Criminal
Feb. 2, 2013
Time for a change: irrational interpretations of drug laws
In a closely-divided decision, the Supreme Court held that a conviction for transporting marijuana did not require proof the defendant intended to sell or distribute the drug. The prosecutor only had to prove the individual (1) knowingly possessed the drug, directly or indirectly, and (2) moved.
Scott A. Sugarman
Partner, Sugarman & Cannon
Phone: (415) 362-6252
Email: Scott@sugarmanandcannon.com
Scott is a past president of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
Forty-five years is long enough.
On Feb. 8, 1968, police officers stopped Dave Rogers as he drove down the road with three friends. The officers soon found a very small quantity of marijuana in a match box. Rogers did not personally possess any marijuana or drug paraphernalia. The prosecutor charged Rogers with transportation of marijuana based on the testimony of two of the occupants that Rogers saw one of the other occupants smoke a joint while Rogers was driving. The charge of tr...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In