Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 30, 2009
Politics Says Pete Holmes
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM
If the candidate for City Attorney is elected:
Under my tenure, I will not charge another minor marijuana possession offense—either in conjunction with other charges or standing alone. Period.
1
Naturally, that doesn't mean dealers won't find themselves in jail, and the feds could always do their own searches and arrests using their own money, right?
2
Will @ 1) Selling pot is a felony, which is handled by the county, and the city attorney only handles misdemeanor possession cases.
4
Wow! A whole new era in Seattle!
He will "no longer" charge people for pot!
A welcome relief...because people in Seattle get busted for joints by the score and they serve mandatory life sentences.
O, great Day. O, new era!
Wow! A whole new era in Seattle!
He will "no longer" charge people for pot!
A welcome relief...because people in Seattle get busted for joints by the score and they serve mandatory life sentences.
O, great Day. O, new era!
6
This is really stupid. What if the police caught a serial rapist with some pot but could only make the pot charges stick? The feds caught Al Capone on tax evasion charges. A smart prosecutor uses what he has when he needs to, and that doesn't require charging people who's only suspected crime is smoking pot. That's what lowest priority means.
7
Thanks, @3.
Um, @6, this is the United States of America. You're presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. If you don't like it, move to Russia, France, China, or Italy, where you're presumed guilty until PROVEN innocent.
Um, @6, this is the United States of America. You're presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. If you don't like it, move to Russia, France, China, or Italy, where you're presumed guilty until PROVEN innocent.
8
@6,
What will @7 said, seriously. Serial rapists are bad, but if you can't prove it, then you can't call 'em serial rapists.
What will @7 said, seriously. Serial rapists are bad, but if you can't prove it, then you can't call 'em serial rapists.
9
Totally agree with #6. The current position of not expending city resources on minor pot possession, but keeping it in their back pocket when they need to nail a charge to someone, is the correct one. It's naive to think that when the police are trying to build a case on a suspected murderer or rapist, that they will just have all the info they need easily available without entering their home, getting access to their computer, etc. Seattle police already have a general attitude that nobody in this city likes them, and taking a tool away from them to actually capture serious criminals will just open up the rift between the police and city hall.
10
Let's just make speeding a misdemeanor and promise to mostly not prosecute it as such so that the cops have something in their "back pocket" when they "know" someone is guilty.
11
@9: The City Attorney doesn't prosecute felonies. If the King County Prosecuting Attorney really wants to use marijuana possession to "nail a charge to someone," I suppose he could do that, since the county has concurrent jurisdiction to charge misdemeanors and is not subject to the city ordinance making marijuana possession the lowest law enforcement priority. That said, I don't see how using marijuana possession to "nail a [more serious] charge to someone" will ever be particularly useful. The penalties for marijuana possession are hardly sufficient to have any effect on someone suspected of a far, far more serious crime like murder and rape. This is not like charging Al Capone with tax evasion -- tax evasion may be nonviolent, but it's still a serious felony that can put someone away for a long time. Not so with marijuana possession. All marijuana possession prosecutions do is waste money and misuse taxpayer against the plainly expressed wishes of the Seattle voters.
12
@6: SF Gal, I think you might need a civics refresher. You wrote: "What if the police caught a serial rapist with some pot but could only make the pot charges stick?"
By "could only make the pot charges stick" did you mean "could convince a judge or jury that the defendant was guilty of marijuana possession but not that he or she was guilty of rape"? If so, then my answer is, "then we should treat the person as a marijuana possessor, not a rapist".
You also wrote, "The feds caught Al Capone on tax evasion charges." What do you mean caught him on? Convicted him of? That's probably because he was guilty of tax evasion. What's your point?
By "could only make the pot charges stick" did you mean "could convince a judge or jury that the defendant was guilty of marijuana possession but not that he or she was guilty of rape"? If so, then my answer is, "then we should treat the person as a marijuana possessor, not a rapist".
You also wrote, "The feds caught Al Capone on tax evasion charges." What do you mean caught him on? Convicted him of? That's probably because he was guilty of tax evasion. What's your point?
13
@9: 311_TruthMovement wrote:
"The current position of not expending city resources on minor pot possession, but keeping it in their back pocket when they need to nail a charge to someone, is the correct one."
What is this "when they need to nail a charge to someone"? I don't know what it means to nail a charge or how to determine if doing so is necessary or not.
This attitude that prosecutors should judge guilt first, then push for punishment by prosecuting anything, even if it's some minor allegation "in their back pocket" is frightening.
"It's naive to think that when the police are trying to build a case on a suspected murderer or rapist, that they will just have all the info they need easily available without entering their home, getting access to their computer, etc."
Regardless of how police build a case, if a judge or jury is not convinced that the person is guilty, then he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
Why are you so opposed to our justice system? Would you prefer to live in a place where people are considered guilty based on accusations alone? Would you prefer that we do away with the judicial branch and simply let police and prosecutors determine guilt and impose punishment?
"The current position of not expending city resources on minor pot possession, but keeping it in their back pocket when they need to nail a charge to someone, is the correct one."
What is this "when they need to nail a charge to someone"? I don't know what it means to nail a charge or how to determine if doing so is necessary or not.
This attitude that prosecutors should judge guilt first, then push for punishment by prosecuting anything, even if it's some minor allegation "in their back pocket" is frightening.
"It's naive to think that when the police are trying to build a case on a suspected murderer or rapist, that they will just have all the info they need easily available without entering their home, getting access to their computer, etc."
Regardless of how police build a case, if a judge or jury is not convinced that the person is guilty, then he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
Why are you so opposed to our justice system? Would you prefer to live in a place where people are considered guilty based on accusations alone? Would you prefer that we do away with the judicial branch and simply let police and prosecutors determine guilt and impose punishment?
14
Nothing can stop SPD from submitting a misdemeanor marijuana case to the King County Prosecuting Attorney for filing in King County District Court. The only difference is the title of the prosecutor and the fact that District Court does not have a diversion program and Municipal Court does. Thirty-five years ago, the Seattle ordinance was a tax ordinance: you can't possess marijuana unless you pay the tax. A higher court appropriately found that by paying the tax, you incriminate yourself under state law, and thus the city ordinance was held unconstitutional. So for a while, the city didn't have an ordinance and all of the cases were filed in District Court. As a result, first offenders could not be diverted and wound up with a conviction. Then the city passed an ordinance making possession of marijuana an infraction, fine only, no warrants, no jail. So people charged in District Court complained that it wasn't fair, they weren't being treated equally. Whereupon a Superior Court judge struck the city ordinance. The city ignored that ruling for a while until the War on Drugs struck. Then Sen. Heavey got the state legislature to formally pre-empt the city ordinance AND included a one day in jail mandatory minimum with an exception that the judge can waive it if s/he finds the jail is overcrowded, which is what all of the city judges did.
15
@14: Algernon wrote: "Nothing can stop SPD from submitting a misdemeanor marijuana case to the King County Prosecuting Attorney for filing in King County District Court."
As I read it, SMC 12A.20.060 stops them from doing so unless they're finished with higher-priority duties (which is to say, everything else that they do) and sitting around looking for stuff to do. Until SPD has extra resources available for dealing with the arrest and prosecution of adults for personal possession of marijuana (at which time, we probably should just revise their budget, since the City's short on funding), they're just going to have to let those cases slide. There's only so much money to go around, and if we're going to have them drop anything, surely it makes sense to drop the lowest-priority stuff.
As I read it, SMC 12A.20.060 stops them from doing so unless they're finished with higher-priority duties (which is to say, everything else that they do) and sitting around looking for stuff to do. Until SPD has extra resources available for dealing with the arrest and prosecution of adults for personal possession of marijuana (at which time, we probably should just revise their budget, since the City's short on funding), they're just going to have to let those cases slide. There's only so much money to go around, and if we're going to have them drop anything, surely it makes sense to drop the lowest-priority stuff.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (15) RSS