1 MARIJUANA LAW ISSUES IN. CRIMINAL DEFENSE . 1. Trump/Sessions View MARIJUANA as a Dangerous Drug The Enforcement Arm of Administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions describes it as a dangerous drug. MARIJUANA use is not a "funny thing" to him. Sessions: I reject the idea that we're going to be better placed if we have more MARIJUANA , Sessions said in a speech to law-enforcement officials in March. It's not a healthy substance, particularly for young people.. Washington and Colorado had agreements with Obama Administration, but under Trump federal enforcement is really unknown and may be very punitive. But, with all the other ISSUES for administration, it is hard to imagine that MARIJUANA enforcement is a big objective.
2 30 State currently allow medicinal use of MARIJUANA , but MARIJUANA is classified a Schedule 1 Drug still and advocacy efforts should continue to be made to reclassify. 2. Checks and Balances on Trump/Sessions Action Clients must be compliance with state law, to increase odds of avoiding federal prosecution. Case prosecutions in federal court happened over the last few years where clients were not in compliance with the state's recreational use or medicinal use laws. United States vs. McIntosh (833 1163) decision in 2016 limits federal enforcement of MARIJUANA laws where conduct in compliance with state law. Compare this to United States v. Daleman (Washington Slip Opinion 2017 WL1256743) where court found no DEFENSE because client not in compliance with state law.
3 Both case attached. Recent 2017 budget bill has same Congressional limits on federal prosecution, but Trump stated he will still enforce federal CRIMINAL law despite Congressional restriction. In the signing statement, Trump singled out a provision in the spending bill that says funds cannot be used to block states from implementing medical MARIJUANA laws. Trump argued in the statement that his constitutional prerogatives supersede the restrictions Congress placed on him as a condition for funding government operations. Besides the state MARIJUANA laws, there is also a concern about investing proceeds from MARIJUANA -related business. If the proceeds come from a lawful state-law business, the same DEFENSE could apply to a money laundering prosecution as the funds being used by the feds to enforce are in violation of Congressional appropriations bills and McIntosh holding.
4 3. Recommendations Be very aware of state laws and be in strict compliance. Federal Prosecution is possible, but not very likely to be successful if client in compliance with state law. Even though federal agenda probably has other priorities, the Supreme Court is now more conservative and probably not MARIJUANA friendly 4. rules Committee Print 115. Congress passed May 3, 2017, in finally approving the FY2017 budget, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, a renewal prohibiting DOJ from using appropriated money to prosecute medical MARIJUANA "use, distribution, possession, or cultivation" so long as each of those was accomplished pursuant to that state's laws. Notice the list now has 44 states plus D. C.
5 , Guam & Puerto Rico. SEC. 537. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical MARIJUANA .
6 5. United States v. McIntosh, 833 1163 (2016). 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8916, 2016 Daily Journal 8484. United States of America, Real Party in Interest. 833 1163 In re Khamphou Khouthong, United States Court of Appeals, Khamphou Khouthong, Petitioner, Ninth Circuit. v. United States District Court for the Eastern United States of America, Plaintiff Appellee District of California, Fresno, Respondent, v. United States of America, Real Party in Interest. Steve McIntosh, Defendant Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff Appellee, No. 15 10117, No. 15 10122, No. 15 10127, No. v. 15 10132, No. 15 10137, No. 15 30098, No. 15 . Iane Lovan, Defendant Appellant. 71158, No. 15 71174, No. 15 71179, No. 15 71225.
7 United States of America, Plaintiff Appellee, |. Argued and Submitted December v. 7, 2015, San Francisco, California Somphane Malathong, Defendant Appellant. |. United States of America, Plaintiff Appellee, Filed August 16, 2016. v. Vong Southy, Defendant Appellant. Synopsis United States of America, Plaintiff Appellee, Background: In separate CRIMINAL prosecutions, v. defendants who were charged with federal MARIJUANA Khamphou Khouthong, Defendant Appellant. offenses moved to dismiss their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the grounds that the Department United States of America, Plaintiff Appellee, of Justice (DOJ) was barred from spending funds to v. prosecute them. The United States District Court for Jerad John Kynaston, AKA Jared J.
8 Kynaston, the Eastern District of California, Lawrence J. O'Neill, AKA Jerad J. Kynaston; Samuel Michael Doyle, J., denied relief, as did the United States District Court AKA Samuel M. Doyle; Brice Christian Davis, for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. AKA Brice C. Davis; Jayde Dillon Evans, AKA Chesney, J., and the United States District Court for the Jayde D. Evans; Tyler Scott McKinley, AKA Eastern District of Washington, Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Tyler S. McKinley, Defendants Appellants. J., and defendants appealed and petitioned for writs of In re Iane Lovan, mandamus. Iane Lovan, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Eastern Holdings: The Court of Appeals, O'Scannlain, Circuit District of California, Fresno, Respondent, Judge, held that: United States of America, Real Party in Interest.
9 In re Somphane Malathong,  defendants had Article III standing to invoke Somphane Malathong, Petitioner, separation of powers principles to seek to enjoin the DOJ. from spending federal funds to prosecute them for federal v. MARIJUANA offenses, on ground that any such use of federal United States District Court for the Eastern funds violated a Congressional appropriations rider;. District of California, Fresno, Respondent, United States of America, Real Party in Interest.  while the DOJ, in spending federal funds to prosecute In re Vong Southy, individuals for engaging in conduct allegedly permitted by Vong Southy, Petitioner, states' medical MARIJUANA laws, was not taking legal action v. against states themselves, it was nonetheless spending United States District Court for the Eastern federal funds to prevent these states from giving practical District of California, Fresno, Respondent, effect to their medical MARIJUANA laws, in violation of rider attached to appropriations acts.
10 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original Government Works. 61. United States v. McIntosh, 833 1163 (2016). 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8916, 2016 Daily Journal 8484.  the DOJ did not spend federal funds to prevent Cases that cite this headnote implementation of state medical MARIJUANA laws, in violation of rider attached to appropriations act, if it  CRIMINAL Law prosecuted individuals for engaging in any conduct not Preliminary or interlocutory orders in authorized under state medical MARIJUANA laws; general Carson requirements for pursuit of  if the DOJ wished to continue with prosecutions, interlocutory appeal from district court order then defendants were entitled to evidentiary hearings that did not, on its face, deny an injunction, to determine whether their conduct was completely that order must have effect of denying an authorized by state medical MARIJUANA laws; and injunction, have serious, perhaps irreparable, consequences, and be effectually challenged  defendants were not entitled to writs of mandamus.