U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
In November of 1996, California voters enacted the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which attempted to give seriously ill Californians the right to use marijuana for medical purposes. Several groups, including the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, organized “medical cannabis dispensaries” to meet the needs of qualified patients. The United States sued the Cooperative, claiming that its activities violate federal law, specifically the Controlled Substances Act. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of marijuana for medical purposes, citing the Controlled Substances Act, which states that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception outside the confines of a government-approved research project.
(Link: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-151.ZO.html)
|
Kyllo v. U.S.
In this case, suspicious agents used a thermal imaging device to scan the plaintiff’s apartment in order to detect the presence of high-intensity lamps used for growing marijuana plants indoors. The scan showed that the garage roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest of his home and substantially warmer than neighboring units. Based on these findings, a warrant was issued to search Kyllo’s home, where agents discovered marijuana growing. Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge and tried to suppress the evidence seized from his home. The U.S. Supreme Court held that if the government uses a device that is not used by general public and reveals things which could not have otherwise been obtained without physical intrusion, the surveillance constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, which is forbidden without a search warrant.
(Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/99%2D8508.html)
|
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls
This case tested the constitutionality of the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing. The question at hand was whether or not these tests violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court found that in the criminal context, "reasonableness" usually requires a showing of "probable cause." In a non-criminal context, the probable cause standard may be unnecessary if the government seeks to prevent the development of hazardous conditions. Furthermore, the Court found that a warrant and finding of probable cause are unnecessary in public schools because such requirements interfere with the maintenance of discipline. The Supreme Court found the policy to be constitutional since it reasonably serves the school district's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students.
(Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-332)
|