DrugPolicyCases.com | |||
|
Trivia, Page 3 Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8›
Under the laws of many other States, the maximum penalty McArthur would have faced for possession of 2.3 grams of marijuana would have been less than what he faced in Illinois. See, e. g., Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11357(b) (West 1991) ($ 100 fine); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-406(1) (1999) ($ 100 fine); Minn. Stat. § 152.027(4) (2000) ($ 200 fine and drug education); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(c)(2)(A) (Supp. 1999) ($ 100-$ 250 fine); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(13) (1995) ($ 100 fine and drug education); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 30-31-23(B) (1997) ($ 50-$ 100 fine and 15 days in jail); N. Y. Penal Law § 221.05 (McKinney 2000) ($ 100 fine); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 475.992(4)(f) (Supp. 1998) ($ 100 fine).
[...]
Several Courts of Appeals [for the Third, Sixth and the Eleventh Circuits] [held] that sentencing calculations may not be based on the total weight of mixtures containing uningestable "waste" material.
Several other Courts of Appeals [for the First, Fifth, Ninth, and the Tenth Circuits] [...] have taken a contrary approach. [...]
...[T]he government's emphasis upon supply side interdiction apparently has not reduced teenage use in recent years. Compare R. Perl, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, Drug Control: International Policy and Options CRS-1 (Dec. 12, 2001) (supply side programs account for 66% of the federal drug control budget), with Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2001 Partnership Attitude Tracking Study: Key Findings 1 (showing increase in teenage drug use in early 1990's, peak in 1997, holding steady thereafter); 2000-2001 PRIDE National Summary: Alcohol, Tobacco, Illicit Drugs, Violence and Related Behaviors, Grades 6 thru 12 (Apr. 5, 2002), http://www.pridesurveys.com/us00.pdf (slight rise in high school drug use in 2000-2001); Department of Health and Human Services, L. Johnston et al., Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use, Overview of Key Findings 5 (2001). Table 1 (lifetime prevalence of drug use increasing over last 10 years).
[...]
[21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7)] statutes provide for the forfeiture of:
"(4) All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of [controlled substances, their raw materials, and equipment used in their manufacture and distribution] "(7) All real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment . . . ." Each provision has an "innocent owner" exception. See §§ 881(a)(4)(C) and (a)(7). [...]
Terry permits a brief stop of a person whose suspicious conduct leads an officer to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot, and a patdown search of the person for weapons when the officer is justified in believing that the person may be armed and presently dangerous. This protective search -- permitted without a warrant and on the basis of reasonable suspicion less than probable cause -- is not meant to discover evidence of crime, but must be strictly limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others. If the protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed.
[...]
|
|