home

CA Appeals Court Invalidates Warrantless Entry and Arrest for Pot Smoking

In a significant, far-reaching, unanimous California Court of Appeals decision Friday, the Court of Appeals in San Francisco held that police officers cannot enter a person's home without a warrant, even if they personally observe people smoking marijuana in the house and smell the marijuana being smoked. The decision was ordered to be published. The case is People v. Hua and you can read the decision here (pdf).

Exigent circumstances to make a warrantless entry to seize the marijuana before it is smoked does not trump the Fourth Amendment, where the officers have no knowledge that any crime is taking place other than possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana, which is a nonjailable offense. The opinion cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Welsh v. Wisconsin.

This is the best and the strongest California appellate decision upholding the legislative intent of George Moscone's landmark marijuana decriminalization bill enacted in 1975, with NORML as the chief sponsor of that legislation. It is the first such decision which protects the rights of marijuana smokers not to have their homes invaded by the police without a warrant, merely because the officers know -- not suspect, but know -- that the occupants of the home are smoking marijuana inside.

Congrats to defense lawyer Gordon Brownell who argued the case.

< Reassuring Conservative Obama Supporters | More on Huckabee and Dumond >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A perhaps naive question (none / 0) (#1)
    by kovie on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    But do you see any parallels between this ruling and Lawrence v. Texas, in that both involved the arrest of individuals for reasons unrelated to the putative reason for the police entering, which in both cases was also warrantless?

    I realize that state appeals court rulings do not directly lead to the Supreme Court, and that this is a state, not federal ruling. But there seem to be similarities in legal and constitutional principles here, if I'm not mistaken.

    Am I mistaken?

    J: it is Court of Appeal (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    (no "s") in CA.

    A small step toward sanity (none / 0) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    "It is the first such decision which protects the rights of marijuana smokers not to have their homes invaded by the police without a warrant, merely because the officers know -- not suspect, but know -- that the occupants of the home are smoking marijuana inside."

    Hopefully, it won't be the last.

    it will be appealed, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    and reversed. sorry to say, but you and i both know it's true.