iStock_000010324123_ExtraSmall-206x300On August 25th, 2016, the DEA administer, Chuck Rosenberg, released a document announcing the agency would temporarily be placing Mitragyna speciose, commonly called Kratom, and its two primary chemicals, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, on the Schedule I list of the 1970 Controlled Substance Act as of September 30th, 2016.[1] The DEA announced its decision after citing health and safety concerns relating to the opioid-like drug. The decision of the DEA comes two months after a report was released by the CDC citing an upswing in poison control calls with 660 reports relating to the plant between 2010 and 2015.

What is Kratom?

Mitragyna speciose otherwise known as Kratom is a deciduous and evergreen tree in the coffee family native to southeast Asia, Thailand, and Malaysia[2]. Kratom contains opioid like compounds mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine which act upon opioid receptors much like morphine.

It is said that everything is bigger in Texas, unfortunately, that isn’t always a good thing. In just under a decade, Texas has taken $540.7 million dollars’ worth of assets from its citizens.[1] Texas is one of the more aggressive states when it comes to the practice of civil asset forfeiture, earning an average yearly income of $41.6 million from the practice. [2]

iStock_000002161278XSmall-300x174
Legal Taking of Property?

Civil Asset Forfeiture is the practice by which property can be confiscated from people without ever charging them with a criminal offense. Civil asset forfeiture is an actual civil suit brought against the confiscated item leading to bizarre sounding cases such as State of Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silverado, and State of Texas v. .39 acres.

With the passing of SB 339 in 2015, otherwise known as the “Texas Compassionate Use Act,” Texas joined more than three quarters of the states in establishing a medical marijuana program. However, many are unaware that prior to 2015, derivatives of marijuana were legal in the state. example-2-300x159

When Marijuana isn’t Marijuana


Under Texas law, marijuana is defined in the Texas Health and Public Safety Code as:

2017 Held a lot of promise for marijuana reform. Texans across the state and political spectrum flooded legislator’s offices and phones with a clear and concise message, “We want marijuana law reform now.” Unfortunately, as the session ended, it became clear that the Texas legislature was deaf to the voice of the Texas people.

austin-state-capitol-1203301-225x300
The Groundwork

The push for marijuana law reform during the 85th Texas Legislative session began back in 2016, when advocacy groups focused on laying the political groundwork for marijuana law reform. Advocacy groups worked hard to amend the Texas Republican Party platform[1] to call for a complete overhaul of the Texas Compassionate use act of 2015, Texas’s anemic medical marijuana program. Advocates also hit the streets supporting and donating to pro marijuana reform candidates during the 2016 election cycle. As 2016 ended, the groundwork for real reform had been laid, and advocates across the state were optimistically looking forward to the 2017 legislative cycle.

On June 1st, 2015 Governor Greg Abbot (R, Texas) signed the “Compassionate Use Act” Offering what he said would be “healing and hope for children who are afflicted by relentless seizures caused by epilepsy. The “Compassionate Use Act” established the first medical marijuana program in Texas. That same year Georgia and Tennessee also legalized the use of medical marijuana in some form.

iStock_000005542834XSmall-2
At the date of writing, there are currently twenty-six states with full medical marijuana programs, and thirty-eight states that allow for some use of medical marijuana. With some much activity on the state level, and victories easier to achieve on the state level, many wonder why there is a need to worry about reforming the federal government’s marijuana laws. Unfortunately, state marijuana reform is limited; and hangs precariously in the political balance.

State Marijuana Reform, a Patchwork

In September of 2016 the Austin American broke a surprising story to those who aren’t in the legal field[1]. The report found that in Texas’s largest populated counties, Dallas, Harris, Travis, Bexar, and Tarrant, over 40% of minor possession of marijuana cases where bring dismissed. The report also found that prosecutors where actively discouraging police arrest through policy or practice.

iStock_000013348762_ExtraSmall-300x199
Specifically, the report found that, since 2011 there has been a large upsurge in the number of dismissals from 9% on average overall in 2011 to 41% in 2016. Prosecutors quoted about this upsurge stated simple reason for the change in policy. “Jurors would look at us like we are crazy,” Travis County prosecutor Dan Hamre told the newspaper. “‘You are spending your time, our time and the court’s time on a small amount of personal marijuana?’ “[2]. The report identified changes in policies, that had lead to the upsurge, and highlighted the irregularity in these numbers across different counties.

Policy Changes, and Legal Changes

There comes a time in everyone’s life when you must admit that you are defeated. In the context of a police encounter it is important to know when that moment comes, and what to do. In order to illustrate when, and why it becomes necessary to admit possession, a hypothetical example will be given illustrating the consequences of failing to admit defeat. It is rarely advisable to admit knowingly possessing controlled substances, alcohol, or weapons. However, there are times where it is advisable to admit such possession to a police officers.

iStock_000005273638XSmall-300x200
The Situation

Donald is driving his car down the highway, when he is pulled over by a police officer for a broken taillight. Donald is nervous as he is in possession of half an ounce of marijuana and he knows his car smells like it. Fearing the worst, Donald stuffs the marijuana in his underwear hoping to hide it if the officer searches the car. The officer approaches the window and ask Donald for his License, and proof of insurance, the officer immediately smells the marijuana and now has probable cause to search the vehicle[1] without a warrant pursuant to “The Auto Exception” doctrine set forth in Carrol[2]. The officer then asks Donald if he has anything illegal in the car. Donald says no. The officer then asks Donald for consent to search the car, Donald says no. The police officer then asks Donald to step out of the car, places him in handcuffs, pats him down. During the pat down the officer misses the marijuana Donald has stashed on his person. The officer then leads Donald to the back of the patrol car and tells him he will begin to search his car for marijuana. Donald protest, but knows in his mind the officer will not find anything as he has hidden it on his person. The officer proceeds to search Donald’s car for marijuana, and ultimately finds a bit of marijuana on the floor of the vehicle that Donald had missed. Evidence secured, the officer returns to Donald and tells him he will be arrested for possession of marijuana[3]. Donald his distraught as he believed he had gotten all of it. The officer then asks Donald if he has any marijuana on him. Donald says no, believing the charge will get worse if he turns over the rest of the marijuana.

Today marks the 41st anniversary of the landmark decision of South Dakota v. Opperman[1][2] in which the Supreme Court laid out the basis for what would be known as the Inventory search exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. This decision has allowed for a dramatic expansion in the number of warrantless searches the State can conduct.

car-1450553-300x225
The Case

The case that made up the basis of Opperman was surprisingly mundane, and yet indicative of the kind of cases that would be affected by this landmark ruling. In the early morning hours of December 10th, 1973, Mr. Opperman’s car was found illegally parked in downtown Vermillion, South Dakota. Pursuant to police procedures, the officers impounded the vehicle. However, as the officers impounded the car, they noticed a number of valuable items strewn about the interior of the vehicle. The officers, fearing that the items could be stolen opened the vehicle and inventoried the items inside of it. While searching the interior of the vehicle, the officers found a small amount of marijuana located in the glovebox. When Mr. Opperman came to the police station to retrieve his vehicle the following day, he was arrested on the spot for possession of marijuana.

In September of 2016, police in California began an expansive field test of a new generation of marijuana intoxication detection technology. Similar to an alcohol breathalyzer, California is pioneering a new device designed to detect if the subject has ingested THC recently.[1] Built and distributed by Hound Labs[2], the unit is billed as a duel marijuana and alcohol breathalyzer. Feedback from law enforcement has proved positive.

iStock_000008369380XSmall-300x199
The development of technologies such as the hound highlight the growing need of a standardized and clear way to measure impairment in diving caused by marijuana. With twenty-nine states with robust medical marijuana programs, forty-four states with some form of medical marijuana, eight states with recreational marijuana, and six more states poised to vote in November 2018, the need to judge the intoxication of drivers on marijuana becomes more and more pressing.

Prior Technologies

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the landmark decision in Riley v California in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that a warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of cell phones during an arrest is unconstitutional.

washington-dc-6-1235114-300x202
The Cases

The cases that eventually became the basis of the decision in Riley v. California[1] are interesting to say the least, and highlight why a Supreme Court decision on the matter was vital in settling the question of the constitutionality of these warrantless searches.