Category Archives: Federal Crimes & Prosecutions

You Can’t Transport Marijuana On a Plane, Even Within States Where Pot is Legal

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Illustration courtesy of Gene Kim

In Fejes v. FAA, No. 22-70129 (April 22, 2024), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that people cannot transport marijuana by airplane even when travelling solely within states where cannabis is decriminalized.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Fejes transported marijuana—which is legal under Alaska law, but a controlled substance under federal law—by aircraft within Alaska. In some remote parts of Alaska, aircraft are the only mode of delivering goods, including marijuana. Fejes held a pilot certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). At least three times, Fejes piloted an aircraft to transport and distribute marijuana to retail stores within the state.

After an investigation, the FAA revoked his pilot certificate under the authority that distributing marijuana via aircraft is a federal crime. Fejes appealed the order revoking his pilot’s certificate through numerous agency proceedings. In those proceedings, Fejes admitted that he piloted an aircraft to distribute marijuana within Alaska. However, he argued that his conduct fell outside of reach of federal laws revoking pilot’s licenses for controlled substance violations. Fejes now appealed his information to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The 9th Circuit rejected Feyes’ argument that the FAA lacks jurisdiction to revoke his pilot certificate. It reasoned that under the Commerce Clause, airplanes are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. As such, airspace is a channel of commerce within congressional authority.

“We have held that cars are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. United States v. Oliver, 60 F.3d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1995). Even if an airplane, like a car, is mainly used for intrastate activities, its operations could substantially impact interstate commerce. Thus, Fejes’s conduct falls within the second category as well.”  ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The 9th Circuit further reasoned that although many states have legalized recreational marijuana, it continues to be a controlled substance federally.

“The public may believe that a state’s legalization of marijuana broadly protects marijuana use. But state law legalizing marijuana distribution does not negate federal law criminalizing the same action . . . And marijuana is still illegal in many contexts under federal law, even in states that provide legal allowances.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

With that, the 9th Circuit upheld the revocation of Mr. Feyes’s pilot’s license.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Feds Moving to Re-Classify Marijuana

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

DEA moving to reclassify marijuana – WKRN News 2

Excellent reporting by journalist Ellen Dennis in the The Spokesman Review discusses the U.S. government’s efforts to reclassifying marijuana as a less harmful drug.

The U.S. Attorney General circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III drug. If finalized, this change in classification by the U.S. Department of Justice would federally recognize the medical use of cannabis. It would also ease banking regulations, thus making it far more manageable for pot shops to do business.

What Do the Drug Schedule Levels Mean?

Schedule I substances are defined by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Right now, marijuana is a Schedule I Drug. It lists alongside heroin, peyote, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone.

Schedule II drugs are defined by the government as dangerous drugs with a high potential for abuse. Examples of Schedule II drugs include fentanyl, oxycodone (Oxycontin), methamphetamine, Adderall and Ritalin. Schedule III substances are defined as drugs with a moderate-to-low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Examples of Schedule III drugs include ketamine, anabolic steroids and testosterone.

What Would Rescheduling Do?

According to the article, rescheduling the drug would be a huge positive for people who work in the weed industry. It would open up federal funding, government loans and access to government emergency relief funds. Rescheduling would also help break down stigma surrounding cannabis.

That’s helped fuel fast growth in the marijuana industry, with an estimated worth of nearly $30 billion. Easing federal regulations could reduce the tax burden that can be 70% or more for businesses, according to industry groups. It could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances.

The Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation Banking Act is a proposed federal law that would ensure that all businesses – including state-sanctioned weed stores – have access to deposit accounts, insurance and other financial services.

Currently, Pot Shops in Washington by law may only take payments in cash form, leaving them vulnerable to armed robberies. Some store owners across the state have done their best to keep the environments safe for workers, including installing panic buttons behind the counters and ramping up security systems, but the best way to bolster safety would be to allow cannabis sellers to accept debit and credit card payments, industry players say.

It is possible that rescheduling could allow the cannabis industry to claim business deductions on federal tax forms, since the Internal Revenue Service doesn’t allow that for any business that sells a Schedule I controlled substance.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

9th Circuit Federal Court: Gun Prohibitions on Defendants Are “Historical Tradition of Firearms Regulation.”

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

13 Tips Whenever Cops Want to See Your Guns! - YouTube

In United States v. Garcia, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that pretrial release conditions forbidding a defendant from possessing firearms are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Mr. Fencl was arrested after police officers found more than 110 guns in his house, including 10 unregistered and untraceable “ghost guns,” 4 silencers, and 3 short-barreled rifles. Officers also uncovered thousands of rounds of ammunition, including armor-piercing and incendiary rounds and a tear-gas grenade.

In a different case, Mr. Perez-Garcia was arrested following a customs inspection at the United States-Mexico border. He was the passenger in a car in which officers found approximately eleven kilograms of methamphetamine and half a kilogram of fentanyl.

Both men were charged with multiple felony offenses. Consistent with the Bail Reform Act of 1984, two federal magistrate judges released Fencl and Perez-Garcia pending their trials. However, both were subjected them to a condition of pretrial release that temporarily barred them from possessing firearms pending trial. The magistrate judges concluded that the firearm condition was the least restrictive way to assure the safety of the community and the defendants’ appearances in court.

On appeal, Fencl and Perez-Garcia contend that the pretrial firearm condition violated their Second Amendment rights. They believe they were unlawfully  prohibited from possessing guns while they are released pending trial.

9TH CIRCUIT’S REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS

In short, the 9th Circuit upheld the appellants’ temporary disarmament as consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The 9th Circuit reasoned that Congress passed the Bail Reform Act of 1984 to respond to the alarming problem of crimes committed by persons on release. The Act authorizes federal courts to release defendants awaiting trial subject to specific conditions that protect the community from the risk of crimes they might commit while on bail. Courts have discretion to choose which conditions will best keep the community safe. Furthermore, some conditions that are necessary to keep the community safe nevertheless burden constitutional rights.

“Bail Reform Act’s firearm condition on Appelants is justified by our nation’s history of disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges pending trial. Based on our historical review, we agree that our society has traditionally subjected criminal defendants to temporary restrictions on their liberty—including restrictions that affect their ability to keep and bear arms—to protect public safety and to ensure defendants’ attendance at trial. As we explain below, the combination of separate but related founding era practices supports this conclusion: (1) most serious crimes were eligible for capital charges; (2) the government had the power to detain, and usually did detain, defendants indicted on capital charges; and (3) once detained, criminal defendants were completely disarmed. The Bail Reform Act’s firearm condition as applied to Fencl and Perez-Garcia fits within this historical tradition of firearm regulation.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Next, the 9th Circuit explained that during the Founding Era, most serious criminal acts and felonies constituted capital offenses. As a result, defendants indicted on capital offenses were typically detained without bail, effectively disarming them.

With that, the 9th Circuit concluded that the Bail Reform Act’s pretrial release firearm condition as applied to Appellants was relevantly similar to the founding era tradition of disarming criminal defendants facing serious crimes.

My opinion? Often in my criminal practice I see lots in incidents involving guns. Clients ask  whether police can seize their firearms if a crime is pending. And what about situations where there was an incident, but no gun was involved? The short answer is yes, police can seize firearms and other weapons under these circumstances. This often happens in allegations involving Domestic Violence and felonies. However, there needs to be an order issued from a judge.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face crimes prohibiting the possession of firearms. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Department of Justice Prosecutes Someone for Illegally Importing Greenhouse Gases

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

How to Transport a Fridge by Yourself ((( Part 1 ))) - YouTube

A San Diego man who allegedly smuggled refrigerants into the United States from Mexico is the first in the United States to be prosecuted under a recently enacted law aimed at mitigating climate change. The Department of Justice says the case marks the first prosecution in the United States to include charges related to the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020.

WHAT IS THE AIM ACT?

This law prohibits the importation of hydrofluorocarbons — or HFCs — without approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). HFCs are a class of potent greenhouse gases commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioning, aerosols, and foam products. Their climate impact can be hundreds to thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. The AIM Act, enacted by Congress in 2020, authorizes EPA to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs by 85 percent in a stepwise manner by 2036 through an allowance allocation and trading program. The AIM Act also directs EPA to maximize reclamation of HFCs, minimize releases of HFCs from equipment, and facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies to replace HFCs.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

Hart is accused of buying refrigerants in Mexico and trafficking them into the US in his vehicle by hiding them under a tarpaulin and tools. He posted the refrigerants for sale on OfferUp, Facebook Marketplace and other sites.

He faces 13 separate charges, including conspiracy, as well as multiple counts of illegal importation and selling imported goods illegally. He could face a maximum of 45 years in prison if convicted on all of the charges and 20 years if convicted on either of the counts related to illegal importation, according to the Attorney’s Office of Southern California. He also faces fines of up to $750,000.

The indictment also alleges that Hart illegally imported HCFC-22, an ozone-depleting substance commonly used as a propellant and refrigerant. In 2020, such applications of HCFC-22 were phased out in developed countries under the Montreal Protocol because of its ozone depleting properties.

WHY SUCH HARSH PROSECUTION FROM THE FEDS?

In short, Mr. Hart’s Tarrest highlights the EPA’s and Justice Department’s efforts to prevent refrigerants that are climate super-pollutants from illegally entering the United States.

“The illegal smuggling of hydrofluorocarbons, a highly potent greenhouse gas, undermines international efforts to combat climate change under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Anyone who seeks to profit from illegal actions that worsen climate change must be held accountable.” ~David M. Uhlmann, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

The EPA says potent greenhouse gases are typically used for refrigeration, air conditioning, building insulation, fire extinguishing systems, and aerosols. And the global warming potential of HFCs are exponentially more potent than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

My opinion? Yes, it is illegal to import certain refrigerants into the United States because of their documented and significantly greater contribution to climate change. Nevertheless, I doubt Mr. Hart actually intended to unlawfully import greenhouse gases. More likely, he simply attempted to buy and sell used refrigerators and was unaware of the environmental impact of his transactions.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Cannabis Advocates: Biden is Missing an Opportunity Legalize Marijuana

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Legislation, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Why Joe Biden's Marijuana Move Is a Midterm 'No Brainer'

The Hill reports that President Biden is missing an opportunity to sway young voters with his reluctance to take bigger steps to legalize marijuana at the federal level.

While campaigning for the White House in 2020, Biden said, “No one should be in jail because of marijuana. As President, I will decriminalize cannabis use and automatically expunge prior convictions.”

Cannabis advocates say the Biden administration has opened several avenues for marijuana reform. These include issuing federal pardons for simple possession and starting the process of potentially rescheduling marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act from Schedule I to Schedule III.

But those measures have failed to excite advocates. They now say Biden is falling short of his 2020 campaign promises and failing to address the disparate overcriminalization of the drug that has unduly impacted minority communities. Progressive lawmakers in the Senate are urging the administration to go further and completely deschedule the drug. Legalization it would effectively decriminalize it at the federal level, as opposed to rescheduling it.

“Marijuana’s placement in the Controlled Substances Act] has had a devastating impact on our communities and is increasingly out of step with state law and public opinion,” 12 Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) last month.

IS THERE POLITICAL WILL TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

Public opinion is strongly in favor of marijuana legalization. A Gallup poll from November found a record 70 percent of Americans believed marijuana should be legal.

More recent polling from Lake Research Partners backs up public support for federal marijuana reform, with 58 percent supporting a rescheduling to Schedule III, compared to 19 percent who opposed the move.

“It’s a really strong issue with some constituencies that Democrats really need to increase their support and enthusiasm, specifically young people, African Americans, Democratic base voters, people of color, young men of color,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster and strategist who serves as president of Lake Research Partners.

Hayley Matz Meadvin, Executive Vice President of Communications at Precision Strategies and a former Biden administration staffer, noted the “supermajority of support” behind marijuana legalization could help Biden lure in voters across the political spectrum.

“This is a popular issue that motivates voters, and it doesn’t just motivate — it clearly just doesn’t motivate exclusively Democrats. And that will be critical this fall.” ~Hayley Matz Meadvin, Executive Vice President of Communications at Precision Strategies

THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

Biden and Trump, his likely 2024 rival, are polling neck and neck both nationally and in key swing states. The election could come down to a few thousand voters in those states, potentially giving niche issues such marijuana added importance.

Advocates say his actions so far fall short of that promise. And they said he may struggle to clearly communicate any progress on marijuana reform, especially as some actions are left unfinished; the DEA has yet to issue its decision on rescheduling marijuana, and the federal pardons issued last year could not apply to state-level convictions, though Biden has encouraged governors to follow his lead.

While marijuana reform may not be among the issues expected to dominate the 2024 elections, strategists note that smaller issues frequently break through the noise during election cycles.  Perhaps substantial marijuana reform action from Biden would signal to voters he is a “modern president” and could make a difference in states including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. As of now, possessing marijuana is still a federal crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

9th Circuit: Harassment is a Crime of Violence

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Harassment, Immigration, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Immigration Courts Further Limit Legal Help Available to People Facing Deportation

In Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Garland, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Washington conviction for Harassment is a crime of violence. This is because the statute requires the “threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” As such, being convicted of Harassment risks deportatation for non-citizens.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 2015, Rodriguez-Hernandez was an immigrant living in the United States. He served with a notice to appear alleging removability on the basis that he was not admitted or paroled into the United States (U.S.). Apparently, he faced persecution in Mexico due to threats made against his family. Rodriguez-Hernandez applied for cancellation of removal and sought asylum in the U.S.

Among other things, the 9th Circuit addressed whether Rodriguez-Hernandez’s Harassment conviction was for a crime of violence under federal law.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The 9th Circuit began by saying that a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony is a deportable offense. It also discussed Washington’s Harassment statute in depth as follows:

RCW § 9A.46.020(1) provides that: (1) A person is guilty of harassment if: (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens: (i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or (ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or (iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and (b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out (emphasis supplied).

Next, the 9th Circuit addressed whether Harassment was a violent offense:

“A crime of violence requires physical force against the person or property of another . . . However, a crime of violence “does not require any particular degree of likelihood or probability that the force used will cause physical pain or injury; only potentiality. The standard is force capable of causing physical pain or injury. . . .”  ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

With that reasoning, the 9th Circuit held that Rodriguez-Hernandez’ threats against his family were, in fact, crimes of violence. Therefore, because Rodriguez-Hernandez was convicted of a crime of violence, he was ineligible for cancellation of removal or asylum.

My opinion?

The 9th Circuit’s Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Garland, certainly makes Washington’s Harassment statute far more egrigious for citizens and non-citizens alike. It could possibly have the following impacts and consequences on current charges:

  • Misdemeanor harassment with a DV tag is now a deportable “crime of domestic violence,” regardless of sentence.
  • Felony harassment, under any subsection, with a sentence imposed of one year or more will be an aggravated felony “crime of violence.” [Previously only the “threaten to kill” subsection had been held to be a “crime of violence.”]
  • Felony harassment-DV will be a deportable “crime of domestic violence” regardless of sentence imposed.

Even worse, the decision could have terribly negative impacts on non-citizens with prior convictions:

  • Misdemeanor harassment-DV convictions:
    • If conviction occurred prior to July 22, 2011 and the sentence imposed (regardless of time suspended) was 365 days it will be an aggravated felony “crime of violence.” Aggravated felonies carry the most severe immigration consequences and bar eligibility for any discretionary relief from removal.
    • Regardless of date of conviction, it may now be deemed a deportable crime of domestic violence.
  • Felony harassment convictions:
    • Any felony harassment conviction with a sentence imposed (regardless of time suspended) of one year or more may be deemed an aggravated felony crime of violence. Previously, only felony harassment “threat to kill” was considered an aggravated felony crime of violence.
    • Any felony harassment-DV conviction may now be deemed a deportable crime of domestic violence, regardless of sentence.

How this decision impacts individual non-citizen defendants will depend on their current immigration status, their immigration and criminal history, and other individual circumstances. For case-specific information please consult with other immigration counsel knowledgeable in the interplay between criminal and immigration law.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Revives Biden’s Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Editorial: Ready, aim, regulate: The Supreme Court makes the right call on ghost guns, for now | Guest Column | wyomingnews.com

The Supreme Court temporarily revived the Biden administration’s regulation of “ghost guns” — kits that can be bought online and assembled into untraceable homemade firearms.

The number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement in the US has increased at an alarming rate—rising 398% from 2016 to 2020. Nearly 24,000 ghost guns were recovered across the country during that five-year period. President Biden’s administration officials said such weapons had soared in popularity in recent years, particularly among criminals barred from buying ordinary guns.

BACKGROUND

Ghost guns are do-it-yourself, homemade guns, produced with simple building blocks available online. In May 2021, the federal government proposed a rule that would finally clarify that these parts qualify as traditional firearms, and must be sold with serial numbers and background checks. Several states – including Washington State – have also acted, including with requirements that all ghost guns must be reported to officials. The strongest laws also regulate the spread of guns that can be made with 3-D printers.

THE COURT’S ORDER

The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The order was provisional, leaving the regulation in place while a challenge moves forward in the courts.

THE VOTING SPLIT

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal members — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — to form a majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted dissents. Like the justices in the majority, they did not explain their reasoning.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Federal Court Strikes Hawaii Statutue Outlawing Butterfly Knives

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Learning Butterfly Knife Tricks with No Experience - YouTube

In Teter v. Lopez, No. 20-15948 (August 7, 2023) the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hawaii’s criminal statute prohibiting possession of butterfly knives violates the second amendment. The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over federal district courts in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In Hawaii, it is a misdemeanor to knowingly to manufacture, sell, transfer, transport, or possess a butterfly knife—no exceptions.

Plaintiffs Mr. Teter and Mr. Grell are law-abiding Hawaii residents who wished to purchase butterfly knives for self-defense. They sued Hawaii’s Attorney General and Sheriff Division Administrator (“Hawaii”). They sought to establish that Hawaii’s statute violates the Second Amendment.

The Plaintiffs further argued that, but for Hawaii’s law, they would purchase butterfly knives.  They owned butterfly knives before moving to Hawaii and were forced to dispose of their knives because of Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives. The Plaintiffs’ expert witness agreed that the butterfly knife “is just a tool” that can be used offensively and defensively.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The 9th Circuit began by saying the butterfly knife, also known as the “balisong,” has a disputed origin. Some sources say it originated in France; others, the Philippines. It is anywhere from a few hundred to over a thousand years old. Regardless of its origin, the butterfly knife resembles an ordinary pocketknife, a tool that has been used by Americans since the early 18th century.

“Like a pocketknife, the butterfly knife comprises a handle and a folding blade, the cutting edge of which becomes covered by the handle when closed. Unlike a pocketknife, however, the butterfly knife’s handle is split into two components. Together, these two components fully encase the blade when closed and rotate in opposite directions to open. With a few short, quick movements, an experienced user can open a butterfly knife with one hand.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The 9th Circuit also held that possession of butterfly knives is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment:

“Bladed weapons facially constitute ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and contemporaneous sources confirm that at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, the term ‘arms’ was understood as generally extending to bladed weapons, and by necessity, butterfly knives. The Constitution therefore presumptively guarantees keeping and bearing such instruments for self-defense.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Finally, the 9th Circuit reasoned that a butterfly knife is an “arm,” and more analogous to a pocket knife than historically prohibited bladed weapons such as Bowie knives or the Arkansas toothpick. With that, the 9th Circuit concluded that Hawaii’s law banning butterfly knives violates the Second Amendment.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Federal Judge Prohibits Seattle from Enforcing Its Anti-Graffiti Law

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, First Amendment, Graffiti, Malicious Mischief, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Seattle court ruling halts enforcement of graffiti-related property crimes | KOMO

A U.S. district court has ruled by injunction that Seattle must temporarily cease enforcement of property crimes with regard to graffiti.

Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction. It says the city’s ordinance that punishes graffiti “targets speech” and “poses a real and substantial threat of censorship.”

Seattle’s municipal code says a person is guilty of “property destruction,” a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail, if “he or she… [w]rites, paints, or draws any inscription, figure, or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any real or personal property owned by any other person.”

“On its face, the Ordinance sweeps so broadly that it criminalizes innocuous drawings (from a child’s drawing of a mermaid to pro-police messages written by the Seattle Police Foundation) that can hardly be said to constitute ‘visual blight’ and which would naturally wash away in the next rain storm.” ~Justice Pechman, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) released a statement to address the court’s ruling, stating that a lack of future enforcement is not a conscious decision by the government.

“Late yesterday afternoon, SPD received an order from a US District Court judge that enjoined, in full, enforcement of SMC 12A.080.020 – the City’s misdemeanor property destruction law. This means that until further order of the Court, SPD cannot take action on damage to property under this law. This is not a matter within SPD or City discretion; we are bound by the court order as it is written.” ~Seattle Police Department

Vandalism and graffiti have become a prominent issue in Seattle, and the city government is expected to request an expedited reconsideration of the ruling.

The department added, “We know, as evidenced by the thousands of calls for service we receive each year reporting acts of vandalism and other forms of property damage that property damage is, in fact, a crime that is of significance to community members.”

My opinion? This is a thorny subject. Many cities around the US deal with the problem of graffiti art everyday. Sometimes it may be a name, a threat, an image, a symbol, or a brilliant canvas of the graffiti artist’s imagination. Whatever the case, it usually involves painting something on someone else’s property. So, whose rights should win out? The artist’s right to free speech or the property owner’s right to the quiet use and enjoyment of their own property?

Generally, one cannot exercise a right, even one guaranteed by the constitution, if it interferes with another person’s right. While Americans do not have a right to be free from annoyance by the speech or expression of another, even through artistic means, they do have the right to the exclusive use and possession of property. Thus, most graffiti art will not be protected as free speech when it is done on someone else’s property, and the property owner does not consent.

The parameters of the federal court’s ruling may invalidate similar anti-graffiti ordinances in  Washington and other States.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Malicious Mischief or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Federal Prisons Want Inmates to Pay Victims

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Restitution, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

5 companies compete to build new Alabama prisons

Excellent article by Tilda Wilson reports that federal prisons want inmates to pay victims before making phone calls or buying shoes.

The Bureau of Prisons is considering a rule change concerning inmates who keep large sums of money in their prison accounts. The new rule would require that 75 percent of all the money family and friends send a person in prison go to pay their outstanding debts. These debts include paying restitution to their victims.

But lawyers and advocates for people in prison feel that the proposed rule goes too far. Shanna Rifkin, deputy general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, agrees that the Bureau of Prisons should not let wealthy inmates avoid restitution. However, she also thinks the proposed rule is too broad.

“It’s really like a sledgehammer, when you could bring a tool that was much smaller to address the problem.” ~Shanna Rifkin, Deputy General Counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums

Other advocates, like Ellen Degnan, a staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, argue the courts should fix the problem themselves by setting individual payment plans during sentencing.

“Courts can solve this problem. This is not for the BOP to meddle in.” ~Ellen Degnan, a staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center

Even advocates for people who are owed restitution are wary of the proposed rule. Bridgette Stumpf, executive director at the nonprofit Network for Victim Recovery of D.C., thinks the rule has the potential to get some victims restitution more quickly than they would otherwise. Still, she thinks the consequences need to be balanced.

RESTITUTION OR COURT FINES?

Many of the people who would be impacted by the proposed rule do not owe victim restitution. Instead, they owe court fines and fees related to their initial sentencing.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons said that commissary accounts are a privilege. Officials will review public comments carefully. There is no deadline for a decision on this rule being made.

Jails and prisons are undesirable places. Please review Making Bail and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.