Wow!  I just received a fax from McGraw Hill, the people who make college textbooks, among other publishing.  They happened on a piece I wrote for The Oregon Herald on 4/20/2005 (just two weeks before I met Madeline Martinez and started my career in marijuana law reform) entitled “Drug Testing Does No Good” and are asking my permission to reprint it in a college textbook entitled “Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Management” that will be published in August.  Yours truly even receives a fee!  For something I wrote and forgot about four years ago!  (Ain’t the intertubes wonderful?)

Here it is for your reading pleasure…

Recently, an RV manufacturing plant in Goshen, Indiana, made headlines because they had drug tested all 120 of their employees and found that nearly a third of them tested positive for some illicit substance.

What caused the company to drug test all of their employees? Was there a rash of accidents? Had productivity dropped significantly? Were there increasing incidents of absenteeism and illness? Did a supervisor notice any drug use occurring at the plant, or notice an employee obviously under the influence of drugs?

No. The only reason the plant spent the time, effort, and money to test their employees was due to a police tip that there was a drug problem at the plant. In other words, there was no reason for the company to believe they had a drug problem.

You would think that running a manufacturing plant with one third of your employees working under the influence would lead to some obvious problems. You’d be right. The problem is that a positive drug test does not indicate that a person is under the influence of drugs. It only indicates that a person has done drugs in the past.

Read the rest of this entry by clicking here

Related posts

• Cannabis Civil Rights (10)
• NORML’s Economic Stimulus Plan – Stop Firing Pot Smokers! (0)
• Arizona v. Gant ruling at Supreme Court: Police must have reason to search vehicle, not just an arrest (4)

A UF student was arrested Monday and charged with six drug–related felonies after officials found marijuana, crack cocaine and prescription drugs in his possession. At about 11 p.m., an Alachua County Sheriff’s officer saw David Janson, 23, standing on the corner near 4500 S.W. 91st St. According to the ASO arrest report, when Janson saw the ASO officer, he showed signs of nervousness by walking away and looking over his shoulder to see if he was being followed.

When the officer approached Janson, he found a multicolored glass pipe in his front pocket, which Janson admitted to recently smoking marijuana out of, the report stated. Janson told the officer that he had prescription medication, marijuana and other narcotics in his apartment.

After Janson signed a Voluntary Consent to Search Form, the officer searched his apartment and found marijuana, a straw, cocaine and prescription pills. He was charged with five misdemeanors and six felonies.

“Wait, officers, I’m not through!  I also cheated on my taxes from 2005-2007!  When I was 15 I sneaked into an R-rated movie!  Yesterday, I shoplifted a Zagnut bar from the Piggly Wiggly!  I also ripped off all the tags on my pillows and mattresses, in violation of federal law!  Isn’t there anything else you can charge me with?”

OK, to start with, standing on the corner alone at night isn’t a crime.  Don’t be nervous.  People who aren’t committing crimes aren’t nervous around police officers.  They look at them driving by.  Sometimes they wave.

Still, the cop might stop to talk to you.  You don’t have to answer his questions and at any time you can say, Am I being officially detained? Because I need to be going now. If he insists on keeping you there, then you have a right to ask, Can you tell me why I’m being detained? His answer could be useful to your lawyer later.

But if he does detain you (let your lawyer worry about whether he had the right to), he does have the right to pat you down to make sure you’re not armed. A glass pipe in your pocket will definitely feel suspicious… and that moment, right there, when that cop’s hand touches your pipe through your clothing is the moment when you steadfastly observe your right to remain silent and immediately ask to speak with your attorney (you know, the one from the NORML Legal Committee* whose name, phone number, and address you have written down and keep in your wallet or purse at all times?)

“Empty your pockets!”  I’m sorry, officer, but I do not consent to any searches and I wish to speak with my attorney. If he’s going to arrest you and search through your pockets, fine, just don’t resist or say anything.

“You been smokin’ outta this pipe?”  I’m sorry, officer, but I can’t answer any questions until my attorney is present.

Had David Janson just done that, he’d be looking at misdemeanor paraphernalia possession, and at most would’ve led to 1 year, $1,000 fine, and 6 months – 2 years driver’s license suspension.  Did Janson become convinced that admitting to marijuana smoking from the pipe, admitting to possession of marijuana, cocaine, and pharmaceuticals back home and allowing the police to go in and find them, that was somehow going to make them say, “Hey, kid, sorry about the pipe thing.  At least you were honest.  We’ll just take these drugs away and leave you be.  Have a nice day!”

I know it’s tough.  Police are well-trained to fool you into giving up your legal rights and making a prosecutor’s job easy.  Check out the Busted video from FlexYourRights.org for helpful training on how to deal with police encounters.

Read the rest of this entry by clicking here

Related posts

• Georgia radio host says he’s been suspended after marijuana arrest (5)
• Florida man arrested for sex and alcohol crimes with up to 20 children free on $25,000 bond (1)
• Arizona v. Gant ruling at Supreme Court: Police must have reason to search vehicle, not just an arrest (4)

From Scott Morgan at the FlexYourRights blog:

For many years, the Supreme Court has permitted police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle any time an occupant of the car is arrested. These so-called “searches incident to arrest” were authorized in New York v. Belton (1981) based in large part on concerns about officer safety, namely that the suspect might dive for a weapon hidden in the car. As a result, police have grown accustomed to searching vehicles for “safety reasons” even after the suspect has been taken into custody. This doesn’t protect officers, but it certainly encourages police to make more arrests so they can do more searches.

Well, that’s finally going to change. The Supreme Court ruled today in Arizona v. Gant that vehicle searches following an arrest are legal only if the suspect has access to the vehicle or if officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence related to that arrest. In other words, police are now required to have an actual reason to justify the vehicle search, instead of being allowed to do it automatically. This decision restores some much needed logic and common sense to the way many warrantless vehicle searches are analyzed under the 4th Amendment.

This is a huge decision for curbing the “fishing expeditions” by law enforcement who pull over “suspects” (likely to be of darken complexion in nice cars or youngsters sporting Grateful Dead stickers on their VW bus) on minor traffic violations as a pretext for searching the car for marijuana or drugs.  Police will still be able to search with probable cause, certainly the smell of marijuana or it lying inside the car “in plain view” will get your car looked at.  There is still no protection from the unscientific use and mis-use of K-9 units to manufacture a probable cause.  But I can bet there are some NORML Legal Committee defense lawyers who are very excited about this ruling today.

I found this portion of the oral arguments at the SCOTUS Wiki:

Justices Souter, Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsburg and Stevens all were openly incredulous of the claim that officer safety could justify the rule. And Justice Scalia scoffed at the idea that there was any need to preserve evidence that might be found in the car in the case of an arrest for a traffic violation. “Evidence of what?” he asked. When Yang suggested that the search might turn up evidence of a more serious crime, Scalia asked in disbelief “you avowedly say that once you arrest somebody you can rummage around for evidence of a different crime”?

Justice Kennedy invited both the State and the Assistant Solicitor General to identify some new justification and seemed mildly frustrated when neither counsel accepted the invitation. Speaking to Yang, he said “It seems to me there are good reasons for searching that car. It’s — it’s movable. That’s the old vehicle exception. It can have contraband in it. It can be stolen. It can be taken for joy rides. But you don’t seem to make any of those arguments. You just want to keep coming back to officer safety and on that point I think your case is very weak.”

Justice Scalia similarly asked both sides whether there was any historical – as opposed to pragmatic – justification for the rule. “If you stopped Thomas Jefferson’s carriage to arrest Thomas Jefferson and you pulled him off to the side of the road, could you – could you then go and search his carriage?” No one seemed to know.

I’d ask Justice Scalia how he’d explain to Thomas Jefferson the need to harass a citizen for possessing hemp in the first place.

Related posts

• US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked without cause (0)
• JUST SAY NO!!! (to police searches) (9)
• Georgia radio host says he’s been suspended after marijuana arrest (5)

A young man – a Baptist preacher – stopped by Border Patrol.  Cops demand to search his car.  Preacher invokes 4th amendment rights.  Cops allege the K-9 unit alerted on drugs or humans secreted in the preacher’s car, though preacher doesn’t see dog react at all.  Cops claim dog equals probable cause and invoke hammers to smash preacher’s windows out, tasers used repeatedly on preacher, preacher’s face torn up into bloody mess as cops smash his face into broken glass.

Don’t forget these Border Patrol thugs are now conducting operations within 100 miles of the border.  This is how our government is going to protect us from the scourge of Mexican trafficking of marijuana that Americans want to smoke and cheap labor that Americans want to hire.  Is this how President Obama plans to “crack down” on drug use in America?

Related posts

• US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked without cause (0)
• U.S. Military: Mexico Could Collapse Under Drug Violence, Corruption (0)
• The Failed Border Security Initiative – A Crackdown Compounded (0)

Macon radio host says he’s been suspended after marijuana arrest
Macon radio talk show host Shayne McBryde said he’s been suspended indefinitely from his job at WMAC News Talk 940 pending an internal corporate investigation.

McBryde, 37, said he met with Cumulus Broadcasting representatives Wednesday morning after being arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession about noon Tuesday.

McBryde said he was “at the wrong place at the wrong time” when police knocked on the door of a Center Street residence after smelling burning marijuana Tuesday.

An officer responding to a report of a man with a gun on Center Street about 12:15 p.m. Tuesday couldn’t find the man, but the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from 982 Center St., according to a Macon police report.

The officer knocked on the door, and the homeowner agreed to a search of the residence, according to the report.

Seven people inside denied having any marijuana, but when told that a drug-sniffing dog was on the way, McBryde admitted having a small bag of marijuana, according to the report.

Officers say another person there admitted to smoking marijuana.

McBryde was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, while the other six people – including the home owner – were cited for being present where drugs are kept, used or sold, according to the report.

Police spokeswoman Sgt. Melanie Hofmann said McBryde had less than an ounce of marijuana.

He was released from the Bibb County jail late Tuesday afternoon on $390 bond, according to jail records.

Sigh.

OK, Stashers, let us all learn from the lesson of Shayne McBride and that stupid homeowner.  Repeat after me:

• “I’m sorry officer, I really can’t let you into my home without a valid search warrant.”
• “Officer, I do not consent to any searches.”

I know it can be intimidating when a cop knocks on your door.  But if you’ve got people inside smoking pot, letting that officer in your home is a guarantee that someone is going to jail.  You have nothing to lose by asserting your 4th Amendment rights – step outside your door, close it behind you, and politely tell them they cannot enter without a warrant.  Your refusal to allow a warrantless search is not sufficient for the probable cause they’d need to enter without it.  The smell of burning marijuana coming from your home might be enough for them to get a warrant, but that’s a big pain in the ass for them, and they may not want to wake up a judge for what may be a small misdemeanor amount of marijuana.

But suppose the homeowner lets the cops in and you’re holding the bag.  Refuse to consent to any searches.  Don’t just admit to possession and make their job easy.  They threaten to bring the drug dogs?  Fine, if they find the weed on you, you’re no more or less busted than you would have been if you voluntarily showed them your weed.  Refusal to consent to a search is not going to make your charges any worse – you’re not resisting arrest, you’re asserting your rights.

As for the radio deejay, look, if Cumulus Broadcasting wants to remove all of its employees who smoke weed, there is going to be a lot of dead air on that station…

Related posts

• Florida man helps police charge him with six felonies (12)
• Arizona v. Gant ruling at Supreme Court: Police must have reason to search vehicle, not just an arrest (4)
• Will you enlist in the war to end adult marijuana prohibition? (15)