USA - Judge rejects lawsuit over pot (US CA)

[Heretic.Ape.]

Judge rejects lawsuit over pot


Santa Barbara loses its fight against a statute that makes the private use of marijuana by adults the city's lowest crime-fighting priority.
By Steve Chawkins, Times Staff Writer
July 11, 2007

A Santa Barbara judge has upheld a city ordinance requiring police to make enforcement of marijuana laws their lowest crime-fighting priority.

Although Measure P, which was approved by 65% of the city's voters last November, does not decriminalize marijuana, it will further reduce the already infrequent arrests of adults possessing small amounts of marijuana.

The ordinance requires officers to fill out extra paperwork on marijuana offenses and establishes a seven-member commission to monitor the department's compliance with the law.

The law is similar to those passed in at least 10 other cities in the U.S., including Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica and West Hollywood.

After Measure P passed, the city of Santa Barbara sued one of its chief proponents, local activist Heather Poet, claiming that the measure she backed was unconstitutional. But on Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Anderle threw out the city's suit, ruling that Poet had done nothing wrong and that the measure was "a proper legislative enactment."

Santa Barbara City Atty. Stephen Wiley said he was uncertain whether the City Council would appeal the ruling. Some city officials and the Santa Barbara Police Department opposed Measure P, saying it was a burden on officers and created a needless layer of city bureaucracy.

The city's lawsuit was the first substantive legal challenge to such laws, according to Adam Wolf, an ACLU attorney who represented Poet.

"It's a resounding victory for free speech and the democratic process," Wolf said. "It affirms the fact that communities across America can tell their local police departments that they should be focusing on serious crime, not on low-level drug offenses."

The judge rejected the city's claim that state and federal drug laws made the local measure invalid. "Police officers can still arrest those who violate drug possession laws in their presence," Anderle wrote in his ruling. "The voters have simply instructed them that they have higher priority work to do."

After Poet was sued, she countersued, citing a state law intended to quash litigation known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. The law is intended to stop large organizations from silencing critics by filing lawsuits of questionable merit.

Poet was within her rights, the judge wrote in his ruling.

"All that the city has alleged and all it appears that defendant has done is engage in the initiative process," Anderle wrote.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true

[Police Officer]

Sounds like an excellent idea. Nothing like tying a Cops ass to a chair so he cant be out on the beat. Nicely done Santa Barbara.

Notice that legaly it dosent change anything. It just makes an already frustrating job more frustrating. The only thing different is that the already over burdened Police will be patroling less because of more paperwork. Santa Barbara MUST be full of some of the smartest people in the world.

[Swing]

I think they aren't trying to keep cops stuck at the station, the people of the town are merely discouraging useless arrests over such a low priority drug. Maybe now police won't harass somebody they pass by for smelling like a skunk and claiming they've used marijuana recently because their "tongue is green", when they could be patrolling around for matters deemed more important. I do agree that they should throw out the silly extra beaurocratic paperwork and just legalize small quantities of pot though...

BTW P.O. have you ever used that "your tongue is green so you have been smoking pot recently" line before??

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Swing

BTW P.O. have you ever used that "your tongue is green so you have been smoking pot recently" line before??

No, in fact I dont know what you're talking about. Are you talking about finding weed in someones mouth? I've done that plenty of times, and the only thing I can do is laugh and make fun of 'em because they couldnt get it all down.

But it sounds like that isnt what you're talking about.

[grandbaby]

Jesus, PO, seriously, would you rather be busting people committing crimes that actually hurt somebody else, or would you rather go around enforcing the equivalent of "no-smoking" bylaws? Is the reason you became a LEO so you could serve justice, or so you could throw your weight around harassing peacable citizens?

Anyhow, the people have spoken. This is (in S.B.) what they want. I can't believe the democratic process is actually functioning somewhere in the U.S. ... and in California, of all places!

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

Jesus, PO, seriously, would you rather be busting people committing crimes that actually hurt somebody else, or would you rather go around enforcing the equivalent of "no-smoking" bylaws? Is the reason you became a LEO so you could serve justice, or so you could throw your weight around harassing peacable citizens?

Ever wonder why I dont respond to your posts?

Reputation Comments on this post:

I usually enjoy reading your posts but that smart-assed reply was unnessesary. If you don't want to answer him then don'...

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Ever wonder why I dont respond to your posts?

Yes, I do. Admitted, my question (and it actually was a question, not just a jab) was a little pointed — some near-accusations that were uncalled for, and I'm sorry for that. But I've become more than a little frustrated trying to get any meaningful answers out of you. If you're going to play the game of ingoring the tough questions (really, any questions that can't be answered with "just say no" or "cops are always right"), I'm going to play the game of taking a cheap crack here & there. The other choice is to sidle back over to the land of mutual respect and take it from there. Which way do you wanna go?

So to back up & get back on topic.... you think the Santa Barbara legislation is going to decrease the amount of time cops spend on the beat. But the whole idea behind the legislation is to discourage cops from busting pot-smokers unless a) there's absolutely nothing else to do, or b) the potheads are doing something else, like disturbing the peace or driving on weed, which can be answered with charges appropriate to their behavior. I don't really get what's wrong with that. Something has to be the lowest priority. Why not this?

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Ever wonder why I dont respond to your posts?

grandbaby's was a valid question.

[Alfa]

If I am reading this right, then it wasn't a valid question, but a misunderstanding. Because as I read it PO just said that not prosecuting adults for cannabis possession is a good thing.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Sounds like an excellent idea. Nothing like tying a Cops ass to a chair so he cant be out on the beat. Nicely done Santa Barbara.

Notice that legaly it dosent change anything. It just makes an already frustrating job more frustrating. The only thing different is that the already over burdened Police will be patroling less because of more paperwork. Santa Barbara MUST be full of some of the smartest people in the world.

PO's post is dripping with sarcasm, Alfa. He's ... um ... most emphatically not in favor of these measures.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

PO's post is dripping with sarcasm, Alfa. He's ... um ... most emphatically not in favor of these measures.

It most certainly is full of sarcasm. But I dont think that was the post that Alfa was refering to.

That new law in Santa Barbara is a lose/lose situation for all. Marijuana is still illegal. Marijuana "possessors" are still arrested and prosecuted. The only thing that seems to have changed is that now there will be less Police Officers on the street. I can't see how anyone would view that as a win.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

It most certainly is full of sarcasm. But I dont think that was the post that Alfa was refering to.

That new law in Santa Barbara is a lose/lose situation for all. Marijuana is still illegal. Marijuana "possessors" are still arrested and prosecuted. The only thing that seems to have changed is that now there will be less Police Officers on the street. I can't see how anyone would view that as a win.

What post was he referring to? Was it in a different thread?

I don't really agree with this ordinance either, except inasmuch as it reaffirms the democratic process and puts less stress on harmless pot smokers. However, as long as marijuana possession remains a federal offence, I don't really know what else can be done. I do disagree, though, that it will cause more work for cops. That would only be the case if they made the same number of mj arrests. The voters have said "don't make those arrests", basically, right?

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

A Santa Barbara judge has upheld a city ordinance requiring police to make enforcement of marijuana laws their lowest crime-fighting priority.

Although Measure P, which was approved by 65% of the city's voters last November, does not decriminalize marijuana, it will further reduce the already infrequent arrests of adults possessing small amounts of marijuana.

...
"It affirms the fact that communities across America can tell their local police departments that they should be focusing on serious crime, not on low-level drug offenses."

The judge rejected the city's claim that state and federal drug laws made the local measure invalid. "Police officers can still arrest those who violate drug possession laws in their presence," Anderle wrote in his ruling. "The voters have simply instructed them that they have higher priority work to do."

[Alfa]

I obviously was in too much of a hurry and misread PO's post, as I read it as if he meant that police officers would spend less time on paperwork for minor cannabis offences and thus have more time for real police work.

Now, can we let go of the sarcasm and sharpness and discuss this in a more relaxed matter?

[beentheredonethatagain]

I am rather surprised that a Liberal city such as Santa Barbara would go in the opposite direction politicaly. they would seem to me more on the side to let the smokers free to fire up and let it go.
I am sure that ask any member of law enforcement which case they would rather make, one for a felon who is a danger to the citizens or one for a joint or two in someones shirt pocket, I would go on limb and say 100% of them would rather grab up the bad guy felon.

[Police Officer]

Back on track...Here's some thoughts:

I just dont see how this is a win for anyone. Is it because the general public believes that Cops will be more apt to turn their head to obvious crimes that are occurring right in front of them if its going to be a pain in the ass to process them? Is that the type of mentality that you want to breed into the Police who patol your streets? Do you think that will deter most real Cops?

lol I just dont see how any city council could say "Lets make it such a pain in the ass to enforce the law that the Police wont do it" --- and then be ok with that.

The biggest question that I still have is -->How is this a win for anyone?

[GenaroXVIII]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Back on track...Here's some thoughts:


The biggest question that I still have is -->How is this a win for anyone?

It is a win for the voters who successfully exercised their rights in this fine republic of ours. In a theoretical sense anyways.

[jcdjinn]

The extra paperwork would hopefully encourage cops to simply look the other way instead of busting every kid with weed they run into.

[bcubed]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Back on track...Here's some thoughts:

I just dont see how this is a win for anyone. Is it because the general public believes that Cops will be more apt to turn their head to obvious crimes that are occurring right in front of them if its going to be a pain in the ass to process them? Is that the type of mentality that you want to breed into the Police who patol your streets? Do you think that will deter most real Cops?

lol I just dont see how any city council could say "Lets make it such a pain in the ass to enforce the law that the Police wont do it" --- and then be ok with that.

The biggest question that I still have is -->How is this a win for anyone?

From what I'm reading, the intent of the law is to say, "Yeah, it's still illegal, but we're gonna make it such a HUGE PITA to enforce that you'd be *much* better off busting something else...really!" Thus, now that pot isn't such an "easy bust," cops focus their effort on (more seroius) crimes that have a higher reward/cost ratio. Good for the citizenry, as more serious crimes are being prosecuted (and yes, PO, most "ordinary" citizens don't see simple possesion of MJ as a serious crime), obviously good for potsmokers, too. The gov't--as a voice for its citizens--has said that they don't want resources being spent on MJ possesion cases, but elsewhere. There was a close parallel to this back when the speed limit was 55, when (Wyoming?) made the fine for speeding ludicrously low: basically saying "Go do something else, boys."

If the police force stubbornly REFUSES to get the message, yes, they will spend a whole lot of time behind the desk, but that's more a function of thickheaded police brass than anything.

EDIT: this happens a lot, but usually in the form of withholding funds. (Ex: conservatives in Congress who don't approve of environmental laws, labor laws, etc, won't change the law but will ridiculously underfund the organizations charged with enforcing them--or the reduction in funds to the Library of Congress that EXACTLY matched the outlay on the braille editions of Playboy.)