Add RSS RSS

Dude, Where's My Pot?

marijuana pot cannabis doobie Above the Law blog.jpgWith the police, who pulled you over for a traffic infraction. But the good news is that you're getting it back. From CBS:

Eight grams of medical marijuana seized from a Garden Grove man during a traffic stop must be returned to him, according to an appeals court ruling directing local law enforcement to uphold state, not federal law.

A three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal [in California] weighed in on the issue in a published decision that sets precedent for future cases on similar issues.

The marijuana, which belonged to Felix Kha, 22, was confiscated during a traffic stop on June 10, 2005.

The city of Garden Grove tried to argue "that to the extent state law authorizers or mandates the return of Kha's marijuana, it is preempted by federal law." The appeals court didn't see it that way:

Kha's attorneys argued that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution effectively prohibits federal interference with California's medical marijuana laws, and the three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed.

The justices found that because, under state law, Kha was lawfully entitled to possess the marijuana, "due process and fundamental fairness dictate that it be returned to him."

Indeed. Pass the bong, Your Honors!

P.S. The headline that CBS gave to the story is wrong. It was a state court, not a federal court, that issued the ruling.

Federal Court Rules Pot To Be Returned To Driver [CBS]

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:33 PM

first, damn I have the munchies

avatar
2 Posted by anon | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:37 PM

Where's CJ Koz when you need him? He wouldn't stand for this.

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:37 PM

Does he get the same bag back? It has to be stale.

avatar
4 Posted by I'm hungry | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:38 PM

I get seconds.

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:40 PM

I think this post should have been delayed to 4:20 eastern. But then, it must be 4:20 somewhere, right?

avatar
6 Posted by Brad Nowell | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:44 PM

Obviously gettin' hassled by the man.

avatar
7 Posted by GUNNER | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:56 PM

I was totally studying this all night, brah. The answer is that Martha Washington always had a big, fat bowl waiting for George when he came home. That's why weed is protected by the Constitution.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:07 PM

Just say no.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:12 PM

I hope he retained counsel on a pro bono basis. Last time I checked, 8 grams of weed (even Cali's finest) was a little cheaper than even one hour of a decent attorney's time (actually, maybe some grads from Thomas Jefferson can give him a nice rate...minimum wage equivalent??)

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:21 PM

OMG, 10th Amendment argument actually worked!!! This is great precedent! But where do you draw the line for federal preemption vs. 10th A?

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:24 PM

Too bad my state doesn't recognize my medicinal cocaine.

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:26 PM

Federalism lives. There is still hope.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:27 PM

Behind every good man there is a woman, and that woman was Martha Washington, man, and everyday George would come home, she would have a big fat bowl waiting for him, man, when he come in the door, man, she was a hip, hip, hip lady, man. Didja ever look at a dollar bill, man? There's some spooky shit goin' on there. And it's green too.

avatar
14 Posted by Disposable Blue | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:28 PM

MONKEY HATE CLEAN

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:29 PM

The opinion is worth a read. It's well-reasoned and thorough (I didn't know marijuana wasn't a federal controlled substance until 1970), and it contains the word "accouchement" in the first paragraph!

available here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036250.PDF

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:48 PM

Didn't this happen to Jim Anchower once?

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:53 PM

zomgz, the Tenth Amendment actually still exists? Glad to see at least one court remembered that.

3:48: LOL at the Onion reference.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:03 PM

You federalism folks make me sick. Congress is all knowing and all powerful, and there should be no limits to its power to protect us from ourselves, even if that means snooping in our homes and regulating our medicines out of existence.

avatar
19 Posted by Dr. Jihad | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:16 PM

3:24 - Since Cocaine is already a schedule II drug, it already does!

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:21 PM

This is going to be overturned.

avatar
21 Posted by anon | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:44 PM

I wonder if Dr. Philip A. Denney is in my firm's health insurance provider network.

avatar
22 Posted by anon | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:45 PM

I wonder if Dr. Philip A. Denney is in my health insurance preferred provider network.

avatar
23 Posted by Peter Tosh | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:03 PM

Legalize it, don't criticize it.

avatar
24 Posted by Anon828282 | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:03 PM

Well here's another interesting one from Colorado - give me back my pot plants or pay me the value -

http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_332223209.html

Brian Vicente is fast becoming the stuff of pot head lawyer legend in Colorado.

avatar
25 Posted by 2High | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:35 PM

smoke weed every day

the best law students in my class are all potheads

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:12 PM

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the LA news site that posted this called it a "federal court" decision when it clearly isnt'? Although the picture is nice.

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:32 PM

...and this is why I live in LA rather than NY. No special bonus in the world is enough to keep the man out of my stash.

Also, surpised at the number of Dazed and Confused references - I didn't think ATL generally attracted the type that memorized lines from stoner movies.

avatar
28 Posted by RICO claim anyone? | Permalink Friday, November 30, 2007 12:04 AM

Control group, yes; illegal distribution, also yes.

Post Your Comment