|
Conviction Upheld in Napa County Case -- California's medical marijuana law doesn't protect card-carrying
patients from being stopped and searched by police who detect the
presence of the drug, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
The 1996 initiative legalizing medical marijuana, Proposition 215,
shields patients only from being convicted of growing or possessing
cannabis for their health, and does not prevent officers from
conducting their usual investigation when they have evidence of a
crime, said the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.
The 3-0 ruling upheld a Sonoma County man's conviction for possessing
about a pound and a half of marijuana that a Napa County sheriff's
deputy found in an October 2005 car search.
The deputy said he approached a car in a Calistoga parking lot,
smelled marijuana and spoke to Gabriel Strasburg, who admitted he had
been smoking pot but said he had a medical marijuana card. The deputy
refused to look at the document, which actually was a recommendation
from Strasburg's doctor rather than the patient-identification card
authorized by a recent state law, and instead searched the car.
The court noted that the amount of marijuana in the vehicle far
exceeded the eight ounces that a patient can legally possess under
post-Prop. 215 legislation. Strasburg pleaded no contest to a
misdemeanor charge and was placed on probation.
In upholding the search, the appellate panel cited a 2002 California
Supreme Court ruling that said medical marijuana patients were not
immune from arrest but could use their status as grounds for
dismissal of charges or as a defense at trial. That means they are
also subject to searches, the appeals court said.
"The overall circumstances justified the deputy sheriff's search of
the car to determine if more marijuana was present," Presiding
Justice James Marchiano said. If a medical marijuana card were enough
to stop a search, he said, "every qualified patient would be free to
. deal marijuana from his car with complete freedom from any
reasonable search."
Strasburg's lawyer, Jeffrey Glick, said he would probably appeal to
the state Supreme Court. He said the ruling interpreted Prop. 215 too
narrowly and provided little protection for patients who have a legal
right to possess marijuana.
Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Pubdate: Fri, 23 Mar 2007
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: B - 4
Copyright: 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer |
