LA COUNTY Sheriff says he will enforce Federal Marijuana laws even if Prop19 passes

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/baca-medical-marijuana.html

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said Friday his deputies’ marijuana enforcement would not change even if Proposition 19, which would legalize the drug in California, passes Nov. 2.

“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff's headquarters in Monterey Park.

Baca, whose department polices three-fourths of the county, was bolstered Friday by an announcement from the Obama administration that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” marijuana laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.

Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.

Flanked by other opponents of the measure, including Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, Baca made a colorful assault on marijuana use and sales. Asked if he had ever experimented with the drug, Baca was unequivocal. “Hell no,” he said.

Baca said legalizing marijuana would have far-reaching repercussions, including increasing the costs of drug rehabilitation, causing traffic accidents, prompting labor disputes with employees getting high on the job and providing a safe cover for drug cartels selling harder narcotics. California’s laws for personal users already are lenient, he said.

“If you have a need for an ounce or less … then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” he said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”

Baca said personal users smoking in their homes were already a non-priority for police agencies, including his own. His department’s target, he said, are the dealers.

Baca came out against the measure early on, joining forces with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to try to defeat it. Polls have shown California voters are split.

Baca said Friday local law enforcement agencies should abide by federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana even if the state measure passes.

“[Prop.] 19 has no effect on what we’re going to do,” he said

-- Robert Faturechi in Monterey Park

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really though, how could he do that? Isn't it against the law for local/county/state cops to enforce federal law? Isn't that what the entire Arizona Immigration bill fiasco was about? Either way, how could a county cop enforce something that isn't against the law? What would he charge people with?
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
really now. I think its pretty clear that law enforcement loves this welfare.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Will Obama sue California and this sheriff because the lowly states and counties are not to do the job of the feds like he did with Arizona?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Will Obama sue California and this sheriff because the lowly states and counties are not to do the job of the feds like he did with Arizona?
Yes, I believe Obama will instruct the Department of Justice to sue California if this Proposition passes.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
"Flanked by other opponents of the measure, including Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, Baca made a colorful assault on marijuana use and sales. Asked if he had ever experimented with the drug, Baca was unequivocal. “Hell no,” he said."

Asked if he's ever consumed alcohol, he whips out a flask of whiskey from his back pocket.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Yes, I believe Obama will instruct the Department of Justice to sue California if this Proposition passes.

Pretty much, but hopefully it will have a similar effect. It will force a hard look at the nation's drug policy at a federal level.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
really now. I think its pretty clear that law enforcement loves this welfare.


Seems to me the Sherriff was simply stating he would still go after Drug Dealers selling marijuana(and other drugs, of course) on the streets. This is clearly different from a legitimate State run store set up and run under the Prop 19 regulations.

So, what's the problem?
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
I must say though, I'm really surprised he said this

"“If you have a need for an ounce or less … then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” he said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”"

which is 100% a step in the right direction.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
I must say though, I'm really surprised he said this

"“If you have a need for an ounce or less … then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” he said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”"

which is 100% a step in the right direction.
Isn't even an ounce considered illegal by Federal law?
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,650
2,930
136
After a very short review of California Penal Code sections 830-851, the impression I get is that if 19 passes the only thing he can do is call the Feds and tattle on someone. CA Penal Code (to me) implies that a peace officer only has the authority to arrest when a public offense has been committed, which wouldn't occur in many cases with Prop 19 passed. The only time a peace officer explicitly can contact the Feds is INS/ICE.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,976
141
106
I'll vote yes on prop 19 just so all you's dopers can smoke your dopes.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I'm wondering about this as well. What specific article or amendment in the Constitution would it violate?

Do you think the Supremacy Clause and the fact that 'Pot' is illegal under Federal Law might be the answer?

This is quite different from the Gay Marriage law which says states can elect to NOT recognize it.. etc.. (not that the contrast has been drawn but as an example)

EDIT: the Arizona law challenge invoked the supremacy clause also...
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I can't see the difference between California's Medical Pot law and Prop 19 as far as US Constitutionality goes... The Fed's elected to NOT pursue the Medical bit but will the non Medical bit...
This seems very um..... inconsistent to me.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
There's nothing in the constitution that says states have to make illegal what the federal government makes illegal. I'm sure there are plenty of things illegal federally that some states haven't themselves made illegal. There are certainly numerous areas of differences in degree of legality. This sheriff is just talking out of his ass. Even if he arrests people the DA can't do anything without a law to prosecute them with.

People have to stop looking at legality/illegality as government banned/government approved. Legal simply means not illegal.
 
Last edited:

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Do you think the Supremacy Clause and the fact that 'Pot' is illegal under Federal Law might be the answer?

This is quite different from the Gay Marriage law which says states can elect to NOT recognize it.. etc.. (not that the contrast has been drawn but as an example)

EDIT: the Arizona law challenge invoked the supremacy clause also...

Two things:

1. The supremacy clause says nothing about a state deciding to abolish state level crimes that happen to be parallel to federal crimes. The only way this could become a legitimate supremacy clause issue is if California attempted to inhibit federal enforcement of federal drug laws.

2. Due to (an extrapolation of) the above point, the California situation is completely non-analogous to Arizona. Arizona arguably raises a supremacy issue because some claim that the state enforcement of state law would be overreaching, encroaching on the liberties of legal immigrants and citizens whose liberties are more protected (or at least not effectively encroached on) by federal enforcement of federal immigration law. I'm not debating the merits of the claim, just saying what it is. This is the complete opposite situation to California where the state laws are becoming more lax than federal laws.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Well fuck this Sheriff. My cousin is a sheriff and he really doesn't give a fuck, I know other cops who really don't give a fuck. If we the people of this state pass it and people want to stomp on our feet, I say bring it. Nothing good will come out of this if they choose to get all radical.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Two things:

1. The supremacy clause says nothing about a state deciding to abolish state level crimes that happen to be parallel to federal crimes. The only way this could become a legitimate supremacy clause issue is if California attempted to inhibit federal enforcement of federal drug laws.

2. Due to (an extrapolation of) the above point, the California situation is completely non-analogous to Arizona. Arizona arguably raises a supremacy issue because some claim that the state enforcement of state law would be overreaching, encroaching on the liberties of legal immigrants and citizens whose liberties are more protected (or at least not effectively encroached on) by federal enforcement of federal immigration law. I'm not debating the merits of the claim, just saying what it is. This is the complete opposite situation to California where the state laws are becoming more lax than federal laws.

Regarding your proffer on both items... I'd submit that the wording of the Supremacy Clause seems, at least to me, to indicate that the Federal Laws enacted pursuant to the Constitutional Authority to do so are the Supreme Law of the land and there exist (I'll not submit the cases here) opinions by the USSC sustaining the Federal Law when State Law conflicts... That is the case here, I opine..

Edit: I also think that without a law to enforce the State Law enforcement folks are bound by the absence of the State Law UNLESS they become 'deputized' by the Federal Authorities to enforce Federal Law...
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,391
5,004
136
Federal law supercedes state law and has been upheld by the courts:

"The ruling upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in which federal laws take precedence over state laws when regulating the same activity. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is one major avenue for the national government to exercise its authority over states. From the 1930s New Deal era through the 1970s the federal government significantly grew by increasingly regulating many facets of life. By the 1980s states' rights proponents began to reverse the trend. Debates over federal controls continued into the late 1990s focused on proposed national health care reforms.
At the center of issues intensively debated by the founders of the United States was federalism, the distribution of power between the federal and state governments. Dispute over the degree of centralization of political power in the United States highlighted by debates between Alexander Hamilton and JamesMadison led to formation of the first political parties in the nation. As a result, the Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government's power over states. The article states the "acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. The states have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of" federal law."
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Regarding your proffer on both items... I'd submit that the wording of the Supremacy Clause seems, at least to me, to indicate that the Federal Laws enacted pursuant to the Constitutional Authority to do so are the Supreme Law of the land and there exist (I'll not submit the cases here) opinions by the USSC sustaining the Federal Law when State Law conflicts... That is the case here, I opine.
But the state of California failing to impose sanctions on marijuana in no way conflicts with federal law which does impose such sanctions. As I was saying there is a legitimate contention that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law. (Again not commenting on the verdict, merely that it can legitimately be argued and thus deserves to be heard.) There is no way that a state's choice to provide liberty from state prosecution for a particular act could possibly be construed as conflicting with a federal law against that same act.

And please mention the cases if you don't mind. That's the meat of a good legal discussion!

edit: There is a good case to be made that by allowing regulation and taxation Prop 19 conflicts with federal policy, but there is a simple defense against this - one I'm not sure California will employ if it comes to it, but I hope they would. Simply this: allow jurisdictions to follow prop 19 to the letter, but not impede the feds from accessing whatever data they want to (at their own expense) to make whatever federal arrests they can. Essentially allow the feds to use the tax records to wage total war on California. If prop 19 passes, this is in fact the sequence of events I hope unfolds, as it would be the quickest path to sanity - eventually.
 
Last edited:

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,450
2,627
136
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/baca-medical-marijuana.html

“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff's headquarters in Monterey Park.

-- Robert Faturechi in Monterey Park

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really though, how could he do that? Isn't it against the law for local/county/state cops to enforce federal law? Isn't that what the entire Arizona Immigration bill fiasco was about? Either way, how could a county cop enforce something that isn't against the law? What would he charge people with?

Basically it can be summed up, If you pass Prop 19 I am going to through a fit until I get my way.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
But the state of California failing to impose sanctions on marijuana in no way conflicts with federal law which does impose such sanctions. As I was saying there is a legitimate contention that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law. (Again not commenting on the verdict, merely that it can legitimately be argued and thus deserves to be heard.) There is no way that a state's choice to provide liberty from state prosecution for a particular act could possibly be construed as conflicting with a federal law against that same act.

And please mention the cases if you don't mind. That's the meat of a good legal discussion!

I see the Federal Law as controlling law regarding 'Pot'. The fact that Ca does not have a law on the books (or won't if Prop 19 passes) does not remove Federal Law from the picture.

Take an extreme example... Bank Robbery... Seems that is a Federal crime and a State one... IF Ca eliminated that law would it still be a crime in Ca to rob a bank?

EDIT: EDgar v Mite, (1982), the USSC opined that, "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." I think this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions occur...
a) Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, and/or b) state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress...

The above comes to mind but to the extent that is not on point I'll have to look up the controlling case... which I've not... yet... gotta eat now.
 
Last edited: