cannabisnews.com: CHP Standoff Over Medical Marijuana





CHP Standoff Over Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on December 16, 2005 at 12:10:31 PT
By Brett Rowland 
Source: Hollister Free Lance
Hollister, CA -- A legal battle erupted in the San Benito County Courthouse Thursday when the county's public defender demanded a court hearing to determine whether the local California Highway Patrol commander broke the law by refusing to return a man's medical marijuana confiscated during an arrest last year.Public Defender Greg La Forge argued before Superior Court Judge Steven Sanders that Hollister-Gilroy CHP Commander Otto Knorr should return 4 grams of medical marijuana, or face the possibility of being held in contempt of court because a judge had already issued a court order mandating the marijuana be returned.
But Knorr said that while California recognizes marijuana as a medicine under certain instances, the federal government does not. That is why he cannot return the substance CHP officers confiscated from 28-year-old Eugene Popok, a Los Angeles-area resident, during a traffic stop for speeding on Highway 156 in October of 2004, he said.Popok was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana at the time, and La Forge said the criminal charges against his client have already been settled. La Forge did not know what ailed Popok, who was not present during Thursday's hearing, however the primary cause for medical marijuana is chronic pain.The case was continued to Jan. 19, at which time La Forge said he will ask Sanders to hold Knorr in contempt of court if the commander fails to hand over the marijuana. A misdemeanor contempt of court charge carries a sentence of up to six months in jail. Knorr said he did not know what he would do if Sanders ordered him to return the marijuana in January. "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it," he said. "I'm in quite a quandary. I stand very strongly on my ethics and have a responsibility to the people of the state of California, the California Highway Patrol and my officers to uphold the law. If I lose my integrity, I have nothing else to stand for."La Forge called such reasoning "garbage" and pointed to a federal law that protects law enforcement officers from criminal charges related to enforcing state controlled substance laws. Ethics, he said, should not factor into anyone's decision to follow a state law or court order. "They are trying to get around the court order by hiding behind a penalty that doesn't exist," he said. "The DA's argument that he is being put between a rock and a hard place is garbage."The case playing out in San Benito's courtroom is a familiar one to Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He said similar cases have also been heard in other states."It has happened before - usually the local police literally walk across the street and drop it on the steps of the federal courthouse," he said. "It's a very contemporary question. The citizens of California have voted that (marijuana) is a medicine. It would seem malevolent, if not foolhardy, to not return what has been deemed legal."La Forge believes Knorr's refusal to return the marijuana is in direct conflict with the CHP's policy on medicinal marijuana. Typically, the CHP takes a hands-off approach and will not confiscate the drugs if the person qualifies under state law for possession of medical marijuana, Knorr said. However, since Popok did not notify officers during his arrest that the marijuana was for medical use, it was confiscated. "The defendant made no claim of medical use during the arrest and was driving under the influence at the time," Knorr said Thursday outside the courthouse. "Our policy allows us not to seize medical marijuana, but it does not allow us to dispense it. That would be a violation of federal law." The problem, Knorr said, is that state law, prompted by the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 - which allows people with certain medical ailments to possess small quantities of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation - directly conflicts with a federal law prohibiting the use or distribution of marijuana for any reason. "We're caught in the middle of both," Knorr said. But La Forge believes the law is clear, and said the District Attorney "throws the book" at many of his other clients who violate court orders."Why is this any different because a guy has a gun and a badge," he said. "It's clearly a double standard."District Attorney John Sarsfield did not return phone calls for comment on the matter Thursday. During the hearing, Sanders suggested the marijuana be returned to La Forge, on behalf of his client. But La Forge would not accept, explaining that only police officers are exempt from prosecution for enforcing the state's drug laws.Although the subject is a touchy one, La Forge believes he'll be successful and based his optimism on a 2002 case in which he was able to get San Benito County Sheriff Curtis Hill to return 11 grams of medical marijuana to another one of his clients. Hill also was unavailable for comment.Brett Rowland covers education for the Free Lance. Source: Hollister Free Lance (CA)Author: Brett Rowland Published: Friday, December 16, 2005Copyright: 2005 Hollister Free LanceContact: editor freelancenews.comWebsite: http://www.freelancenews.com/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/California Patrol Won't Seize Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21075.shtmlCHP Revises Policy on Pot Seizureshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21069.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #25 posted by siege on December 17, 2005 at 08:49:19 PT
US House votes to wall up Mexico border
The US border with Canada was not forgotten. The bill "includes a requirement for the Secretary of
Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border."The US-Mexico border is 3,200 kilometers (2,000 miles) long.http://tinyurl.com/7cgdt
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by mayan on December 17, 2005 at 08:48:01 PT
seige
Here is a piece by James H. Fetzer, the Minnesota-Deluth professor that has recently agreed with BYU professor, Steven Jones, that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition...Flu me once, shame on you; Flu me twice...
http://www.assassinationscience.com/FluMeOnce.pdfUniversity of Minnesota-Duluth Professor Supports 9/11 Truth Movement:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/Assassination Science:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on December 17, 2005 at 08:39:16 PT
whig 
You said: Yes, it will, but don't expect it to come from the political system or those who seek power within it.***I agree with you. I never look at politics as a solution. Politics is corrupt. People will bring about the necessary changes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by siege on December 17, 2005 at 08:09:52 PT
Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says 
Dec 17, 9:51 AM ESTBush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says http://tinyurl.com/ctb27 WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by siege on December 17, 2005 at 07:35:42 PT
off and on topic
The government has told the people what is next it is called [Bird Flu and marshall law] so as there will a dictator of the usa, and if you don't like it F U we will bring the U N troops to take over, they have tryed this since 1960 the the military , while in the marines they asked what we would do if they brough in the U N to take over, At that time we told them don't try it, the people had to much or could get it, and we would go home and fight... 
some people that know say that there are some [attack helicopters and puff the magista dragon's] are missing from Bush's arsenal, and more, and they know they have NOT gone out of the counrty... and there are [two] up dated lear jets that can do more then what happen in japan in the 1940. and it is not in the governments hands, and they can't find them. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by mayan on December 17, 2005 at 06:42:16 PT
Screw the NY Times
Max, maybe the Bushies owe the struggling NY Times a favor. Maybe the Times needs a juicy story to help bolster their sorry circulation numbers and it's payback time? As you mentioned, the Times beat the war-drums for the Bushies in the run-up to Iraq, never questioning the false claims of WMD's,the suposed Iraq/9/11 link or the supposed Saddam/Osama link. They are as guilty as Bush-Cheney and are nothing more than a propagand piece for the neo-cons. Since the Times now has "permission" to run with this story then will they have to also beat the war-drums against Iran and Syria as their part of the bargain?If the NY Times held the warrantless spying story for over a year at the "request" of the Bush regime, then why are they just coming out with it now? Why are they coming out with it,period, unless the Bushies want them to? What's with the timing? Are the neo-cons going to stage another "terror attack" and then say, "We told you we need the Patriot act,secrecy,warrantless spying,more money,etc. and everyone who has fought against our power-grab is responsible for this attack"? Or maybe this is part of a strategic ploy which was devised some time ago to ensure the reauthorization of the Patriot act should it's future ever come into doubt? I can't help but feel that something's up.Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts: 
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htmNew York Times admits it held domestic spying story for a full year:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.htmlPentagon Snooping Story Designed To Backfire On Those Who Pursue It:
http://rense.com/general69/trst.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by OverwhelmSam on December 17, 2005 at 06:07:36 PT
LOLOL
Sooner or later the Law Enforcement community will make the connection that busting someone for pot may mean that they themselves get busted. And rightly so. But alas, no one ever touted marijuana haters of having that much sense.I stil think the DEA is running around behind the scenes in secret board meetings pushing officials' buttons in California. Let's see how long it takes the politicians to get sick of it and grow up.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Toker00 on December 17, 2005 at 05:58:03 PT
The truth hurts, don't it?
"Hypocrite fish symbol from Reefer activist takes huge, painful bite out of the butts of non-obedient Christians!" Fish stories like this need to be Framed and put on the wall.If anyone here lives near this place, find out how I can order some of these things. I would LOVE some!Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by whig on December 17, 2005 at 04:37:32 PT
FoM
"I must continue to hope that good will win over what is not good."Yes, it will, but don't expect it to come from the political system or those who seek power within it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by whig on December 17, 2005 at 04:32:28 PT
JR Bob Dobbs
"He's a California State Trooper - not a Federal Government Trooper. The only Federal thing about his jurisdiction is the fact he patrols the interstates. He's hired by the state to enforce state law - which is all the attorney in this case is asking him to do. I fail to see the quandary. I do, however, see the contempt."There is certainly a quandary created by the supremacy clause."This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."Now, I would suggest that the CSA is not "in Pursuance thereof" and ought to be struck, but Raich did not challenge the statute facially in the last round, and the Supreme Court declined to carve out a narrow personal exception for non-commercial medical use.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 17, 2005 at 02:17:09 PT
Eediots
I heard recently that there's a small minority of people who will automatically vote for the incumbent in times of war even if they dislike him because they don't want to change leadership during wartime. Of course, to a greater or lesser degree we've been at war at every election time since the 60's at least...>>"I'm in quite a quandary. I stand very strongly on my ethics and have a responsibility to the people of the state of California, the California Highway Patrol and my officers to uphold the law. If I lose my integrity, I have nothing else to stand for."He's a California State Trooper - not a Federal Government Trooper. The only Federal thing about his jurisdiction is the fact he patrols the interstates. He's hired by the state to enforce state law - which is all the attorney in this case is asking him to do. I fail to see the quandary. I do, however, see the contempt.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on December 16, 2005 at 22:24:50 PT
WND: Dems' 'Hypocrite' Fish from 'Reefer' Activist
State party's website sold magnet that mocks Christians.December 17, 2005A parody of the Christian fish symbol that caused trouble for Washington state Democrats originated with an activist who wants marijuana legalized. As WorldNetDaily reported, the official website of Washington State Democrats sold magnetic car magnets of the fish, which had a cross and the word "hypocrite" on a background of hellish flames. The item was removed Dec. 9 after a weblog took note, calling it an example of Democrat Party hostility toward religious believers, especially Christians. Complete Article: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47947
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on December 16, 2005 at 20:22:00 PT
whig
Thank you for the links. I know some people voted for him though and that is what confuses me. We have 24 Hour News Channels, the Internet, Blogs and Newspapers. I don't know how people didn't see thru the spin that they did. They made Kerry look so bad and people believed what they said. Where is any depth of thought with decisions as important as it was? Well maybe it will all surface and justice will happen. I must continue to hope that good will win over what is not good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by whig on December 16, 2005 at 19:48:32 PT
FoM
"I still find it hard to believe that people voted for Bush last year. Don't people see? I guess when I realized that some americans think Bush is good and cares enough that they voted for him has left me feeling empty. I don't feel a part of the people anymore. Common sense was cast to the wind."You think so?Check out these links:http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002156.htmhttp://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002168.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by goneposthole on December 16, 2005 at 18:30:47 PT
What substances should they be confiscating?
Vioxx? Ritalin? Prozac? Zoloft? Those substances have done some damage.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by mayan on December 16, 2005 at 18:18:20 PT
Patriot Act
This is a major,major defeat for the neo-cons and their war "with" terror. The "god damned piece of paper" we call Our Constitution lives another day!Bill of Rights Defense Committee:
http://www.bordc.org/What a way to end the week!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Toker00 on December 16, 2005 at 16:38:36 PT
Please answer every empeach alert you get!
Even Joe Six-Pack is gonna be po'd about this. I thought the Downing Street Minutes might be the clincher, but this HAS to be. American People, Unite! We have a government to replace!EMPEACH, EMPEACH, EMPEACH, EMPEACH, EMPEACH, EMPEACH,EMPEACH, EMPEACH! C'mon you spineless Dems! It's easy to say! EMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY!!! End the War on Iraq! End the War on drugs! END THE RULE OF BIG OIL AND PHARMA-POISONS! Let's send the DEA to the next war front, not our children!Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHOBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on December 16, 2005 at 15:49:02 PT
Here's The NYT Article
Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts ***WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials. Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications. The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches."This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."Complete Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Max Flowers on December 16, 2005 at 15:25:19 PT
Today is a GOOD day for America
We who have known all along what kind of creep Bush is, are being vindicated. I hope that many, many eyes are being opened.Congrats to the NY Times for striking that deep wound. Maybe they are trying to make up for the damage they helped do by beating the war drums. At this point I don't care where the help comes from, as long as we get it.BUCK FUSH!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on December 16, 2005 at 15:24:41 PT
dongenero
I don't know what drives people to blindly follow a political party. People must have a reason but I can't figure it out. It's almost like a god type devotion and that seems really off the wall to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Max Flowers on December 16, 2005 at 15:15:25 PT
CHP Commandante Otto Knorr 
He "oughtto knowr better" than to mess with the people of California! Ha!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by dongenero on December 16, 2005 at 15:11:11 PT
FoM
I'm with you. I've no idea how he has any support.Well, he doesn't have much support. Even Republicans are saying this will be taken very very seriously.I think the people who stil blindly support him are the Rush Limbaugh types who have drunken of the propoganda kool-aid.Those people don't want the truth anyway. They just want their fantasy to be confirmed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 16, 2005 at 15:04:56 PT
dongenero
I still find it hard to believe that people voted for Bush last year. Don't people see? I guess when I realized that some americans think Bush is good and cares enough that they voted for him has left me feeling empty. I don't feel a part of the people anymore. Common sense was cast to the wind.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dongenero on December 16, 2005 at 14:35:06 PT
Bush pulls a "Tricky Dick"
Looks like Bush is in more hot water.Seems he authorized the NSA to do some illegal wiretaps and such, spying on anti-war activists and other such "terrorists".Hmmm....probably includes people like us as well.When is someone going to start talking impeachment. Would someone just give the damn guy a BJ so we can have a worthwhile reason to get rid of him? It seems illegal activity, not upholding the Constitution,
lying to the American public and blowing CIA covers isn't enough.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on December 16, 2005 at 13:28:09 PT
Off Topic: Patriot Act Renewal Fails in Senate
GOP fights to save provisions before end-of-year deadline.Friday, December 16, 2005WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Friday rejected efforts to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, dealing a major blow to President Bush and the Republican leadership.Senators on both sides of the aisle argued that some of the act's provisions infringe on civil rights. The bipartisan group proposed a three-month extension to continue debate and amend certain provisions, but the Senate also rejected that proposal Friday.The Senate needed 60 votes to override a filibuster and end debate, which is called "invoking cloture." Cloture would have brought the Patriot Act to a final vote, allowing the Senate to renew it by a simple majority.But only 52 senators voted to cut off debate; 47 voted against cloture.Complete Article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/patriot.act/
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment