“It’s not a legally enforceable kind of thing, it’s politically enforceable,” he said, pointing out that one facet of the law that remains intact is a requirement to report the activities of police officers apropos marijuana law enforcement. “Just because a court rules something unenforceable, it doesn’t require the legislature to take it off the books.”ĭale Gieringer, coordinator of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) guesses it’s a political piece. “There are sometimes old laws on the books that have been banged around by the courts and just sit there,” he said. So if the ordinance doesn’t carry any weight, why keep it around?įor one thing, Orebic said, there aren’t any procedures in place for getting rid of it. But 5,000 plants and 120 pounds of pot grown are still game for seizure, as is an eighth from a non-medical street dealer on Telegraph Avenue. Following passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, which allows for the use and cultivation of medicinal marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation, Berkeley established guidelines allowing patients to use, possess and cultivate a small amount of marijuana for “personal medical purposes.”Īs a result, the city interprets Wilson’s ruling as applying only to unlawful marijuana. That’s not to say the ordinance is unbending, though. Deputy City Attorney Matt Orebic said he has not heard of any other legal challenges to the 1973 verdict. A municipal court judge roundly rejected the motion, upholding the precedent that state marijuana and arrest laws preempt local law. In 1980, a defendant arrested for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana filed for a case dismissal, citing BMI II. The city has interpreted the decision as a permanent entity.
LOWEST LIMBO RULES CODE
In his ruling, Judge Lionel Wilson struck down the ordinance for modifying laws governing a police officer’s right to make arrests, preempting state marijuana laws and violating city code that gives the City Manager discretion over police personnel-not the City Council. Berkeley City Council, an Alameda County Superior Court dealt initiative activists the death knell: The city must allow Berkeley police to enforce marijuana laws. The California Attorney General promptly challenged the law. Voters passed the first initiative in April of 1973, forbidding police from making arrests for pot crimes unless cleared by the City Council. That’s because before BMI II, there was BMI I. Putnam is the parent of one of the suspects arrested March 15, and he may have spoken too soon. “The recent pot bust in Berkeley was not merely a massive waste of police resources-it violated city law,” said Attorney Martin Putnam in a letter to the editor. The ordinance further stipulates that all marijuana law enforcement activities must be reported to the City Council and the Police Review Commission on a semi-annual basis.Ī reader raised the legal conundrum in the March 24 issue of the Berkeley Daily Planet. The law is on the books today.īMI II calls on the Berkeley City Council to ensure that officers do not issue citations, make arrests or expend public funds on pot crimes. In 1979, Berkeley voters passed the Berkeley Marijuana Initiative II (BMI II), an ordinance that makes the possession, cultivation, sale and transportation of marijuana the police department’s lowest priority. 12.24 of the Berkeley Municipal Code would yield a resounding no. It was the largest pot bust in the department’s recent history.Ī skim through Sec. Seven people were apprehended in connection with the operation. On March 15, Berkeley police seized 120 pounds of dried marijuana, more than 5,000 plants, $120,000 cash and several weapons from a growing outfit headquartered at 809 Allston Way in West Berkeley.
0 kommentar(er)
