Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Demon weed

The man-bites-dog story this week comes courtesy of the 9th District.  One of the less defendant-friendly appellate courts in the state -- which leads to the question, Golly, Russ, which ones are defendant-friendly -- it reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress in a drug case, in State v. Johnson.

Seems that a police officer had received a call from a Motel 6 that one of its tenants had gotten rowdy.  The officer responded, and when the tenant opened the door in response to the officer's, the pungent aroma of burning mary jane wafted out of the room.  The officer also spied two marijuana blunts, and asked for permission to enter the room, which the defendant denied.  The officer upped the ante by demanding that the defendant leave the room, and the defendant responded by trying to shut the door.  A tussle ensued, which ended like any other episode of Cops.  A subsequent search of the hotel room turned up some cocaine, enough to land the defendant in prison for eleven months.

On appeal, the state defended the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the search on the grounds that the officer's entry into the hotel room was justified under the "hot pursuit" exception to the warrant requirement.  One problem:  the offense which the officer observed -- possession of a small amount of marijuana -- was a minor misdemeanor, and under Ohio law a defendant normally can't be arrested for a minor misdemeanor.  If there can't be an arrest, there can't be "hot pursuit."

Speaking of marijuana, one of the lesser-known facts about the war on drugs is that it's increasingly targeted that particular item.  As this article from a couple of years ago notes,

heroin and cocaine cases plummeted from 55 percent of all drug arrests in 1992 to less than 30 percent 10 years later. During the same period, marijuana arrests rose from 28 percent of the total to 45 percent.

That hasn't abated since then; according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, arrests for marijuana constituted 44% of the total drug arrests in 2006, the last year for which information is available.  Of those, almost 90% were for possession.

It may be that the public is getting a little tired of that.  This past fall, several communities passed referenda de-prioritizing enforcement of marijuana laws.  It's one thing when a city like Amherst, Massachusetts, does it, as it did in 2000.  It's another when communities like Missoula, Montana, and Hailey, Idaho do it.

Search

Recent Entries

  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?
  • September 5, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The barriers to expungement, jury verdict forms, and hybrid representation
  • August 31, 2017
    Constructive possession
    Constructive possession is 9/10ths of the law
  • August 29, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A traffic stop found Samson Primm in possession of a few grams of marijuana, but he hires a lawyer and files a motion to suppress the stop. On the day of trial, the City asks to dismiss the case. Primm...
  • August 28, 2017
    Truth in plea bargaining
    So I got a brochure last week from Judge Donnelly over at the Common Pleas court. As you can see, it's a panel discussion on plea bargaining. The judge asked me to get out the word, so I just sort...
  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions