Up until now, only a doctor could prescribe medical marijuana to a patient in Washington. That will soon change as Governor Gregoire just signed SB 5798 into law on Thursday, April 1. The new law amends Washington medical marijuana statutes RCW 69.51A.005, 69.51A.010, 69.51A.030, and 69.51A.060.
Under current Washington law, a "qualified patient" who is suffering from a terminal or debilitating illness is allowed to possess and use marijuana and is immune from criminal prosecution. Current law says that to be considered a "qualified patient", the patient must be a patient of a licensed physician, been diagnosed by the physician as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition, has been advised by the physician about the risks and benefits of using medical marijuana, and have a signed statement from a licensed physician that the patient may benefit from the medical use of marijuana.
SB 5798 sets forth the definition of the term "health care professional" for the purpose of medical marijuana laws and replaces the word "physician" in the current laws with "health care professional." SB5798 says that "health care professional" includes a licensed physician, a licensed physician assistant, licensed osteopathic physician, licensed osteopathic physicians' assistant, or licensed advanced registered nurse.
Under the new law, any of the above health care professionals may diagnose, advise, and prescribe medical marijuana to patients under their care. The new law will take effect on June 10, 2010.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
WILL YOU GO TO JAIL IF YOU CALL 911 FOR A DRUG OVERDOSE? NEW LAW FACILITATES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IN CASES OF DRUG OVERDOSE
Does anyone remember that scene in the movie, Pulp Fiction, where John Travolta's character is with a woman (Uma Thurman)who is overdosing on heroin and he tries to get help? He brings the woman to his drug dealer's house and his drug dealer does not want anyone overdosing at his home because of the possible legal problems involving the police. He tells John Travolta's character to take the woman to the hospital and get a lawyer.
Drug overdoses are among the most common causes of accidental deaths in the United States and this number would be significantly lower if people could make 911 calls to help rescue someone who is overdosing or take someone who is overdosing to the hospital without fear of being prosecuted and going to jail for drug charges.
The Washington State House of Representatives recently passed SB 5516. This bill will insulate both the person who is overdosing and the person seeking medical assistance on behalf of the person who is overdosing from illegal drug possession charges. New Mexico is the only other state in the U.S. that has a law like this.
Once the bill is signed into law by the Governor, people will no longer have to weigh the risks of going to jail for dug possession against the risk of losing a life. The new law only protects Good Samaritans and those who are overdosing from being charged with drug possession; it does not insulate them from charges of manufacturing a controlled substance, delivery of a controlled substance, or any other criminal charges.
Drug overdoses are among the most common causes of accidental deaths in the United States and this number would be significantly lower if people could make 911 calls to help rescue someone who is overdosing or take someone who is overdosing to the hospital without fear of being prosecuted and going to jail for drug charges.
The Washington State House of Representatives recently passed SB 5516. This bill will insulate both the person who is overdosing and the person seeking medical assistance on behalf of the person who is overdosing from illegal drug possession charges. New Mexico is the only other state in the U.S. that has a law like this.
Once the bill is signed into law by the Governor, people will no longer have to weigh the risks of going to jail for dug possession against the risk of losing a life. The new law only protects Good Samaritans and those who are overdosing from being charged with drug possession; it does not insulate them from charges of manufacturing a controlled substance, delivery of a controlled substance, or any other criminal charges.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUY HEROIN FOR PERSONAL USE, DO NOT DO IT WHILE WORKING AS A POLICE INFORMANT AND WHILE UNDER SURVEILLANCE
Unlike my usual blog posts, this post has more to do with common sense than with legal issues. While I cannot advise clients to buy illegal drugs, if they happen to be confidential police informants, I can advise them NOT to buy drugs for personal use from the same drug dealer they had just bought drugs from as part of a police sting operation. Apparently, this advice needs to be put out there.
Yesterday, a man in Falmouth, ME informed the police of a heroin dealer and was then hired as an informant to buy drugs from the dealer in a buy-bust operation. The police gave him marked bills and observed him make the drug transaction. After buying the drugs, the informant returned to the police with a bag of heroin. The police then payed him $100. The informant then immediately went back to the very same drug dealer and bought another bag of heroin for himself. Of course, the dealer was still under surveillance and both he AND the informant were arrested. The informant was arrested for a drug possession felony within just hours of being hired as an informant.
Yesterday, a man in Falmouth, ME informed the police of a heroin dealer and was then hired as an informant to buy drugs from the dealer in a buy-bust operation. The police gave him marked bills and observed him make the drug transaction. After buying the drugs, the informant returned to the police with a bag of heroin. The police then payed him $100. The informant then immediately went back to the very same drug dealer and bought another bag of heroin for himself. Of course, the dealer was still under surveillance and both he AND the informant were arrested. The informant was arrested for a drug possession felony within just hours of being hired as an informant.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
FEDERAL COCAINE SENTENCES MAY BE EQUALIZED BY THE FAIRNESS IN COCAINE SENTENCING ACT
For many years, the crimes of manufacturing, delivering, and possessing drugs mixed with cocaine base (crack cocaine) have been punished much more severely than the same crimes involving the same amount of cocaine in the form of powder. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act, which is found in United States Code Title 21, sets forth penalties for drug offenses. Under federal law, the simple possession of powder cocaine carries no mandatory prison sentence and the maximum punishment is 1 year. For committing the exact same offense of simple possession involving crack cocaine, however, there is a mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison.
Similarly, there are disproportionate sentences for the manufacture and delivery of the different forms of cocaine. Under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, the manufacture of delivery of powder cocaine in the amount of 5 kilograms (5,000 grams) carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. But it only takes 50 grams of crack cocaine involved in the exact same offenses to receive this same 10-year sentence. In other words, people convicted of manufacturing or delivering powder cocaine need to have 100 times the amount involved that someone convicted of manufacturing or delivering crack cocaine would need to have involved in order to receive a mandatory 10-year prison sentence.
Critics have taken issue with this huge sentencing disparity for quite some time and have noted that the people who cannot afford powder cocaine are the ones who buy and use crack cocaine and that crack cocaine is much more prevalent in the black community than in the white community. There seems to effectively be disproportionate sentencing that punishes the poor and minorities more severely than those who are white, middle class, or wealthy.
In response to the this disproportionate sentencing, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security unanimously passed HR 3245 in July of 2009. The committee also noted that the prisons are being overcrowded with low-level drug offenders and that tax dollars could be better spent on treatment programs rather than housing low-level offenders for long periods of time. This bill has been named the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 and is currently pending in the House of Representatives.
If the bill becomes law,it will remove the mandatory minimum 5 year sentence currently imposed for simple possession of crack cocaine and will remove the language regarding 50 grams of cocaine base from the federal statute setting forth penalties for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance. This will make the federal sentences for crimes involving crack cocaine less than they are now, but equal to what the penalties currently are for powder cocaine. It is not yet known if the proposed legislation will be retroactive if it is passed. In the meantime, if you are charged with an offense involving crack cocaine in federal court, you may seek to continue the sentencing hearing until we know whether or not the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 will become a law.
Similarly, there are disproportionate sentences for the manufacture and delivery of the different forms of cocaine. Under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, the manufacture of delivery of powder cocaine in the amount of 5 kilograms (5,000 grams) carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. But it only takes 50 grams of crack cocaine involved in the exact same offenses to receive this same 10-year sentence. In other words, people convicted of manufacturing or delivering powder cocaine need to have 100 times the amount involved that someone convicted of manufacturing or delivering crack cocaine would need to have involved in order to receive a mandatory 10-year prison sentence.
Critics have taken issue with this huge sentencing disparity for quite some time and have noted that the people who cannot afford powder cocaine are the ones who buy and use crack cocaine and that crack cocaine is much more prevalent in the black community than in the white community. There seems to effectively be disproportionate sentencing that punishes the poor and minorities more severely than those who are white, middle class, or wealthy.
In response to the this disproportionate sentencing, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security unanimously passed HR 3245 in July of 2009. The committee also noted that the prisons are being overcrowded with low-level drug offenders and that tax dollars could be better spent on treatment programs rather than housing low-level offenders for long periods of time. This bill has been named the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 and is currently pending in the House of Representatives.
If the bill becomes law,it will remove the mandatory minimum 5 year sentence currently imposed for simple possession of crack cocaine and will remove the language regarding 50 grams of cocaine base from the federal statute setting forth penalties for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance. This will make the federal sentences for crimes involving crack cocaine less than they are now, but equal to what the penalties currently are for powder cocaine. It is not yet known if the proposed legislation will be retroactive if it is passed. In the meantime, if you are charged with an offense involving crack cocaine in federal court, you may seek to continue the sentencing hearing until we know whether or not the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 will become a law.
Monday, January 4, 2010
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT FINDS EVIDENCE OF METH LAB MAY HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ILLEGALLY
Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court issued another decision protecting our privacy rights. In State v. Winterstein, the defendant, Winterstein ,was on probation for a gross misdemeanmor and had moved to a new address. Although Winterstein had updated his address with the Department of Corrections, his probation officer did not have the new address. Winterstein was only obligated to notify the Department of Corections (DOC) of the address change.
After the Winterstein failed drug tests and failed to report to his probation officer (PO), the PO decided to pay the defendant a visit at his new address. The PO also received a tip indicating that there was a meth lab at the defendant's old address. As a condition of probation, Winterstein had agreed to be subject to search of his home if the Department of Corrections had reasonable cause to believe that he was violating the terms of probation. The PO arrived at Wintersteins' old address, knocked on the door, and was given permission to enter by one of the residents. The PO searched the house, but never asked for consent to search. In the house, he found methamphetamine paraphernalia and other evidence of the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine.
Winterstein's attorney did not find evidence that Winterstein had updated his address with DOC until the trial had already begun and the attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the fact that the PO did not have the authority of law to search Winterstein's old home. The trial court denied the motion and Winterstein was convicted. Wineterstein appealed and the Washington State court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
The Washington Supreme Court just ruled that the lower courts applied the wrong standard in determining the legality of the PO's search of Winterstein's old residence. The lower courts had said that all that was needed to justify the warrantless search was reasonable suspicion that Winterstein still lived there. The Washington State Supreme Court rejected that proposition and said that based on the Washington State Constitution, which provides broader protection than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the PO must have probable cause to believe that Winterstein resided at the home that was searched. The decision was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
This does not mean that the conviction will be reversed. The lower court may still find that the PO had probable cause after they apply the appropriate standard. In any event, this is a victory for proponents of laws protecting us from unreasonable searches and seizures.
After the Winterstein failed drug tests and failed to report to his probation officer (PO), the PO decided to pay the defendant a visit at his new address. The PO also received a tip indicating that there was a meth lab at the defendant's old address. As a condition of probation, Winterstein had agreed to be subject to search of his home if the Department of Corrections had reasonable cause to believe that he was violating the terms of probation. The PO arrived at Wintersteins' old address, knocked on the door, and was given permission to enter by one of the residents. The PO searched the house, but never asked for consent to search. In the house, he found methamphetamine paraphernalia and other evidence of the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine.
Winterstein's attorney did not find evidence that Winterstein had updated his address with DOC until the trial had already begun and the attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the fact that the PO did not have the authority of law to search Winterstein's old home. The trial court denied the motion and Winterstein was convicted. Wineterstein appealed and the Washington State court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
The Washington Supreme Court just ruled that the lower courts applied the wrong standard in determining the legality of the PO's search of Winterstein's old residence. The lower courts had said that all that was needed to justify the warrantless search was reasonable suspicion that Winterstein still lived there. The Washington State Supreme Court rejected that proposition and said that based on the Washington State Constitution, which provides broader protection than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the PO must have probable cause to believe that Winterstein resided at the home that was searched. The decision was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
This does not mean that the conviction will be reversed. The lower court may still find that the PO had probable cause after they apply the appropriate standard. In any event, this is a victory for proponents of laws protecting us from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)