Category Archives: Constitutional Rights

How to Avoid a Marijuana Arrest in a Car in Minnesota: Top Nine Tips

The other day I was talking to a prosecutor.  I let him know that my objective was to keep my client’s public record clean of words like “marijuana,” “drug paraphernalia,” and “criminal conviction.”  He responded mischievously with “You know how he could avoid all that don’t you?  Don’t get caught.”  He was joking, but like many jokes there was some truth in it.

As of this writing, eight states in the U.S.A. have legalized marijuana for responsible use by adults 21 years and older; and, the majority of the U.S. population now lives in a state with legal medical marijuana.  We should all know by now that marijuana is safer than alcohol.  There is no lethal overdose possible with marijuana, unlike alcohol, aspirin, and many prescription drugs.   But in Minnesota in 2017 despite a majority in the polls favoring legalization, criminal Prohibition lingers on, destroying innocent lives.

What can you do to reduce the chance of getting caught? Here are nine tips:

  1.   Situational awareness.  Guess where the vast majority of police contacts with people happen?  Correct – in or near a motor vehicle.  As a result, the most effective way to avoid a marijuana criminal charge is to avoid having marijuana in your vehicle.  Complacency can set in.  If it hasn’t happened yet, it never will.  Right?  The smart attitude is that if a scenario is unlikely, with repetition (miles traveled in the car), it will inevitably happen.  There will be a traffic stop.  When it does happen; marijuana should not be in the car.  If the prudent marijuana smoker does carry marijuana in the car only when absolutely necessary, he or she keeps it under the “small amount” 42.5 grams if plant form (not concentrates), but always in the trunk of the car (to avoid a “marijuana in a motor vehicle” charge).
  2.   Odor.  The most common excuse used by police officers as probable cause to search a car after a traffic stop is “odor of marijuana” – either fresh or burned.  This is prone to abuse by police officers since it’s impossible to verify.  Even so, to prevent getting caught with marijuana in your car avoid having the odor of marijuana either on your person or in your car.  And, if you do have the odor of marijuana on your person or in your car, be sure not to have any actual marijuana in your car.  Have you or anyone you know experienced “nose blindness?”  A person who has smoked a cigarette may not be able to smell the odor of past cigarette use on another person.  The same for a person who has been drinking an alcoholic beverage – can’t smell the odor of alcohol on another person.  But non-users can smell it.  It’s best to assume that if you’ve been smoking it that day, there may be odor.  If it’s been smoked in the car, the odor is probably lingering in the car for a day or more.  (Tip: don’t ever smoke in the car.)

    “I’m late, for a very important date.”

  3.   Consent?  “No, officer, I do not consent to a search.” Like Paul Simon’s song “50 ways to leave your lover,” there are at least fifty ways to tell a police officer that you do not consent to any searches.  Make an excuse if you like: “I’m late, for a very important date.”  But no excuse is necessary.  You should not offer any justification for refusing a search.  Be confident and politely insistent. It’s your legal right to be secure from searches and seizures by police unless they have a search warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.  One of those exceptions is a consent search.  Police often ask people “do you mind if I search”?  The correct answer is, “I do not want to be searched.”   If you do consent to a search, you’ve waived your right to object later to the otherwise unlawful nature of the search.  Also, if police know they have no legal basis to search without “consent,” then they may leave without searching.
  4.   You can do both: don’t lie and don’t admit. How?    Remain silent.  Or if words come out of your mouth make sure that they are not lies, and do not relate to illegality.  More than half the people stopped by police in traffic, when questioned about “marijuana in the car?” after the police officer claims “odor” will either lie or admit having marijuana in the car, often then telling the police where it is.  Wrong!  Instead, remain silent – meaning words are not produced by you.  Tightening your lips may help your resolve.  If you do say something, change the subject and avoid talking about whether there is marijuana in the car or not.  And again, do not consent to a search.  Police will try to make you think: “Busted.  The jig is up. May as well come clean now.  Give up.  You cannot win at this point.”  But don’t believe it for a minute!  You need to be prepared.  Knowing the law can help keep your confidence level up, and help you avoid or minimize legal trouble.
  5.   Unlawfully prolonged detention: “Am I free to leave?”  Here is the scenario.  You’re stopped by police for a headlight out, or speeding.  Normally it takes five or ten minutes for a police officer to complete the process, hand you the ticket, encourage you to pay it without taking it to court, and walk away.  You understand that to mean that the government intrusion upon your liberty is now over and you are “free to leave.”  Now, let’s change the scenario.  You’ve been stopped for something normally resolved with a traffic ticket within five minutes, but this time the officer is prolonging the detention.Is that legal?  Suffice it to say that the courts will apply a balancing test under the “totality of the circumstances” to determine whether they think the greater intrusion upon your Liberty interest was balanced by a greater level of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  But one of the factors courts will consider is: “to what extent did the person acquiesce to the detention vs. assert and communicate a desire to end it and leave?”  A common game played by police in court is to claim that “at that point, the person was free to leave and the prolonged time was consensual.”  If believed, then the prolonged detention might need less justification, fewer facts supporting a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.Since “Fleeing a police officer” is a crime in Minnesota – whether in a motor vehicle or on foot – whether a person is begin “detained” by police or not, ought to be a simple black and white question.  Either you are “free to leave” or not.  The best way to make a record of that is to ask: “Officer am I free to go now?”  And don’t just do it once.  Do it more than once.  Say it loud and clear, for the camera and microphones.  This will help your lawyer challenge the legality of the search and arrest later, should it come to that.  At times it can be a good idea to just start slowly walking away, to force the police officer to tell you to stop.  (Yes, you can walk away from a car stop even if you’re not the passenger.)
  6.   “You have the right to remain silent.” When you hear that, that is your cue to – what?    It’s your cue to stop forming words and allowing them to escape your mouth!  If you want to say anything, you can say:  “Officer, I realize you are doing your job but I am not a lawyer or a police officer.  I need to assert my legal right to remain silent, and to consult legal counsel before answering questions or talking about this situation at all.”  Repeat as necessary.  No matter what they do or say, they cannot require you to speak.  So don’t.  If police direct you to show your hands, lie down, hands behind your back, stand over there, and the like, follow their commands.  But do not speak.
  7.   Field Exercises. Sometimes police may want to build a case for impaired driving.  When they do, they will ask you to perform what they optimistically term “Field Sobriety Tests.”  These are not scientifically valid and are designed to incriminate.  Even completely sober people have a difficult time “passing” them.  What to do?  Don’t!  Police cannot legally require anyone to do these field exercises, such as the “Nine-step walk and turn,” “Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus” eye test.  You can and should refuse to do any of these.  When you do, the police officer may invite an excuse.  But don’t take that bait.  Any excuse could be incriminating, even if falsely.  Instead you can say: “Officer, I am aware of my legal rights and I respectfully choose not to do any field exercises or tests.”  You may get asked repeatedly.  If so, just keep repeating that you choose not to do them – no excuses.  (Who cares if you have one leg! That’s beside the point.)  It’s your legal right.  (Note that if the police officer has factual reason to suspect impaired driving and requests that you blow into a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) machine and you refuse to blow, you can be arrested in Minnesota for that refusal.)
  8.   Smile, you’re being recorded. From the beginning of a traffic stop, to sitting in a squad car, to the police station or jail, it’s best to assume that you and all you say are being recorded.  This recording may later hurt you, or help you.  Even when alone or with another person in the back of a police car, this is normally recorded – even when no police officer is in the car.  Phone calls from jail are almost always recorded for potential later use as evidence.  Be aware of this.  Avoid talking about the case in any of these contexts.
  9.   Keep your cool if arrested. Hitting the panic button will only make it worse.  Police may try to exploit your trauma and emotional upset.  Remain calm.  The long game can be won, by playing defense in the short game.  You or someone on the outside can help you contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer and if need be a bail bond agent.  Most people will be able to get out with a few days or less.

Thomas C. Gallagher is a Minneapolis marijuana lawyer frequently representing people charged with possession of marijuana and related “crimes” in Minnesota.

Comments and responses below.

Thomas C. Gallagher Elected Chair of Minnesota NORML Board of Directors – Marijuana Legalization in Minnesota

On September 16, 2017 the Board of Directors of Minnesota NORML elected Thomas C. Gallagher to the position of Chair of the Board.  Gallagher is a Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer who twice campaigned for election as a Representative in the Minnesota House in District 61B (incumbent Paul Thissen) in 2014 and 2016.  He was the endorsed candidate of Republican Party of Minnesota in both election cycles.

“Minnesota NORML is a non-partisan Minnesota Nonprofit with 501(c)(4) status,” Gallagher noted.  “Our goal is legal marijuana in Minnesota for responsible adult use.  Minnesotans should have equal rights to cannabis as to beer and wine.  This means age 21 and older, taxed and regulated the same as beer and wine, and legal small batch home production.”

Thomas C. Gallagher, Chair, Minnesota NORML

“Home grow” Gallagher said, “is essential.  Ending marijuana prohibition is only incidentally about marijuana; it is really about personal freedom.  We want to empower the People, support Liberty for all.  With legal home grow, anyone can grow their own cannabis for medicinal or personal use with little money.  Freedom should not be limited to people with money.”

“Now that all major polling shows majority support for legalization of marijuana (and a super-majority for medical marijuana), why – in a democracy – is the will of the People not yet enacted into law?” Gallagher asks.

If our elected officials lack the political courage to enact the will of the People, then we say “Let the People Decide!”  Bills in the Minnesota legislature would place a constitutional amendment on the general election ballot to, finally, legalize marijuana for responsible adult use like beer and wine.  Even politicians unwilling to support legalization should be able to support democracy, the vote and “allowing” the People to decide.  We support these Bills.

“It’s not inevitable.  There are vested interests who now profit from the current Prohibition regime fighting hard to reverse the progress we’ve made, and to stop the return of Freedom to the People of Minnesota,” Gallagher warned.  “’How soon will it be legal?’ people ask me.  ‘How soon will you join us working hard to make it happen?’ is my smiling reply” says Gallagher.

Minnesota NORML holds monthly Members Meetings and other events and activities to help people connect and get involved.  For further information:
http://mnnorml.org
https://www.facebook.com/mnNORML

#LetThePeopleDecide

The Romeo and Juliet Syndrome: Minnesota Sex Crimes Based On Age

In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Lady Capulet says her daughter Juliet is “not yet fourteen,” being about two weeks from her fourteenth birthday.  Though we never are told her lover Romeo’s age, it’s apparent that he is also a teen, older, but still of tender chin (without beard).  Each from families bearing grudges towards each other, the star-crossed lovers’ fate is tragic.  But were they criminals?  Not then, as Juliet’s mother makes clear.

Would they be criminally prosecuted for age-based sex crimes in Minnesota today?  Young people like them can be and often are prosecuted in juvenile and adult criminal courts in Minnesota.  Should they be?  Should we instead change the laws in Minnesota to decriminalize young love?  Should foolish love be a crime?

 “Oh, what a tangled web we weave; When first we practise to deceive!” (from Marmion; A Tale of Flodden Field, by Sir Walter Scott.)

Age-based sex crimes are crimes based upon some aspect of sex, plus a too-young age.  Common law rape required an element of force, coercion or lack of consent.  The more modern invention, often-called “statutory rape” since it does not require an element of force or lack of consent, involves quite consensual acts.  But it rests upon the legislative fiat that a person younger than 16, for example, is so feeble-minded as to be incompetent to consent to sexual acts.  (See, Minnesota Statutes §609.342, subdivision 1 (a) “Neither mistake as to the complainant’s age nor consent to the act by the complainant [sic] is a defense.” The “complainant” is usually opposed to the prosecution.)  This premise appears deceptive – the more so considered next to the fact that in Minnesota the minimum age for competence to be criminally prosecuted in a delinquency petition is ten years old. See, Matter of Welfare of S.A.C., 529 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. App. 1995).

Why would the same body of law, the same jurisdiction, consider a ten year old competent to form intent in her mind to do a criminal act, but consider a thirteen year old incompetent to intend to have sex?  A tangled web, indeed.

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?

“O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?”

Do we really want to permanently label our Romeos and Juliets sex criminals, for the crime of being young lovers?  Do we want them to have to Register as a Predatory Offender for a minimum of ten years up to life?  Though many of Minnesota’s Criminal Sexual Conduct statutes contain exceptions for lovers within a range of 24 to 48 months depending upon the crime, for those outside these exceptions “mistake of age,” they say, is not a defense.

 “The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it.”   — George Orwell (1984)

These days, one could categorize the growing list of sex crimes based upon proximity: penetration, touch, and non-touch.  When sexual penetration is criminal, it is a more serious crime than touch, which in turn is generally thought to be more serious than non-touch.  Examples of non-touch sex crimes include child pornography or indecent exposure.

Before our modern day Romeo and Juliet became lovers, their flirting included sexting.

Young lovers have been around long before Minnesota criminalized them.  But some non-touch sex crimes are an artifact of recent technology, like smart phones.  Most kids have them these days, and take pictures with them, sometimes naked and arguably sexual images of themselves.  Then they share them with each other over cell phone towers and Wi-Fi connections to the internet.  The images may be stored on their phones or in the data cloud.  Sexting is a new word meant to describe sex texting – sending images via text messaging applications.

Minnesota laws have not kept pace with the times.  Should every foolish act be made a crime?  Our laws criminalizing child pornography are now being used to prosecute young people for taking naked and arguably sexual images of themselves, then sharing them with each other.  A criminal Complaint or Petition for Adjudication of Delinquency accuses them of Possession of Child Pornography, Dissemination of Child Pornography, or both, under Minnesota Statutes §617.247.  Such prosecutions appear to violate the young person’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Minnesota Constitution.  Better, let’s change the laws to make them less unfair.

 Can a juvenile be a “predatory offender” due to sexting or being a young lover?

Labeling juveniles “predatory offenders,” requiring them to register their whereabouts, vehicles, schools, addresses, and on and on; and sending them to lock-up in prison of they slip up any little part of doing so – is that what we really want to do after a juvenile has had consensual sex with his or her beloved, or after sexting?

Rehabilitation vs. Predatory Offender Registration for ten years to life.

Juvenile courts were a result of social reform movements of the late 19th Century.  Rather than criminally prosecute juveniles like adults, a separate juvenile court has been set up with a greater focus on rehabilitation for those adjudicated responsible for some “criminal” act.  An important aspect of juvenile courts is that they have traditionally been non-public – confidential – to protect the juvenile from severe collateral consequences, and allow the kid to leave youthful mistakes in the past.  In recent years, that has been eroded to a degree.  In Minnesota, if a juvenile is charged with a felony and is 16 years or older, the case is public. (Almost all “sex crimes” are felonies in Minnesota.)

Current Minnesota statutes contain no juvenile exception for “predatory offender registration.”   See, Minnesota Statutes § 243.166.  This conflicts with the main, rehabilitative purpose of juvenile court and its protection of juveniles from life-long public exposure.  The only ways to prevent a juvenile charged with a sex crime from being required to register with the state as a sex criminal for ten years to life; is to get the entire case dismissed, an acquittal, or a stay of adjudication.  An adjudication triggers registration, under current law.  Criminal lawyers and courts can wrestle with these things, to try to save some young people from the jaws of the law.  But wouldn’t it be better to change the laws to make them less unfair and less harmful?

Thomas C. Gallagher is a Minneapolis criminal lawyer who handles sex crime defense cases and juvenile delinquency cases in Minnesota, including those involving claims of criminal sexual conduct based on age, and sexting child porn cases.

Jesus as Criminal Defense Lawyer: The Woman Accused of Adultery

What can we learn about criminal law from the story of the Jesus and The Adulterous Woman in John Chapter 8 of the New Testament?  We can learn about what criminal defense lawyers do.  We can learn about the laws of evidence.  We can learn about a jury’s right and power to sentence.  We can learn about connecting persuasively with people.  First, the story from John Chapter 8:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.  At dawn He went to the temple complex again, and all the people were coming to Him. He sat down and began to teach them.

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. “Teacher,” they said to Him, “this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?” They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him.

Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.”

John 8:1-11 HCSB

Christ and the woman caught in adultery, Pieter Brueghel the Younger's oil on panel version of c. 1600

Christ and the woman caught in adultery, Pieter Brueghel the Younger’s oil on panel version of c. 1600

What do criminal defense lawyers do?

In this story, Jesus shows us what criminal defense lawyers do.  We defend the human being accused of a crime, facing a punishment if convicted of a crime under the laws.  In this case the crime was adultery and the punishment for a person convicted under the laws could be death – death by a group of people throwing stones at you until eventually dead, a death by torture.  No doubt the law and the proscribed punishment were designed to deter the criminal behavior.

The accused person could testify on her own behalf, though throughout our legal history at times the accused has not been allowed to testify due to presumed lack of credibility.  But even with the right to testify on her own behalf, having an advocate speak for the accused gives her a better chance of being heard, fairly.  Here, Jesus speaks for her, and advocates for her life.  This is the most important thing a criminal defense lawyer does.  It is our sacred duty, our sacred honor.

The outcome sought by the advocate for the accused is the one desired by the accused.  Anything else would make us not an advocate, unethical or a failed advocate.

The means of achieving that outcome is our knowledge of the law (including the law of evidence and the law of jury power), and our ability to connect with people persuasively.

The laws of evidence. 

The laws of evidence in the early twenty-first century United States can be traced back to the time and place of Jesus, and earlier.  Jesus knew the laws well.

The laws of Moses required that before someone could be sentenced to death there must be two or more witnesses to the crime – a rule against hearsay, a right of confrontation, and a corroboration rule. Deuteronomy 19:15.  One accusing witness was not enough to trigger the death penalty.  Deuteronomy 17:6. Jesus and the crowd were told (“they said to him”) that the woman was reportedly “caught in the act.” Yet there is no witness or witnesses identified nor is there any witness testimony. This would make a death penalty illegal under the law.

Had there been two or more witnesses present to accuse and claim to be witness to the woman’s adultery, the law proscribed the death penalty for both the woman and the man. Deuteronomy 22:22 (“If a man is discovered having sexual relations with another man’s wife, both the man who had sex with the woman and the woman must die”).  Where is the man? How do we know the man is not any one of the men in the de facto jury?  The prosecutors do not have the man who they claim committed adultery with the woman.

After the accusers all have left, Jesus asks a legal question: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  With no accusers remaining, our attention is drawn to the requirement of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be established and a sentence imposed. Jesus’ statement: “Neither do I condemn you” can be interpreted to mean that Jesus was no eyewitness to any claimed behavior of the woman, especially in the context of what came before, concerning the lack of the legal requirement of eyewitnesses.

One interpretation of the story can be that Jesus gained her acquittal by skillful use of the laws accepted by the jury.

A jury’s right and power to sentence

We should note here that it is not at all clear that the woman was put on trial in the formal, proper manner proscribed by the laws of the time and place.  The contrary appears more likely (not unlike the Trial of Jesus, later).  And yet, we can still use the story to illustrate the jury’s traditional right and power to sentence.

Whether a proper, lawful trial or not – the accusers were urging a death by torture sentence be carried out by the crowd, right there on the spot.  Jesus, acting as the woman’s advocate, invoked not only the law and its requirements; he also made a direct appeal to the right, the discretion, and the power of the de facto jury to refuse to convict her.  Today we have many terms for this including jury lenity and jury nullification.  Jury lenity is the jury’s right to be more lenient than the law requires.  Jury nullification is the right or power of the jury to acquit a person (not-guilty verdict) even where it believes the accused was lawfully proven to have violated the letter of the law.  As often is the case, it is difficult to know whether the de facto jury walked away after the appeal of Jesus in deference to the laws of evidence or out of compassion.  But when Jesus said: “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her,” was this not a plea for compassion?  His later statement to her: “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore,” implies that perhaps she did sin, but either lawful proof was lacking, or both he, the jury, and the accusers were blessed with compassion for her.  If so, this could have been an appeal to jury nullification or lenity, as well as an appeal to follow the laws of evidence and of a fair trial – either or both.

Connecting persuasively with people.

The ancient Greeks, Aristotle, spoke of ethos, pathos, and logos as the paths of persuasion.  Clearly the ethos of Jesus was also on trial.

“Ethos” is an appeal to ethics – a means of convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader – here Jesus.  After all, Jesus had returned there again to teach his gathered students, writing on the ground.  The scribes and the Pharisees then brought a woman before him and his students and accused her of adultery demanding her death, “to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him.”  It seems the poor woman may have been a pawn in a game designed to destroy the ethos, the credibility of Jesus to his students.

The description of his behavior shows Jesus’ confidence.  He is a teacher, interrupted as he is writing on the ground.  He is addressed with respect.  (Ethos goes both directions.)  He listens with respect.  He makes his short argument on her behalf, then resumes writing on the ground quietly, waiting for the people for do the right thing.  We see social mirroring.  We see the invocation of shared values and laws.  He is connecting.  Jesus makes good use of his ethos to persuade.

“Logos” is an appeal to logic – a way of persuading an audience by reason.  Jesus has pointed out the lack of an eyewitness, the lack of corroboration by two eyewitnesses, the unlawful hearsay accusation, the lack of an identified male accused adulterer (“caught in the act?”) , the lack of confrontation of witnesses — all contrary to law.  These are all appeals to logic, that the proposed conclusion is not proven under the law by the evidence supplied by the prosecutors.

“Pathos” is an appeal to emotion – a way of convincing an audience of an argument by eliciting an emotional response.  “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.”  Jesus challenges each listener to publicly declare that he or she is without sin.  He equates being the first to throw a stone at her with being the first to publicly declare being without sin – impossible for an honest person.  This challenge pierces right to the heart of any human being, requiring us to shift focus away from the accused woman, and to look inside to search within ourselves instead.  He correctly asks the jury to question whether the issue is really about them, not the lady accused.  She is not “the other:” they are like her – connected by something in common.  He inspires them to be greater than who they might have been, the low identity they had been invited to assume by the prosecutors.

Thomas C. Gallagher is a Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer, interested in both history and the law.

The Necessity Defense for Medical Marijuana Patients – 2015 Minnesota Proposed Legislation HF 542 – SF 404 Redux

The problem:  In Minnesota today, a medical marijuana patient charged with a marijuana crime is no longer allowed by the courts to tell the jury they were treating illness with marijuana.

shhhhThe solution:  A Bill in the 2015 Legislature would legislatively overrule the court decision that took away “the necessity defense” from medical marijuana patients facing marijuana charges.

Marijuana has been used as effective medicine for thousands of years.  In the 1930s, Minnesota joined a social experiment of Prohibition outlawing the plant – even for medical use. Today though, a majority in the U.S.A. believe that medical marijuana should not be a crime.

Trial by jury limits the power of the government to enforce laws in ways that violate the conscience of the community.  Yet when a chronic pain patient using marijuana as medicine is charged with a marijuana crime, but is not permitted to have their physician testify, or to testify about it themselves; there is no meaningful jury trial.  When the court prevents the jury from hearing defense evidence, excluding the defense, her right to present a defense is violated.

“Necessity” has been a recognized legal defense to what otherwise would be a crime, since ancient times. The New Testament cites examples of eating holy bread through necessity of hunger or taking another’s corn. Mathew 12:3-4. Old English cases recognize the defense of necessity. It was a defense to breaking a law that the accused committed the act to save a life or put out a fire. A person did not commit the misdemeanor of exposing an infected person in public if the person was being carried through the streets to a doctor.

  1. Like self-defense, the necessity defense is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge – a “lesser-of-two-evils” defense. After the accused presents evidence supporting the defense, the judge instructs the jury on the law of the defense of necessity.  If the jury accepts the defense: the defendant did the prohibited act intentionally, but did so reasonably to avoid a greater evil, out of necessity; so it is not a crime.
  2. The necessity defense was repealed by a 1991 Minnesota court decision, in State v. Hanson, 468 NW 2d 77 (Minn Court of Appeals 1991). FFI: http://wp.me/pAFjr-5U
  3. The Minnesota Legislature can restore the rights to a jury trial and to present a defense by passing HF 542 & SF 404. The Bill restores the necessity defense to medical marijuana patients charged with a marijuana crime.  Jurors have the right to know the relevant facts before judging a person’s fate.
  4. People like Angela Brown, and her 15 year-old son, should be allowed to present a necessity defense at her trial, so the jury can then have the power to decide her case based upon the true facts, not some version of the truth manipulated by the court.

Urge your Minnesota Rep. and State Senator to support the necessity defense Bill,  HF 542SF 404, to assure medical patients have the “right to introduce evidence or testimony of a medical need to use, … or [evidence of] a benefit derived from the use” of marijuana or derivatives.

Marijuana Medical Necessity: Why Minnesota Needs a New Law Affirming Your Right to Present a Medical Necessity Defense to a Marijuana Charge

Minnesota needs to adopt a new statute affirming your right to present the defense of medical necessity to a marijuana criminal-charge.  Why?

Marijuana, or cannabis, has been used by humans as medicine for thousands of years successfully for relief and treatment of disease.  Modern medical research, as well as clinical practice, has proven its efficacy in relieving symptoms as well as curing diseases — from the bothersome all the way to cancer.

Marijuana had never been a crime.  But beginning in the 1930s in the United States, as the alcohol Prohibition regime was disintegrating, a new experiment in Prohibition was being developed to replace it — the marijuana Prohibition.  Marijuana was widely used as medicine at the time, and its medicinal use persisted for decades but was eventually driven underground after increased criminalization policies in the United States, and in Minnesota.  Its use, including medical use, continued but was made criminal.

Necessity has been a recognized legal defense to what otherwise would be a crime, since ancient times.  In The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to Choose the Lesser Evil some of this history is summarized:

The English courts stated the principle of necessity in 1551 in Reninger v. Fagossa (1 Plowd. 1, 75 Eng. Rep. 1): “A man may break the words of the law, and yet not break the law itself … where the words of them are broken to avoid greater inconvenience, or through necessity, or by compulsion.” The case cites the New Testament example of eating sacred bread through necessity of hunger or taking another’s corn. Mathew 12:3-4. Older English cases contain many examples which recognize the general principle of necessity. It was a defense to breaking a law that the person committed the act to save a life or put out a fire. Jurors could depart without the permission of the judge in case of emergency. Prisoners might escape from a burning jail without committing a crime. A person did not commit the misdemeanor of exposing an infected person in public if the person was being carried through the streets to a doctor.

The necessity defense is sometimes called the lesser-of-two-evils defense.  It is a justification type defense.  If the defense is accepted by the jury, it does not mean the defendant did not intentionally do the prohibited act, but rather that he or she reasonably did so to avoid a greater evil, out of necessity.  It is a common law defense — old and widely accepted.  Like many other common law defenses, it has often been codified in statutes over the past several decades, in many jurisdictions.

med-mj-mn-signThe term “medical necessity defense” is a special application of the more general, necessity defense.  If you are sick with glaucoma or cancer and marijuana provides you with relief or cure, even though marijuana may be a crime to possess or grow in some states, you may decide that preserving your health (or your child’s life) is a greater necessity than complying with the criminal Prohibition.  The majority of people in the United States today, according to poll after poll, agree that medical use of marijuana should not be a crime.  As a result it is likely that many if not most jurors may share that majority view, that medical marijuana is not a real crime.  But in Minnesota jurors are not currently empowered to decide cases with all of the evidence.

Since you are constitutionally guaranteed the right to a jury trial, and the right to present a complete defense — to present the jury with your true defense, for the jury to do with it as it will —  how could it be that the Minnesota appellate courts have so far held that you have no right to present a medical necessity defense in a marijuana case?

To find out, you can read the Minnesota Court of Appeals case from 1991, State v. Hanson.  Though every court case is fact specific to a great extent, the court’s main rationales in the State v. Hanson case are captured in this excerpt:

“The statutory classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance implies a determination that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use in the United States.” Minn.Stat. § 152.02, subd. 7(1) (1990). The legislature has enacted a single exception, in the THC Therapeutic Research Act (TRA), exempting from criminal sanctions possession or use of marijuana for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy who are receiving the drug under the strict controls of an approved medical research program. Minn. Stat. § 152.21, subds. 1, 3, 6 (1990). These statutory provisions demonstrate that the legislature has specifically addressed and determined the possible medical uses of marijuana.”

The first point, that marijuana has been classified by Minnesota as “a Schedule I substance” meaning they claim that it has “no currently accepted medical use in the United States,” if it has ever been true, is certainly not true today.  Though marijuana is still arbitrarily classified by Minnesota as “Schedule I,” the majority of the United States population now lives in states with legal medical marijuana programs, and marijuana is now currently accepted as having medical use — including by the United States Surgeon General.

The second argument advanced in Hanson, was that since the Minnesota legislature had enacted THC Therapeutic Research Act (which created a “research” program so restrictive that nothing ever came of it); that therefore the legislature must have intended to preclude any other consideration of any other exception or defense for medical use of marijuana (though it never said so).  Not particularly persuasive here, the argument is of the classic rhetorical form — expressio unius est exclusio alterius, a Latin phase meaning “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.”

The Hanson case was from 1991.  Much has changed since then, politically, legally, and in the medical research community, has it not?  So would a modern Minnesota appellate court right this 1991 wrong?  In 2014, it didn’t. In a 2014 decision the Minnesota Supreme Court, in State v. Thiel left intact the Schedule I classification despite a constitutional challenge by a defendant convicted of marijuana possession who had not been allowed to let the jury know the truth about his medical  condition, his medical recommendation for marijuana as medicine, or his California medical marijuana card.

It seems reasonable to conclude then, that the Minnesota courts are unlikely to remedy this injustice and restore our right to a fair jury trial, and our right to present a complete defense in Minnesota — at least not in the near term.

That is why we need the Minnesota legislature to restore some measure of Liberty and Justice in Minnesota, by passing a Bill for a new statute guaranteeing your right to let the jury hear the truth, that medical marijuana is a lesser evil (if it is an evil at all) than violating the criminal law prohibiting marijuana.

The Bill currently in the Minnesota legislature would restore the necessity defense to medical marijuana patients charged with a marijuana crime in Minnesota.  It would guarantee that the accused could use this as an affirmative defense — meaning the defendant would have the burden of showing prima facie evidence of medical necessity, and if successful, the ultimate burden of proving criminal guilt would then shift to the prosecution.  This would help restore the right to a jury trial to an extent as well.  The jurors have the right to hear the truth before condemning a person.

Contact your Minnesota House of Representatives member, your Minnesota State Senator, and the Governor to urge support of the medical necessity Bill, HF 542.

Religious use of marijuana defense prevails in Minnesota Rastafarian case.

Is religious use of marijuana a defense to a marijuana criminal charge?  A recent Minnesota Court of Appeals case indicates the answer may be “yes.”  In an unpublished opinion, In the matter of the Welfare of J.J.M.A.,  A13-0295, filed September 23, 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile’s delinquency adjudication based on his sincerely held religious belief as a Rastafarian, on a petty misdemeanor marijuana paraphernalia charge.

Rastaman-Vibration  The fifteen year old boy was a practicing Rastafarian – a religion that has incorporated religious use of marijuana for nearly 100 years.  The lower court found him guilty of the paraphernalia charge, despite also finding that “Rastafari is a true religion and that J.J.M.A. has a sincerely held belief in the tenets of that religion,” because he “failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the Rastafari religion requires him to carry his pipe with him at all times.”  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed that adjudication of guilt, based on the Minnesota Constitution’s freedom-of-conscience clause, article 1, section 16:

The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed . . . nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted . . . ; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state.

Minnesota’s Constitution provides more protection for religious freedom than the United States Constitution does.  “’This language is of a distinctively stronger character than the federal counterpart’ because it ‘precludes even an infringement on or an interference with religious freedom.’”  State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn. 1990) (Hershberger II).

The court analyzed the four prongs of the compelling state interest balancing test:

1) whether the individual holds a sincerely held belief;

2) whether the regulation burdens the exercise of religious beliefs;

3) whether the state’s interest is overriding or compelling; and,

4) whether the regulation uses the least restrictive means to accomplish the state’s interest.

The court ruled that the evidence at trial satisfied the defense burden to establish a firmly held belief worthy of protection under section 16.  It contrasted this case with past cases where the defendants had failed to meet the burden to establish a sincerely held religious belief, due to being unable to connect his conduct to a religious practice or principle.

The court stated,  ”once an individual has demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief intended to be protected by section 16, the burden shifts to the state ‘to demonstrate that public safety cannot be achieved by proposed alternative means,’” and that the state failed to meet this burden in this case.   Though the case did not expressly address the applicability of the defense to a marijuana possession case, it contains language that may be helpful in doing so.

Given the fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, presumably the state will never be able to meet its burden of proving that restricting religious freedom with a statute that criminalizes marijuana possession somehow improves public safety.

Thomas C Gallagher is a marijuana lawyer in Minneapolis.