Search Results: supreme-court/ (5)

THC Finder

Court Rejects Patients’ Right To Medical Marijuana; Patients’ Group Says Voters Will Reject ‘Godawful Law’ by Defeating IR-124
The Montana Supreme Court ensured late on Tuesday that voters will have the final say on the Legislature’s 2011 medical marijuana law this November, and Patients for Reform, Not Repeal believes voters will say “No” to it.
The court held there is no fundamental right to use medical marijuana, or any drug that’s prohibited under federal law, reports Sam Favate at the Wall Street Journal. In a 6-1 decision, the court reversed a lower court ruling blocking enforcement of IR-124, a state law to restrict access to medical marijuana.

The Weed Blog

​Concealed handgun owners with Oregon medical marijuana authorizations will be allowed to keep their gun licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear a sheriff’s legal challenge which claimed U.S. federal law trumps Oregon state law.

Putting the case behind her is a victory for the rights of medical marijuana patients throughout Oregon, according to Gold Hill resident Cynthia Willis, 54, reports Damian Mann of the Southern Oregon Mail Tribune.
“Just because we’re patients doesn’t mean we don’t have real lifestyles and rights like everyone else,” Willis said.
Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters had denied Willis a concealed handgun license back in 2008 because she uses medical marijuana, which is considered a Schedule I controlled substance, along with heroin and LSD, by the federal government.

Washington City Paper

​The United States Supreme Court will decide whether law enforcement should have obtained a search warrant before placing a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device on the car of a Washington, D.C., man who was suspected of dealing drugs, so they could covertly track his movements.

The justices on Tuesday heard oral arguments in an appeal from the Obama Administration, which wants the power to track suspects’ movements without getting a warrant, reports Bill Mears at CNN.
A majority of the justices appeared adamant after a one-hour public session that police officers should have gotten a warrant before placing the device on the subject’s vehicle, Mears reports. A government lawyer didn’t help the Feds’ case when he suggested that such surveillance could be used on members of the Court itself.

Photo: CMMNJ
Wilson was supported throughout his trial by local cannabis advocates, who demonstrated in front of the Somerset County Courthouse.

​An attorney representing multiple sclerosis patient John Ray Wilson, the man recently sentenced to five years in prison for growing marijuana to alleviate his medical condition, has filed an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Wilson, 38, was convicted on the second-degree felony of “manufacturing” marijuana for growing 17 cannabis plants, reports Freedom Is Green. Last month an appellate court upheld Wilson’s barbaric five-year prison sentence, ruling that he could not claim the plants were for personal, medical use.
Wilson has no healthcare insurance to aid him in his battle against MS. His conviction came just as New Jersey’s compassionate use medical marijuana law was passed. Unfortunately, the Garden State’s law was the first medicinal cannabis legislation in the United States that prohibited home cultivation by patients.
Local cannabis advocates supported Wilson, demonstrating in front of the Somerset County Courthouse throughout his 2009 trial.

Graphic: Democracy Cell Project

​Electricity usage records are now effectively the property of the police in Canada — and they don’t even need a warrant. Law enforcement did not overstep their powers when they asked a Calgary electricity company to spy on one of its customers by installing a special tracking device to find if he was growing marijuana, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday.

In a 7-2 decision, Canada’s badly split highest court argued over privacy rights, but overturned an Alberta Court of Appeal judgment that ordered a new trial for Daniel Gomboc, reports The Canadian Press.
“As is true of all constitutional rights, the Charter’s protection is not absolute,” Madam Justice Marie Deschamps wrote for the majority, as she sold out the privacy rights of Canadians. “The Constitution does not cloak the home in an impenetrable veil of privacy. To expect such protection would not only be impractical; it would also be unreasonable.”