Drug Charges

Should California Cut Drug Possession Penalties to Cut Costs?

Posted on August 13, 2012 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

California lawmaker Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) has proposed a radical solution to overcrowding in the state’s many prisons and a corrections budget that has skyrocketed in recent years: cut the penalties for simple drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Vocal Speakers on Both Sides of the Debate

This move has some – like John Redman, director of public policy action group Californians for Drug Free Youth – concerned that this move is too radical for even the notoriously “laid back” state. He and Carla Lowe, another anti-drug advocate (and founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana) fear that lessened penalties will be viewed by the youth of the state as a free pass to try illicit drugs.

Proponents of the legislation are just as passionate, though. Senator Leno points out that increased penalties for drug-related crimes are doing nothing to deter their use or limit access to them. Just the opposite seems to be true: once someone has spent time in prison for a relatively minor drug possession offense, he or she risks being pigeonholed into a lower-income, lesser-chance-of-success lifestyle where career, housing and educational opportunities are rare.

Representatives of California’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, are also in favor of Senator Leno’s legislation. The ACLU views Leno’s proposal as an ideal balance of punitive heft (holding individual offenders accountable for their actions), rehabilitative access (providing opportunities for drug treatment), and fiscal responsibility (freeing up corrections department budgets for more hardened criminals).

Public Support Is Growing

A recent survey conducted by California Tulchin Research finds that a whopping 70 percent of voters surveyed around the state favor a decrease in punishment for possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs. The poll found that even more – 87 percent – favored lesser punishments for drug-related offenses of all types if the defendant successfully completed a drug treatment program.

If voter support is any indication, there is a good chance that one day Californians will face lesser consequences for simple drug possession crimes. In the meantime, though, California takes all drug possession cases very seriously, punishing many of them with hefty fines and long jail sentences, so it is important that they be vigorously defended against. If you or a loved one is facing a California drug possession charge, contact a skilled criminal defense attorney in your area to learn more about protecting your legal rights.

ICE on the lookout for drug smugglers crossing into San Diego

Posted on April 10, 2012 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office is taking action to combat drug smugglers that are luring Tijuana citizens to participate in alleged drug trafficking operations that move narcotics across the U.S. border into San Diego.

According to ICE officials, the Tijuana ‘drug lords’ are placing ads in local newspapers alerting citizens of what appear to be reputable employment opportunities involving transporting company vehicles across the border. These jobs later turn out to be fronts for drug trafficking operations, often resulting in the innocent drivers being arrested and charged with federal drug crimes when they reach California.

Since 2011, ICE has apprehended and arrested nearly 40 such drivers at the San Diego border. This reportedly led to the seizure of 100 pounds of methamphetamine, 75 pounds of cocaine and more than 3,300 pounds of marijuana.

To alert Tijuana residents of the potential of arrest and criminal penalties, ICE has placed ads of its own into the two main newspapers in Tijuana. “Warning! Drug traffickers are announcing employment for drivers to cross to the United States,” the ads read. “Don’t be a victim of the smuggler’s trap.”

ICE says that, in most cases, the drivers suspected that something was amiss. However, needing gainful employment, they were willing to overlook the inconsistencies and irregularities for the promise of a much-needed paycheck.

For example, one Tijuana man told officers that he had searched the vehicle, suspecting that his new employer may have been up to something illegal. Despite his search, he did not find the 30 pounds of cocaine that were packed into the gas tank, which ultimately led to his arrest when he reached the U.S.

Drug charges upheld in case where drugs delivered via mail

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

Who doesn’t like getting packages in the mail? Imagine, however, that you receive and sign for a package, only to discover it contains illegal drugs. One man, who found himself in this situation, is now facing misdemeanor drug charges.

Appealing a lower court’s decision, the man claims police who arrested him lacked probable cause to do so. According to court documents, a package intended for the address at which the man resides, was intercepted by a United Sates Postal Service worker who believed the package contained drugs.

A police officer posing as a postal worker made a “controlled delivery” of the package to the man’s home. The police officer maintains the man acknowledged the package was intended for him. The man, however, contends the package was addressed to another recipient and that the police officer coerced him into signing for it. He argued he planned to return the unopened package to the post office.

The appellate judge hearing this case remarked that it was one of the first to address questions related to if the acceptance of a package delivered via a “controlled delivery” qualifies as probable cause to arrest the recipient.

In her opinion, the judge maintained probable cause is classified by “some awareness that the package contains contraband” on the recipient’s part. While in this specific instance, law enforcement officials had additional information to tie the man to criminal drug activity, the case is interesting in the potential questions it raises related to a recipient’s liability for the contents of packages delivered via mail.

People v. Jones Summary (Drug Trafficking; Conspiracy; Search & Seizure Defense)

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In a nine to zero opinion entitled UNITED STATES v. JONES, No. 10-1259, the U.S. Supreme Court, on January 23, 2012, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals decision that reversed the U.S. District Court criminal conviction of drug trafficking and conspiracy charges. The Supreme Court confirmed the police conducted a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it attached and monitored a GPS device to a vehicle. Although there was a warrant issued to the Government, it required the tracking device to be installed within 10 days, but it was actually installed on the 11th day. Therefore, it was deemed a warrantless search in violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy, and the District Court should have suppressed the evidence. As a result of the Supreme Court granting certiorari (after the DC Circuit Court previously denied a petition for a rehearing by the Government), the U.S. District Court sentence to life imprisonment that was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals was affirmed. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court did not decide whether installing a GPS device requires a warrant, and if not, whether monitoring a GPS device over a very brief period of time, such as a couple days, requires a warrant.

Category Archives: Drug Charges