Whoops, I was wrong. It’s not the Supreme Court of Canada, it’s the Ontario Court of Appeals. If the law isn’t rewritten, dope will become legal (whether just in Ontario or nationwide is unclear). However, since 3 out of 4 Canadians are opposed to marijuana laws, hopefully the law will simply be dropped.
Forfeiture laws treat the property in question as the transgressor, so when they seize your car they’re punishing it for its part in a crime.
From the same site:
45 states have asset forfeiture laws modeled on federal law. An anecdote from my own personal experience: A friend of mine got pulled over by the Waller County (Texas) Sheriff’s Department and somebody (3 people in the car) tossed 3 joints out the window. Knowing they couldn’t pin the dope on anyone in particular, nor prove that all three occupants had knowledge of the presence of contraband, the Sheriff’s Department never filed charges (of course, they all got to spend the weekend in the County Jail). But the car was seized and never returned (my friend could not come up with a cost bond in time and was advised by an attorney that he would likely lose anyway).
Many times, no matter the obvious reality, you will be charged with “intent to distribute” just because…
…I don’t know how many people sucessfully fight off the charge, but it still must be a pain.
Beatle, The authorities have to have a reason for working with the feds. They will neverwork willingly with the feds…too much paperwork. A joint, or a bag, or anything under a felony won’t persuade a local cop to work with the feds just to get your car. Your friend should have fought it.
Thanks GaWd for California law.
Myrr, in California, it’s so difficult to prove possesion with intent to sell that it rarely happens unless there is intent to sell.
A while back, in my younger and dumber days, I was busted. Aside from an illegal search, the cop found a scale and bags. He threatened intent to sell up and down all night long, but since he found nothing but a personal stash of less than a gram(“mistakenly” logged as 18 gms. in the police report), all he did was write me up for for possesion of less than an ounce. Since intent to sell was and is so difficult to prove, he took the weed, wrote my ticket, and returned all of my property(which included my scales, bags, and drug paraphenalia).
No proof of intent, no seizure. THat’s the way it works here. THink he wanted to work with the feds to take my property? hell no! Too much trouble, no proof.
This isn’t Tx, and this isn’t any other state with ridiculously fascist pot laws, but they’re following the law(to a certain extent).
Now try having 400 pounds of dope…think that’ll get federal involvement? you betcha!
Well, GaWd, you seem pretty comfy with the situation in CA, about which I know little. I don’t know where zebbmx is, but the fact remains you can lose your car to the local cops for a joint in a large part of the U.S.; the local departments have significant financial incentives to work both the state laws as well as work with the feds (and sure, the feds are going to be called in for the bigger stuff). Just down the road from me, Lake Charles, Louisiana is notorious for grabbing stuff off of I-10.
I know of these 2 ordinances. SF’s was knocked down, and Oakland’s new proposition won’t fly very far either. If you read the entire article, you come across this:
There has already been one overturned punishment, and they expect the constitutionality of the ordinance to be questioned entirely. Add to that the re-opening of Oakland’s Cannabis clubs, and most likely the opening of an SF club not too far off and you have some severely hypocritical laws fighting each other. This, like “Smoke a joint, Lose your license”, will be thrown out, or allowed to lapse.
Am I comfy with the situation where I live? Hell yes. Two reasons.
1- I’m clean
2- With the exception of the occasional fascist asshole cop in San Jose, pot is a very, VERY minor offense.
I’m sorry that other states can’t be as open-minded as we are in California, but the time will come(give it, say, 20 years?), when a majority of states have more lax legistlation on Pot. over 8 states have passed decriminalization laws, or compassionate use laws already.
And like you said already-
While this is true, it doesn’t jive with your citing of the Hyde act. State and local authorities can seize your property, but it’s not federal, so it doesn’t fall under Hyde.
I fine this discussion very interesting. There are a couple of things I’d like to ask…sorry for the slight sidetrack.
Why, oh why do people take it with them when they go somewhere? Seems to me that is as bad as transporting alcohol and just asking to get busted. Seems to me that the only reason a person would carry it with them would be to sell it, or is it because they have to have it so often or what?
Now you can call me dumb, naive (sp), and old,(I’d rather you called me Mammie,) but I’d like some input here.
Mammie. Much of the reason for using marijuana is for the experience. However the experience of hitin it in your house becomes routine very quickly. So you want to experience it in places like the movie theater, on top of a mountain, swimming in the local creek, and whatever. To get it to those places you have to carry it with you. Nobody I know carries more than a usable ammount, unless they are picking up or delivering.
P.S. most of the people I know who were busted with a little bit of pot only got caught becuase the where actively trying to avoid driving after smoking, so they kept it with them till they got there. In high pot areas there is a sometimes a bit of a gentlemen’s agreement between the cops and the users that if the driver isn’t high, but has some pot on him, it will get overlooked.
While I can see what confusion may have been created by my brief post:
The post does not state that forfeiture is a consideration solely in federal prosecutions. It is, in fact, a large factor in state (which includes county and municipal) actions. The gist of the post was to counter the assertion that some kind of proof of intent to distribute is required for forfeiture. It is not.
The mention of the Hyde bill was meant to report that some efforts at reform are underway and its effect is of note as federal law in this area has had the effect of wagging the state dogs. Nevertheless, the brevity of the post apparently had the effect of producing the impression that federal actions alone could result in forfeiture. So, I apologize for any confusion wrought; I mainly meant to counter the wrong assertion that proof of intent to distribute is required for forfeiture.
On to the Mammie and Wolfman discussion (we’ve certainly traveled a bit from the 1/8 of an ounce, haven’t we?). Wolf makes a plausible assertion that marijuana carrying travelers transport the stuff in order to imbibe on the scene of their anticipated experience. That may cover some of the dope busts in a car scenarios, but hardly covers all. A lot of dope smokers do it everywhere they go and just carry it because they’re going to want some whenever they get to the next stop on the line. I dunno; how many stopped in traffic busts are there? I used to get searched on a regular basis - long-haired guy in the ‘60s - now I can’t even get a cop to look at me. Long hair means nothing anymore - what makes a cop decide to search you? I used to think people who put marijuana leaf decals on the back windows of their vans were either very crazy or very stupid. Apparently that no longer grabs the cops’ attention. So, to get busted on a traffic stop requires something extra in the info you give off to a cop. What’s that?
