Articles Tagged with “US Supreme Court”

Today marks the 12th anniversary of the decision in Gonzales v. Raich, a decision whose repercussions still resonate across the legal marijuana market. Following precedent, the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause[1] of the Constitution allowed for the federal government to criminalize the private cultivation of marijuana, even if that cultivation was in compliance with state law.

iStock_000009135835_ExtraSmall-300x190
The Case

The facts of the case demonstrate federalism at work. In 1996, California ratified proposition 215 otherwise known as “The Compassionate Use act of 1996”. This act legalized the use, sale and cultivation of medical marijuana with a recommendation from a doctor. California had become the third state to legalize medical marijuana, and the first to legalize it via referendum.

Today marks the 48th anniversary of the decision in Leary v. United States, and often forgotten Supreme Court case from 1969 that effectively legalized marijuana on the federal level with the declaration that the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act violated the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.

Supreme Court
The Case[1]

The facts behind the case are interesting to say the least. On December 20th 1965 Doctor Timothy Leary; a famous professor, psychologist, and political activist, left on a road trip from New York to the state of Yucatan in Mexico with his two adult children, and two others.

iStock_000009680929XSmall.jpgPolice officers cannot bring drug dogs onto a person’s property to search for evidence without first obtaining a warrant to conduct the search, according to a recent Supreme Court decision. Though this decision strengthens one’s fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches, one should still know how officers could find a constitutional exception to the warrant requirement, allowing police to search the home. Even with a warrant or warrant-exception, the constitution places certain limitations upon the police’s search of a suspect’s home, which the police must not exceed.

A common way police are able to search the home without a warrant is through consent of the homeowner. Consent acts as an exception to both the probable cause and warrant requirements of a search, thus one must be aware that, when she consents to a search, she is relieving the police of their duty to follow constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches. When requesting consent, the police are not obligated to tell the suspect he has the right to decline the police’s request. The police could even threaten the suspect in order to obtain consent, and such threats are lawful as long as the police can legally carry the threat out. For instance, a police officer could tell a homeowner if the homeowner doesn’t concede to a search, the officer may go to a magistrate judge to obtain a warrant for the search. However, if the threat to obtain consent is illegal for the police to follow through on, such as threatening to come back with drug dogs to conduct a warrantless search of the home, then the consent obtained would be invalid.

When a homeowner does decide to concede to a police search, he is able to limit the search to wherever he wants, such as conceding search of the living room, but not allowing search of the bedroom. The item or person the police are searching for can also limit the consent-based search. For example, if police get consent to search for an escaped prisoner, the police can only search where a person could be hiding like closets, but not drawers or small containers. However, if police obtain consent to search for marijuana, then police have free reign to search virtually everywhere in the house where marijuana could be hidden. A police officer may also get consent to search your home from another person who jointly controls the living area. If the other person does not actually jointly control the living area, but a reasonable officer would have (in good faith) believed the other person had joint control, then an officer could still obtain valid consent (to search the home) from the other person. In the circumstance where one homeowner objects to a search but another homeowner agrees to the search, a officer would have to yield to the objecting homeowner, and could not conduct the search without a warrant or warrant-exception besides consent. If you are involved in a criminal case where search or seizure is an issue, it is imperative that you contact a criminal defense attorney who can ensure that the courts will fully respect your fourth amendment rights.