|
US AK: Ruling Limits Pot Raids
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1221/a09.html
Newshawk: The New www.DrugSense.org
Votes: 1
Pubdate: Sat, 28 Aug 2004
Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)
Copyright: 2004 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc.
Contact: letters@newsminer.com
Website: http://www.news-miner.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/764
Author: Matt Volz, Associated Press Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/states/ak/ (Alaska)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
RULING LIMITS POT RAIDS
ANCHORAGE--The Alaska Court of Appeals ruled Friday that police cannot
execute a search warrant in a person's home for possession of less than 4
ounces of marijuana.
Attorney General Gregg Renkes says he will appeal the ruling to the state
Supreme Court and that he is "fearful that this will shut down effective
investigation of marijuana growing cases."
The Appeals Court ruled in the case of Leo Richardson Crocker Jr., who was
charged with controlled substance misconduct after police, acting on a tip,
searched his Anchor Point home and found marijuana and growing equipment.
A lower court ruled the search warrant that led to the arrest should have
never been issued and suppressed the evidence against Crocker. The Appeals
Court agreed.
The opinion is the latest decision that has carved out protections for
possessing marijuana in an Alaska home. The state Supreme Court in 1975
ruled that an adult's rights to limited marijuana possession was protected
under the state constitution's privacy provisions. Last year, the Appeals
Court defined that limit as 4 ounces.
The Appeals Court also struck down a 1990 voter initiative that criminalized
possession of any amount of marijuana.
To execute a search warrant, police must have reason to believe the amount
of marijuana exceeds 4 ounces or is being used in connection with a crime,
the Appeals Court said Friday.
Renkes said the ruling hamstrings police efforts to break up marijuana
growers.
"It will be rare that there will be someone who can provide eyewitness
information to the amount of marijuana in a growing operation," Renkes said.
"At this point the only way to get a search warrant is for someone to
testify to the size of the crop."
Renkes said he plans to ask the U.S. Attorney's Office to be more
aggressive in busting marijuana growers, as the court's ruling does not
affect federal cases.
State prosecutors argued that the earlier decisions did not legalize
marijuana possession in the home. Rather, the decisions created a defense
that people can use when they are charged with possession. Marijuana
possession is a criminal offense and a warrant can be issued if there is
probable cause to believe there is any marijuana in the home, prosecutors
argued.
The court dismissed that argument, saying the earlier decisions defined a
constitutional limitation to the government's ability to prohibit marijuana
possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
************************
Mark
Sign on my front door
___________________________
Notice posted.
This is not a peanut free zone!
The use of adult beverages, tobacco products, sugar,
salt, caffeine, high fat foods and firearms (when necessary)
is encouraged on these premises.
Jack-booted government thugs without warrants
will be shot upon entry.
Have a nice day :-)
____________________________
|
| |
| |
In article <7IgYc.59436$yh.52954@fed1read05>, "Mark2101"
<Markss2101@cox.net> wrote:
RULING LIMITS POT RAIDS
ANCHORAGE--The Alaska Court of Appeals ruled Friday that police cannot
execute a search warrant in a person's home for possession of less than 4
ounces of marijuana.
Of course none of that applies to the DEA or the FBI.
|
| |
| |
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
Of course none of that applies to the DEA or the FBI.
Truly- they can just come in, kill everybody, torch the building and bury
the ashes, secure in the knowledge that the President will accept
responsibility, apologize manfully and do nothing.
Yeah; hell; I'm cheered up.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:17:30 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
In article <7IgYc.59436$yh.52954@fed1read05>, "Mark2101"
<Markss2101@cox.net> wrote:
Of course none of that applies to the DEA or the FBI.
In current practice, no, but how long do you think the people will allow
the fed to trample on states rights?
And if the feds are wasting time on people with less than 4 ounces,
wouldn't you agree that it's time to reconsider our priorities?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
Mike Z. Helm wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:17:30 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
In current practice, no, but how long do you think the people will allow
the fed to trample on states rights?
And if the feds are wasting time on people with less than 4 ounces,
wouldn't you agree that it's time to reconsider our priorities?
Alaska should join Canada and tell the US to piss off.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
In article <7gb4j0htjt0skvie2gjj183br0nbr9glia@4ax.com>, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:17:30 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
In current practice, no, but how long do you think the people will allow
the fed to trample on states rights?
So far over 200 years and counting...
|
| |
| |
In article <41322BDF.5F56@yahoo.com>, Gregg Lansley
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mike Z. Helm wrote:
Alaska should join Canada and tell the US to piss off.
The difference is that we might actually care if Alaska did that.
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41322BDF.5F56@yahoo.com>, Gregg Lansley
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
The difference is that we might actually care if Alaska did that.
Isee. We would likely kill them if they tried to leave the United
States?
Like when the Southern states wanted out?
How exactly does this differ from the mass deaths of Kurds who wanted
out
of Iraqi control?
Sadaam was blamed for being a monster for killing his insurgents.
Lincoln was a damn hero.
Of course the only reason the US cares about Alaska is because it's our
major source of domestic oil.
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <7gb4j0htjt0skvie2gjj183br0nbr9glia@4ax.com>, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:
So far over 200 years and counting...
Some states tried to stand up to the fed, but were destroyed for trying
to
uninstall the US from their states.
The fact is that all states are in fact held prisoner and cannot ever
withdraw
from the US.
|
| |
| |
In article <41328094.7C03@yahoo.com>, Gregg Lansley
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
I see. We would likely kill them if they tried to leave the United
States?
No....
I said we'd care. How you get from "care" to "kill them" is your own
private mystery.
We would care if Alaska told the rest of the nation to "piss off". We
couldn't care less when Canada does it.
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41328094.7C03@yahoo.com>, Gregg Lansley
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
No....
I said we'd care. How you get from "care" to "kill them" is your own
private mystery.
We would care if Alaska told the rest of the nation to "piss off". We
couldn't care less when Canada does it.
Are you suggesting a state is free to withdraw from the US?
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:17:30 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
In current practice, no, but how long do you think the people will allow
the fed to trample on states rights?
And if the feds are wasting time on people with less than 4 ounces,
wouldn't you agree that it's time to reconsider our priorities?
Oh - why should the Feds do that ? I mean - who cares if we have Al-queada
operatives running around the country? Gotta snag those dopers...
Guido
|
| |
| |
In article <413285BA.1BBF@yahoo.com>, Gregg Lansley
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
Are you suggesting a state is free to withdraw from the US?
I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. Much as I wasn't suggesting we kill
Alaskans when I used the word "care". You have elevated the notion of
"jumping to conclusions" to new heights.
You seem to be trying to turn my simple comment-- which was only
designed to illustrate how little we care when the Canadians get
snippy-- into some kind of secession debate, aren't ya?
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <413285BA.1BBF@yahoo.com>, Gregg Lansley
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. Much as I wasn't suggesting we kill
Alaskans when I used the word "care". You have elevated the notion of
"jumping to conclusions" to new heights.
You seem to be trying to turn my simple comment-- which was only
designed to illustrate how little we care when the Canadians get
snippy-- into some kind of secession debate, aren't ya?
Well yes, I am.
And you keep avoiding the question.
Are states allowed to unjoin the US without permission from the fed?
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:37:51 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
We would care if Alaska told the rest of the nation to "piss off". We
couldn't care less when Canada does it.
I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. Much as I wasn't suggesting we kill
Alaskans when I used the word "care". You have elevated the notion of
"jumping to conclusions" to new heights.
You seem to be trying to turn my simple comment-- which was only
designed to illustrate how little we care when the Canadians get
snippy-- into some kind of secession debate, aren't ya?
I find it interesting that you would reply to something like he said,
but when I suggested that if the feds are bothering with busting people
for less than 4 ounces of pot, perhaps we should reconsider our drug
policies you ignore it.
Do you really think the federal gov't should concern itself with someone
who has an ounce of pot? And even if you do think they should concern
themselves with that person, how much effort do you think they should
really put towards busting that person?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
Legally, the States can withdraw from the Union. The 10th Amendment
guarantees that right. The fact that Lincoln fought an illegal war to
preserve the Union does not make it right.
BTR1701 wrote:
Are you suggesting a state is free to withdraw from the US?
|
| |
| |
In article <6bo5j01rarh1v65srf2a1buihkipn0p9eu@4ax.com>, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:37:51 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
We would care if Alaska told the rest of the nation to "piss off". We
couldn't care less when Canada does it.
I find it interesting that you would reply to something like he said,
but when I suggested that if the feds are bothering with busting people
for less than 4 ounces of pot, perhaps we should reconsider our drug
policies you ignore it.
I didn't ignore it. I read it quite carefully. I just didn't feel like
responding. I'm sorry if you're feeling left out.
I respond to the points that I feel like responding to. My first comment
had to do with federalism issues-- not DEA's enforcement policies.
My second comment had to do with the feelings of Americans toward Canada
getting an attitude-- not secession.
Lansley wants to talk about secession and you want to talk about
marijuana enforcement-- neither one which interest me much. Sorry if
that doesn't meet with your approval.
|
| |
| |
In article <4132DC2F.631C@yahoo.com>, Gregg Lansley
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
Well yes, I am.
And you keep avoiding the question.
Because it's not something I have any interest in discussing. I'm also
"avoiding the question" of the proper type of scuba gear used on deep
dives in the Arctic. Neither that nor the topic of secession interests
me.
I didn't bring secession up. You did. You can't force me to discuss it
with you any more than you can force me to discuss how best to go about
breeding thoroughbred horses or the proper way to care for antique cars.
That hardly means I'm avoiding the issue. It just means I'm not
interested in it.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:40:08 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
In article <6bo5j01rarh1v65srf2a1buihkipn0p9eu@4ax.com>, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:
I didn't ignore it. I read it quite carefully. I just didn't feel like
responding. I'm sorry if you're feeling left out.
I don't feel left out. I just find it interesting that you're wasting
your time with this obvious troll rather than responding to what IMO was
a good question.
I respond to the points that I feel like responding to. My first comment
had to do with federalism issues-- not DEA's enforcement policies.
My second comment had to do with the feelings of Americans toward Canada
getting an attitude-- not secession.
Lansley wants to talk about secession
No, he wants to get a reaction from you.
and you want to talk about
marijuana enforcement
I just wanted to hear a fed admit that you have better things to do than
worry about people possessing a small quantity of marijuana.
But that would mean having to admit that it's a waste of taxpayer money.
-- neither one which interest me much. Sorry if
that doesn't meet with your approval.
I merely said I found it interesting. You don't really post to usenet
for approval, do you?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
In article <1nm7j05qomesj378baqi0pdblk7tb3gmi4@4ax.com>, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:40:08 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
I respond to the points that I feel like responding to. My first comment
had to do with federalism issues-- not DEA's enforcement policies.
My second comment had to do with the feelings of Americans toward Canada
getting an attitude-- not secession.
Lansley wants to talk about secession
No, he wants to get a reaction from you.
Isn't that the goal of everyone on Usenet? Aren't you trying to get a
reaction from me with your marijuana question? It's obvious that you are
since you came back and asked why I wasn't paying attention to you.
and you want to talk about
marijuana enforcement
I just wanted to hear a fed admit that you have better things to do than
worry about people possessing a small quantity of marijuana.
Of course I have "better" things to do. Drug enforcement isn't even in
my jurisdiction so naturally working cases that *are* in my jurisdiction
would be a better use of my time. I've only worked one drug case in my
whole career and then only because the #@($bags were financing their
heroin deals with counterfeit currency.
-- neither one which interest me much. Sorry if
that doesn't meet with your approval.
I merely said I found it interesting. You don't really post to usenet
for approval, do you?
I would say it's quite obvious by my previous response that I do not.
|
| |
| |
On 31-08-2004 06:23, in article
BTR1702-AF630C.00250731082004@news.east.earthlink.net, "BTR1701"
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
#@($bags
You people are fond of feces, aren't you?
Ej
|
| |
| |
On 29-08-2004 21:34, in article 41322BDF.5F56@yahoo.com, "Gregg Lansley"
<Dumbassjafo@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mike Z. Helm wrote:
Alaska should join Canada and tell the US to piss off.
|
| |
| |
