A marijuana growing charge from 2008 in New Hampshire was heard by the state Supreme Court last week and the court effectively reversed the conviction. Lull farm owner David Orde’s was tried and convicted last year to served 60 days in jail on charges of manufacturing marijuana

See the original post here:
New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules on the Side of Privacy

Jennifer Alexander, a legislative analyst for Oregon NORML, forwarded to me a complaint the organization is leveling at the Washington County Sheriff, Rob Gordon, a vocal critic of the twelve-year-old medical marijuana law.  At issue for Oregon NORML is the following part of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (emphasis mine):

ORS 475.331

(3) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies that obtain identifying information from the list as authorized under this section may not release or use the information for any purpose other than verification that a person IS a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site. [1999 c.4 §12; 2005 c.822 §5]

Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon. 215 SW Adams, MS 32. Hillsboro, OR 97123. Phone: (503) 846-2700. Fax: (503) 846-2719

The first time I reported on Sheriff Rob Gordon was in October 2008.  The sheriff released to the media a map of one of the county’s largest cities, with “Red Cross / pot leaf” icons posted on the map where alleged out of compliance medical marijuana grows had been busted.  While the map didn’t give specific addresses and names, it was accurate enough that any home invader with spare time and a good sense of smell could stake out a neighborhood and find the medical marijuana growers.

The department spokesperson, Sgt. David Thompson, explains that the county knows it is violating the law, and they do not care:

With narcotics sales, or even when growers tell others about their operations, armed take-over robberies and serious assaults inevitably occur, Thompson said.

While these crimes occur in the county and throughout Oregon, the public is unlikely to know about crime trends because Oregon law says law enforcement cannot release or use OMMP participant information except to verify the person has a valid card, Thompson said.

“At this point, we are going against what the state advises,” Thompson said. “This law was designed to help sick people. But when they go out of compliance, or use the law to buy and sell marijuana, that’s not OK.”

So, while admitting that they are going against what the state “advises” (nice to know laws are just “advice” to county sheriffs), and while admitting that when grow operations are known it leads to robberies, they publish on the county sheriff’s website a map of these growsite locations.

Oregon NORML responded to that episode and others with the following:

We feel that this breach of confidentiality also violates the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which is further supported by the OMMA’s statement of their own liability to protect the confidentiality of patient information:

The OMMP follows all Department of Human Services policies on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA uses terms such as “identified data” and “de-identified” or “non-identifying data.” “Identified data” means data that can specifically identify individuals, such as name or date of birth. “De-identified” or “non-identifying data” means data that protects the identity of specific individuals. For example, a count of the number of patients currently registered with the OMMP does not allow the identification of specific individuals

Polk County Sheriff Robert Wolfe, 850 Main St, Dallas, OR 97338. Phone: 503-623-9251, Fax: 503-623-2060

Now we have another county, Polk County, engaging in even more egregious unlawful behavior, this time endangering the safety of an innocent woman and her children:

(Polk County Sheriff’s Office – no link to protect privacy) Medical Marijuana Grower Arrested for Selling Marijuana [date redacted]

Agents of the Polk Interagency Narcotics Team (POINT) served a search warrant at the residence of [name redacted by NORML, but not in the Polk County posting] at [address redacted by NORML, but not in the Polk County posting], Monmouth, Polk County, Oregon on [date redacted], following an investigation to the illegal sales of Marijuana and Prescription medications. Mr. [Name redacted], who is a registered Marijuana grower and Caregiver through the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP), was arrested and charged with Illegal Distribution of Marijuana. The investigation concluded that Mr. [Name redacted] was illegally selling the marijuana that he was growing at his residence to non-cardholders in the Monmouth/Independence area. Detectives seized 56 growing marijuana plants, 2 firearms, 44.7 ounces of processed marijuana, 1.9 ounces of hashish, 274 tablets of prescription Percocet and several jars of marijuana butter. Mr. [name redacted]‘s wife, who is a card holding patient, was allowed to keep and maintain a user amount of marijuana at the residence. The Department of Human Services was called in to investigate the welfare of three (3) juveniles living at the residence. That investigation is ongoing.

So now the entire world knows Mrs. Name Redacted is sitting at home alone with her three kids at Address in Monmouth, Oregon, with no firearms to protect herself while her husband is in custody.  Since OMMA specifies that police can only seize that which is outside of compliance (assuming they even follow that part of OMMA), we all know she’s sitting there with no husband, no guns, and up to 6 mature marijuana plants, 18 seedlings, and a pound and a half of dried processed cannabis.

Even if Mr. Name Redacted was out of compliance, he was a registered grower and caregiver and subject to the privacy clause in OMMA.  Even if he is allegedly selling cannabis in violation of OMMA protections, he has not been convicted yet.  The police could report this as illegal marijuana growing and sales, but his registration in the medical marijuana program is not something they can release “for any purpose other than verification”, and, frankly, isn’t even germane to the story.

By letting her keep her medicine as a patient and not bringing her up on charges, the Polk County Sheriff is attempting to look compassionate.  However, what this really indicated is that Mrs. Name Redacted has had her privacy as a patient violated for no good reason whatsoever.  Perhaps she is employed somewhere that doesn’t look favorably on medical marijuana; her job isn’t protected by OMMA and they could opt to require a drug test from her tomorrow.  Perhaps her housing is federally subsidized and this news will earn her and her children an eviction notice.  Even if her husband has been using medical marijuana as a cover for illegal black market sales and she was well aware of it, that is no reason to put her home, job, and security at risk from violent criminals!

These data releases are not accidental; they are part of a conscious campaign by law enforcement to paint medical marijuana in Oregon as “out of control”.  They know medical marijuana passed here with 55% of the vote and it has only become more popular with the people over twelve years of smooth operations.  They need to orchestrate a campaign to discredit the compassion people have for the sick and disabled and the general positive support for outright legalization in Oregon among a growing majority of citizens, so they can get back to the easy statistic-padding and asset-forfeiture-booty provided by more marijuana law violation arrests.

(KOMO) PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) – A federal appeals court has ruled that mobile tracking devices can be attached to suspect vehicles as part of a marijuana investigation in Oregon.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court in the case of Juan Pineda-Moreno, who argued his constitutional rights were violated when U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents attached devices to his sport utility vehicle.

The DEA agents used several of the devices to track the SUV after they learned Pineda-Moreno and his associates had purchased large amounts of fertilizer, groceries, irrigation equipment and deer repellent at several stores in the Medford area in 2007.

But the court noted the agents attached the devices while the vehicle was parked in a driveway and in public areas, including a street and parking lot.

The court ruled Pineda-Moreno had no reasonable expectation of privacy at any of those sites.

Sounds like the opening for an entrepreneur to begin a fertilizer, groceries, irrigation equipment, and deer repellent delivery service.  If I’m reading this precedent correctly and not too broadly, doesn’t this mean police can bug any car they like in any parking lot they like so long as they consider it part of an investigation?  Why have them go to all the hassle; let’s just hard-wire every car for OnStar and give police unlimited power to surf their live data.  It seems clear to me the courts are continuing to decide that once you leave your home, privacy doesn’t exist (and it barely still exists there if you own a telephone.)

I really can’t wait until I’m finished with my new invention – time text messaging.  I’m really close to perfecting the technology that will allow me to type in a text message and send it back in time to the past.  It’s very complicated getting the binary digits to travel through time and get themselves written out by someone with a quill pen and ink, but I have some mad g33k sk1llz, yo.

Here’s the first message I’m planning on sending back about 221 years to Philadelphia:

Dear Founders,

Our courts have just decided that it is okay for law enforcement agents of the state, acting without a warrant, to hide in one’s carriage so that they may track and inspect every location a citizen may travel and what goods and services he may purchase therein.  This is deemed necessary to prevent citizens from engaging in the crime of planting and harvesting hemp.  Is this what you’re intending as you write the phrase “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Sincerely,

Future Americans

I imagine the response might be: “OMG! Growing hemp is a crime?!? WTF!!!”

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A former middle-school student who was strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain medication won a partial victory of her Supreme Court appeal Thursday in a case testing the discretion of officials to ensure classroom safety.

Redding was an eighth-grade honor student in 2003, with no history of disciplinary problems at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona.

During an investigation into pills found at the school, a student told the vice principal that Redding had given her prescription-strength 400-milligram ibuprofen pills.

The school had a near-zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

Redding was pulled from class by Vice Principal Kerry Wilson, escorted to an office and confronted with the evidence. The girl denied the accusations.

A search of Redding’s backpack found nothing. A strip search was conducted by Wilson’s assistant and a school nurse, both females.

Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear and to pull on the elastic of the underwear, so any hidden pills might fall out, according to court records. No drugs were found.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” Redding said in an affidavit. “I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

The decision was 8-1.  Justice Clarence Thomas thought the Constitution doesn’t really cover the “preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools”, so if you want to strip-search 13-year-old girls at school, the Founding Fathers would have been cool with that.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens thought the girl should be able to sue the school administrators who humiliated her, but the rest of the court decided that up til now it hasn’t been very clear how much protection the Constitution gives 13-year-old schoolgirls from strip searches, so the administrators couldn’t be reasonably expected to know they couldn’t just do that (if I’m reading SCOTUSblog’s analysis correctly).

So, from now on, there will be more protection for 13-year-old girls in school to not be expected to strip to their panties for school officials – not police, a freakin’ vice principal’s assistant and a school nurse! - when a teenage snitch lies about them holding drugs.  But all you 13-year-old girls who were strip-searched, you have no recourse.

I don’t suppose anybody ever considered just calling the girls’ parents.  ”Hello, Mrs. Redding? We have a tip your daughter may be holding prescription ibuprofen in violation of our zero-tolerance policy.  Can you come down to the school, please?”  No, wait, excuse me, I forgot, we’re talking about drugs; there’s no room for common sense here!  What am I thinking?  I just expected someone who takes seriously the phrase “zero tolerance” to show common sense.

Why I’m Standing Up Against Random Drug Testing at My High School

Allie Brody is a senior at Allentown High School in New Jersey and is one student that has had enough of being treated like a criminal.

I’ve written for my school newspaper, helped out with the production of musicals and even traveled abroad through a school club.

I was later inducted into the French Honor Society and the National Honor Society. Last year, I even co-founded the school’s first philosophy club.

But this year I am barred from participating in any of it. The irony is that my school has made me ineligible for any extracurricular activity for what they believe is my own self-interest. What did I do to deserve this punishment? I acted on my principles and stood up for fairness, privacy and dignity for me and my fellow students.

Student drug testing for extracurricular activity was pushed by the Bush administration as the panacea for high school drug use. Besides, what would convince more kids to stop doing drugs than to give them more time to use them. Allie Brody decided to take action.

Last year, when I found out my school board was considering a random student drug-testing policy, I immediately began organizing a student opposition group.

We worked to get the community involved: Students joined with parents and teachers, donning “Drug Testing Fails Our Youth” T-shirts as we filed into the school board meetings. We even brought a toxicologist to speak with the board about the unreliable nature of the drug-testing technology, the problem of non-professionals interpreting the test results, privacy and legal-liability issues and the general lack of research supporting student drug testing.

To us it seemed the school’s arguments in favor of testing were based more on emotional rhetoric than data. But, in the end, emotion carried the day, and random student drug testing went forward.

Allie didn’t simply accept the schools drug testing policy, and neither should you. Despite being terrible policy, it’s a total waste of taxpayers dollars. It’s an ineffective way to combat drug use and Allie does a great job pointing it out in the post.

In a policy statement, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) cautions that student drug testing is unsupported by scientific research and carries inherent dangers. Drug-testing programs break down trust between students and administrators. They also carry the inherent danger of motivating some students to switch to drugs that will leave the system quickly, like alcohol, or drugs that not show up in the tests, such as inhalants and herbal concoctions.

I commend Allie Brody for both the principled stand on the drug testing issue and for the willingness to sacrifice for a closely held belief. We are lucky to have teens of Allie Brody’s character in America, and as a society we become stronger for it.

History is written by those who show up.  [And if I may add... Many of us have had the fantasy idea that if everyone just refused to take a pre-employment drug test, there would be no more pre-employment drug test, because there wouldn't be enough workforce. Alas, that is just a fantasy, because the reality of supporting families and mortgages comes into play.

But at a school... Imagine if every member of the football team or school band or drama club just outright refused to take the tests, what then? These are cases where the drug tester needs you much more than you need the drug tester. Imagine the headlines when John Hughes High School can't field a football team or a band or a play because kids finally had enough and stood up for privacy! They can't expel or suspend the kids for not going out for extracurriculars. The district will be paying the salary of a coach, a conductor, or a director with no students to teach. If everyone did it, there's no way to single out the "stoners" from the rest.

NORML does not at all support the use of marijuana by those under age eighteen except in medical circumstances as directed by a physician. But we do support the privacy rights of students not to be accused of being drug users for merely trying out for extracurriculars. C'mon, kids, show your elders a thing or two - just say no to school drug testing. --"R"R]

Local News | State Supreme Court narrows probable-cause grounds in pot case | Seattle Times Newspaper
Law-enforcement officers who detect the odor of marijuana from a vehicle can’t arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn’t enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search, the court determined, it doesn’t warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.

Defense attorneys on Thursday called it a right-to-privacy victory. Law-enforcement officers say it won’t greatly affect the way they make arrests.

Summing up the state Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote: “Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual.”

Attorney David Zuckerman, who brought the case before the state Supreme Court, said the problem is that arresting someone based solely on the odor of marijuana can affect innocents.

“The smell of marijuana smoke can linger for weeks,” Zuckerman said. “You could have a perfectly innocent citizen get into a car where somebody smoked marijuana at some point … and an officer can just pull you out of a car and book you based on that.”

This may be a good thing to know as you’re all road-tripping up to Hempfest in Seattle.  Not that any responsible adults would be smoking marijuana in their cars while driving, of course.  And it wouldn’t affect you anyway because if you were to break a law and transport marijuana, you’d at least have the sense enough to place it in a smell-proof container and store it in the trunk, so the state trooper would have nothing to smell.  Still, it’s nice to see a privacy-affirming ruling from a Supreme Court from time to time.

Medical marijuana list released | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser
Angry telephone calls started coming in to the state Department of Public Safety almost as soon as the June 27 issue of the Hawai’i Tribune-Herald hit the streets.

A front-page article on medical marijuana mentioned that the department had provided a database with patient names and addresses, the locations of their plants, their certificate numbers, and their prescribing doctors.

The breach of privacy was an inadvertent mistake, and the newspaper did not name any of the patients, but many were alarmed because the information is like providing a roadmap for a stash of legal pot.

On Monday, Clayton Frank, the department’s director, sent letters of apology to the 4,200 medical marijuana patients statewide, informing many who had not read the article that their confidential information had been compromised.

The letter explained the information had been forwarded by e-mail to a Tribune-Herald reporter who had asked for statistics on medical marijuana users. The department’s information technology personnel have since isolated the list and added other internal controls to prevent it from being mistakenly released in the future.

David Bock, the newspaper’s editor, said the newspaper complied with the department’s request to destroy the information.

“We just wanted to know the number of people in Hawai’i County who were currently receiving medical marijuana,” Bock said. “And they erroneously sent us the list with the actual names.”

Under the law’s administrative rules, patient names and other information is confidential and can only be disclosed to law enforcement as verification that patients are in the program.

Of course, the reason that the private information was even able to be leaked in the first place is because of the prohibition against marijuana for healthy people.  There has to be a list to keep track of the legal sick people who smoke pot because it’s still illegal for most people to smoke pot.  I write this to remind the medical patients that just because “you gots yours” doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be fighting for the responsible use of marijuana by the rest of us.  Until you do, you will always suffer high black market pricing, plant limits, possession limits, rip-offs, privacy breaches, law enforcement harassment, and difficulty acquiring medicine.