“Plain Smell” Doctrine Results In Two Marijuana Busts In Sonoma County

Law Office of Amy ChapmanOver the past few weeks, police in Sonoma County have made a number of arrests for transporting large amounts of marijuana. According to a report two of the arrests resulted from an officer’s report that he could smell marijuana in the car’s cabin after making a routine traffic stop. This suspicious smell then gave the officer probable cause to search the car, where he found the marijuana.

The “Plain Smell” Exception to the Warrant Requirement

In general, any time a police officer wants to search a car or a home, they need to point to some articulable facts that would justify the search. This protection from “unreasonable searches” is provided to all citizens by the United States and California constitutions. The facts cited by the police officers should be reliable indicators that some law has been broken. Furthermore, in order to actually conduct the search, the police will need to secure a warrant from a judge.

However, in some cases judges have made exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant before a search. More specifically, judges have created a modified definition of the word “search.” For example, courts have held that a police officer who pulls over a vehicle and smells marijuana has not conducted a “search” under the terms of the law. This means that there does not need to be probable cause established in order for a police officer to take what he smells into account when determining if a person should be arrested.

Enforcing the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

If police and prosecutors had their way, every time they seized evidence from a driver it would fit within an exception to the warrant requirement, allowing the evidence to be used against the driver at trial. However, thankfully this is not the case.

In some cases, police take shortcuts, inadvertently (or intentionally) overlooking the strictures of the 4th Amendment. In such cases, the courts will keep the evidence that the officer seized out of court because it was illegally seized. For many drug offenses, this results in the dismissal of all charges, since without the admission of the drugs into evidence, there is nothing for the prosecution to move forward with.

It therefore becomes incredibly important in all drug offenses to ensure that the proper motions are filed pre-trial to keep out any and all illegally seized evidence. For questions about illegal searches and seizures in California, call a dedicated Sonoma County criminal defense attorney to speak about your case.

Have You Been Arrested and Charged with a Possessory Offense?

If you have recently been charged with a possessory offense–such as possession of narcotics or possession of a weapon–the seizure of the item likely was the result of a “search” under the terms of the U.S. and California constitutions. If so, in order to be legal, it must meet the dictates of the 4th Amendment in order for the evidence to be admitted at trial. Attorney Amy Chapman has years of experience arguing motions to suppress illegal evidence in all kinds of cases, including drug cases. To learn more about search and seizure law in Sonoma County, call (707) 636-3207 to set up a free consultation with Attorney Chapman.

Santa Rosa Police Seize 135 Pounds Of Marijuana And AK-47, One Man Arrested

Law Office of Amy ChapmanEarlier last month in Santa Rosa, police got word that the residents of an aging commercial facility that had been converted into three mechanic’s bays were acting hostile towards a city inspector present to issue a cease-work order. The facility is located at 1905 Sebastopol Road. According to a report by the Press Democrat, when police arrived, they were met by several people, many of whom hid in various places throughout the facility.

Police ordered everyone out, and many refused at first. However, eventually more police showed up on the scene and those who were hiding complied with police directives. Soon after, police entered the facility and saw what they claimed to be large amounts of packaged marijuana. Police then secured a search warrant for the facility.

Upon executing the search warrant, police ended up seizing 135 pounds of marijuana, one pound of methamphetamine, an AK-47, a handgun, and $3,000 in cash. Just one 39-year-old man was arrested and charged with suspicion of possession of marijuana for sale, possession of an assault rifle, and possession of methamphetamine. The exact nature of the man’s connection to the property remains unclear.

The Warrant Requirement in the California and United States Constitutions

As the article notes, before police engaged in a full search of the premises they obtained a search warrant from a judge, permitting them to do so. While this has come to be seen as a formality in some cases, in reality the warrant requirement is a critical protection offered by both the California and United States Constitutions.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 19 of the California State Constitution protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. This has come to mean that police officer must secure a warrant before conducting a search of a premises or a seizure of a person or item. Of course, there have been numerous exceptions allowed to the warrant requirement over the years, but the general rule remains the same: police need a warrant to conduct a search.

In order to obtain a warrant, police must provide a judge with “probable cause” that evidence of criminal activity will be discovered upon execution of the warrant. In the case described above, the officers’ direct observation of what they believed to be large amounts of pre-packages marijuana in open view was likely sufficient for the judge to issue the search warrant.

Have You Been Arrested and Charged with a California Drug Offense?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with any kind of drug offense in California, there was likely some kind of search conducted by the arresting officer. This search likely needed to be justified by the existence of probable cause. If an officer is unable to articulate what facts gave him or her probable cause, it is possible that the search was illegal and any evidence obtained due to the search is inadmissible at trial. To learn more about search and seizure law in California, contact attorney Amy Chapman to discuss your case. Attorney Chapman has years of experience defending her clients against all types of drug and weapons offenses. Call (707) 636-3207 today to set up your free initial consultation.

Four Charged With Smuggling $250K Worth Of Marijuana From California To Pennsylvania

Law Office of Amy ChapmanEarlier this month, four people were arrested and charged with various offenses relating to the alleged smuggling of 85 pounds of marijuana. According to one local Pennsylvania news source, the four had a complex plan to transport the marijuana from Santa Rosa back to western Pennsylvania, where it would be broken down for retail sale.

Evidently, one of the four rented a car in western Pennsylvania and drove it to Santa Rosa, where it was packed up with 85 pounds of marijuana. From there, the driver picked up another friend and started their trek back across the country, heading for western Pennsylvania. However, in Kansas the couple were caught by police.

It isn’t exactly clear from the article, but it appears that the two who were caught gave statements to the police inculpating two others who remained back in western Pennsylvania, one of whom is alleged to be the man behind the plan. In exchange for her role in picking up the marijuana and driving it back, the woman driving the car at the time was to receive $2,000.

Each of the four defendants faces various drug-related charges, including conspiracy, possession with the intent to deliver, and criminal use of a communications facility. All are felony charges in Pennsylvania.

Santa Rosa Drug Crimes

Although the marijuana in the above case came from the Santa Rosa area, the people allegedly involved were caught in Kansas on their way to Pennsylvania and will be charged under the state laws of Pennsylvania. However, since they were traveling with such a large amount of marijuana, even if they had been caught here in California, where the marijuana laws are more lax, they still would have been in violation of the law.

Challenging Drug Seizures in California Courts

Even when a case seems cut and dry, that isn’t necessarily the case. There are often multiple ways that a dedicated criminal defense attorney can protect the interests of her client, including:

  • Filing a motion to suppress physical evidence of a drug crime, based on an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
  • Filing a motion to suppress a verbal statement given by the client or a co-defendant, based on an illegal seizure of that person; and
  • Severing a client’s case from a co-defendant’s case when the client would be prejudiced if the cases were tried together.

Have You Been Charged with a California Drug Offense?

If you have recently been charged with any type of California drug offense, there are numerous ways that you can challenge the charges against you, ranging from motions to suppress to questioning the credibility of the witnesses against you. To learn more about how to defend against drug cases in California, contact attorney Amy Chapman. She has years of experience successfully defending her clients against all types of drug crimes. To set up a free consultation to discuss your case with Amy Chapman, call (707) 636-3207 today.

California Appellate Court Rules “Concentrated Cannabis” Counts As Marijuana Under The Compassionate Use Act

Law Office of Amy Chapman

Photo courtesy of https://wendymccormick.com/

Earlier last year in December, a California appellate court reversed a lower court’s decision holding that concentrated cannabis was not considered “marijuana” under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. According to one local news source out of Sacramento, the appellate court determined that “marijuana” under the Act included all parts of the cannabis plant, including oils derived thereof.

The facts that gave rise to the case are as follows: A man’s probation was revoked after he was found to be in possession of concentrated cannabis in the form of “honey oil” and “dabs.” While the probation officer revoked the man’s probation, he did so under a very general term, concluding that the man “failed to obey all laws.” The man attempted to make a defense based on the Compassionate Use Act, but the judge prevented him from doing so, holding that concentrated cannabis was not covered under the Act.

The judge revoked the man’s sentence of probation and ordered him to start a new sentence of probation, effectively extending the amount of time he was to be supervised by two years. The man appealed, and the judge suspended his sentence until the conclusion of the appeal.

The Case on Appeal

The appellate court disagreed with the lower court and reversed its decision. The court noted that the man was legally prescribed to possess and use marijuana for migraine headaches and acid reflux. The court then narrowed the issue down to whether the concentrated cannabis the man possessed was covered under the Compassionate Use Act.

The court determined that it was, noting that the Act does not explicitly define what is to be included in the term “marijuana.” Therefore, the court had to look elsewhere for a definition under California law, and it found one defining marijuana as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.”

The appellate court then reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered that the case be heard again under its interpretation of the statute. The likely result is that the man will not be found to have been in violation of his probation sentence.

Have You Been Charged with a Marijuana Offense?

If you have recently been charged with a marijuana offense in Sonoma County, you should seek the counsel of a dedicated marijuana defense attorney to help you fight the charges. Attorney Amy Chapman has years of experience litigating, researching, and successfully defending against all different kinds of marijuana cases, ranging from mere possession to large-scale distribution. To speak with her about your case, call 707-636-3207 to set up a free initial consultation to discuss your case and what you can do to defend against the charges you are facing.

 

Driving Under The Influence Of Marijuana In California

Law Office of Amy ChapmanWhile the recreational use of marijuana is still illegal in California, it may not be all that long until that changes. It seems like every election cycle there is a bill that would make marijuana legal, and it is probably just a matter of time until one of those bills passes and becomes the law of California. However, even if marijuana is legal, driving under the influence of marijuana will still be illegal.

DUI and Marijuana

It is currently illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. In most alcohol driving under the influence (DUI) cases, the prosecution uses a fairly straightforward test to determine if the driver was legally intoxicated: if the driver’s blood- or breath-alcohol content (BAC) was .08 or greater, they were intoxicated. However, unlike alcohol, it is not always easy to determine when someone last smoked or consumed marijuana. For this reason, the marijuana DUI law use is more subjective than the alcohol DUI law.

In order to be convicted of a DUI offense in California for driving under the influence of marijuana, it must be proven that the driver did not have the “ability to drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.”

If an Officer Suspects a Driver is High

If a police officer stops a driver and believes that the driver may be under the influence of marijuana, that officer can call in a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) who will evaluate the driver and look for certain indications that the driver may be under the influence of marijuana. A few of the signs that the DRE will look for are:

  • Dialated pupils;
  • Elevated pulse rate;
  • Increased blood pressure;
  • The smell of burnt marijuana;
  • Dry mouth; and
  • Short-term memory impairment.

After evaluating the driver, the DRE will make a conclusion as to whether that driver was under the influence of marijuana. If the DRE determines that the driver was under the influence then that driver will be arrested and the DRE will likely testify at the driver’s trial to the signs of intoxication he or she noticed at the scene.

Have You Been Arrested for a Marijuana Offense in Sonoma County?

If you have recently been arrested for a marijuana-related offense in California, you need to secure the representation of an experienced Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney immediately. Depending on the facts of your case, an experienced attorney may make the difference between a slap on the wrist–such as a fine or probation–and serious jail time. At the Law Office of Amy Chapman, we take marijuana defense seriously and have been representing those charged with all kinds of criminal offenses for over 13 years. We understand all that comes along with being charged with a crime and work with you to reach a result that you can be happy with. Click here, or call (707) 636-3207 today to schedule a time to meet with an attorney and discuss the facts of your case.