again, multiple drugs could be discovered in one seizure). On the civil side, of the 543 "prohibited conduct" crimes, 97% were drug crimes and 22% of those involved marijuana.

Any way you slice it, making marijuana no longer a contraband item will take a big chunk out of that net proceeds of $1.7 million annually, $1.4 million of which went to city, county, and state police and district attorneys.

Marijuana is unique among drugs in that it has a powerful smell and it is commonly used (1 in 9 adult Oregonians aged 21+ use marijuana monthly, 1 in 6.5 use annually ). When a cop pulls over a car he suspects is a worthy seizure, he need only claim he smells marijuana to establish the reasonable suspicion he needs to bring in the K-9 drug dog. When the drug dog then alerts -- which is a false alert 1 in 5 times around the perimeter of a car, or a 1 in 3 false alert once inside the car, or even a purposeful false alert thanks to cops surreptitiously smearing weed on a suspect vehicle beforehand -- the cop has probable cause to instigate a search of the vehicle and seize any thing he finds.

So when you look at it that way, spending about $180,000 to protect $1.4 million is a reasonable return on investment. Why, look at all the neat stuff cops and DAs got to buy last year...

Good article indeed

 

[c526]

interesting thread,some points make me high five,some posts make me look at the screen and shake my head.