California Criminal Defense Blog

Tension between the federal government and state or local governments is as old as the American republic itself. The tension is heightened when there is a local perception that federal agents are overreaching their authority.

California marijuana charges are a case in point. Two years ago, California seriously considered legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Though that measure was defeated, interest remains in legalization remains strong.

California law already allows marijuana to be used for medical purposes.

Federal law enforcement officials, however, continue to crack down on the California marijuana community. Last week, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, a Bay Area school whose founder, Richard Lee, was a key supporter of the 2010 ballot measure seeking to legalize marijuana.

That measure received nearly half of the vote: 46 percent.

The agents blocked off the doors to the school in downtown Oakland and proceeded to remove numerous trash bags. A spokeswoman for the Internal Revenue Service declined to specify the contents of the bas. She said only that the agents were executing a search warrant.

When it comes to medical marijuana, there is very large disconnect between what state laws says is legal and what local communities actually allow.

This gap is particularly acute in California. It is frequently an issue in Bay Area drug possession defense cases.

California has the most liberal laws on medical marijuana in the nation. But, according to a recent article in the Washington Post, 185 California cities and counties have banned marijuana dispensaries completely.

This phenomenon is also present in other states across the country where medical marijuana is legal. These include New Jersey, Main, Colorado, Oregon, and others.

Local government officials claim they are concerned about federal law, which they say still contains restrictions on marijuana. But there is also a prejudice against pot that is not necessarily grounded in reality.

For example, local officials may argue that medical marijuana dispensaries could attract crime and become fronts for drug-dealing, or distribute weed to people who have not qualified on the basis of medical need.

Checkpoints to crack down on drunk driving may sound good in theory. But in practice, in California, there is a common perception that checkpoints have often unduly targeted people in low-income areas and been used disproportionately against undocumented immigrants.

In particular, police have often been quick to impound vehicles of unlicensed drivers, even if the drivers are sober. Statistics from the state Office of Traffic Safety show that, at many checkpoints, the number of vehicles impounded has far exceeded the number of drunk driving arrests.

It wasn't only lawyers focusing on Bay Area DUI defense who were concerned about this. So were immigrant rights groups and many people in the general public. The practice of impoundment had become a cash cow for many local governments and tow companies benefitting from the fines and fees associated with it.

In October, Gov. Brown signed a bill passed by the legislature that is supposed to cut down on the number of cars that are impounded. The bill, AB 353, makes it against the law for police to seize vehicles at DWI checkpoints simply because the driver lacks a license.

Only a decade ago, it was far less common than it is today for California juveniles to be tried as adults in the adult criminal justice system. But that was before California voters approved Proposition 21, which made it easier for juveniles to be tried in adult court.

Under Prop 21, California prosecutors can choose to try juveniles charged with a felony in the adult system, without any prior review by a judge. Before Prop 21 was passed, a judge had to sign off on this first, before this could happen.

How has this increased discretion for prosecutors worked out in practice? And what are the implications for California juvenile offenders? The Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice addressed this issue in a recent report.

The report documented stark differences in the way California counties use the adult trial option. In San Francisco, the percentage of juveniles tried as adults is only 0.15 percent. In Ventura County, by contrast, the rate is 12.2 percent of juvenile offenders.

The statewide average for percentage of juveniles tried as adults for felonies is 2.5 percent. Santa Cruz County is slightly above that figure, at 3.1 percent, despite a strong reputation for innovation in juvenile justice programs.