home

Panel Recommends Reducing Marijuana Fines to $1.00

Via SaferChoice: In 2007, Denver voters passed a referendum amending a city ordinance so that law enforcement would make marijuana enforcement their lowest priority. In response, Mayor John Hickenlooper appointed a panel to implement the new ordinance.

The Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel recommended today that the fine for marijuana possession be set at $1.

"Upon reviewing the fine schedule, we have noted that a number of offenses carry a $50 fine -- including urinating in public, park curfew, and open container violations -- and others carry even lesser fines, such as disobeying a signal light ($40), light rail violations ($26), and spitting in public ($25)," the Panel wrote in the letter. "We are...requesting that you revise the schedule to reflect the lowest law enforcement priority approved by the voters. "[W]e believe the court should reduce the fine to the absolute minimum allowable, or $1."
If Denver's presiding judge Mary Celeste accepts the recommendation, the $1 fine would be the lowest fine for marijuana possession in the entire nation. The entire letter to Judge Celeste is pasted below.

Presiding Judge
Denver County Court
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, CO 80202

Dear Judge Celeste:

In 2005, Denver voters amended the city ordinance prohibiting private possession of up to one ounce of marijuana (R.M.C. Art. 5, Div. 3, Sec. 38-175) so that individuals 21 and older would no longer face any penalties for such behavior. In 2007, a second citywide vote established a city ordinance mandating the city make private possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults 21 and older Denver's lowest law enforcement priority. It also established the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel, appointed by Mayor John W. Hickenlooper, to monitor and report on the prioritizing process and implement the "lowest priority" ordinance to the greatest extent possible.

As you know, private adult marijuana possession in Denver continues to be prosecuted under state law, and the maximum penalty for the Class 2 petty offense is a $100 fine. C.R.S. §18-48-406(1). In the past few months, the Denver City Attorney's Office agreed to change city policy so that fines related to such citations can be paid by mail and will no longer mandate an appearance in Denver Municipal Court. The ability to pay fines by mail is dependent on the fine schedule printed on the citation, and citation printing will commence following a major data systems revision that is currently underway.

Once these administrative hurdles are overcome, individuals will be able to mail in their fines according to the fine schedule printed on the citation. The current fine schedule indicates that for possession of marijuana, less than one ounce, C.R.S. §18-18-406(1), the first offense assessment is $160. This number is derived from a $50 fine, a $100 drug surcharge, and a $10 "bureau fee." Upon reviewing the fine schedule, we have noted that a number of offenses carry a $50 fine -- including urinating in public, park curfew, and open container violations -- and others carry even lesser fines, such as disobeying a signal light ($40), light rail violations ($26), and spitting in public ($25).

We understand one of your functions as Presiding Judge is to administer and periodically revise the fine schedule. We are, therefore, requesting that you revise the schedule to reflect the lowest law enforcement priority approved by the voters.

One alternative is to revise the scheduled so that the fine for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana is no greater than any of the other listed fines ($25). Even better, we respectfully ask you to consider a fine of $1 due to the effect of the $100 drug offender surcharge, C.R.S. §18-19-103. The surcharge must be assessed at $100, unless the defendant can show by clear and convincing evidence that the he or she is unable to pay all, or a portion of, the surcharge. Since our appellate courts have held that the surcharge is "punishment", People v. Stead, 845 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1993), the real punishment inflicted on the defendant is the total of the fine and the surcharge. Therefore, under the current fine schedule, the total penalty for private possession of up to one ounce of marijuana is $160; and even if the fine is reduced to $25, it would still be $135. Since the surcharge is penal, we believe the court should reduce the fine to the absolute minimum allowable, or $1. That would still require an assessment of the fine, the $100 surcharge, and the $10 "bureau fee," resulting in a total penalty of $111, which would still be among the largest on the fine schedule.

We look forward to discussing this issue with you further if you deem it appropriate.
Sincerely,


The Members of the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel

Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel
Doug Linkhart, Denver City Council, At-large
Lt. Ernie Martinez, Denver Police Dept., president of the Colorado Drug Investigators Association
Vincent DiCroce, Director of Prosecution, Denver City Attorney's Office
Phil Cherner, defense attorney and member of the Denver Crime Commission
Joni Handran, substance abuse counselor, Empowerment Program
Frank Moya, Denver public defender
Sandy Mullins, executive director,Colorado Criminal Defense Bar
Dora-Lee Larson, Denver Domestic Violence Coordinating Council
Mason Tvert, executive director, SAFER (Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation)
Brian Vicente, defense attorney and executive director of Sensible Colorado

< Will The Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up | Ted Kennedy's Final Days >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Of all the things... (none / 0) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    ...that make this city a great place to live, this ranks up there on my list.  The fact that I have such reasonable, rational people for neighbors is truly heartwarming.

    Thanks to the Review Panel and to Mayor Hick for their good work in this regard!  

    "Green" with envy... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    they still lock you up over dime bags in the Apple...and try to pump you for info on where you get your stash.

    Of course there should be no punishment of anykind for partaking of an inalienable right...but if there must be a dollar sounds about right, less than the cost of one toke of quality reefer:)

    Parent

    Although these things (none / 0) (#2)
    by JamesTX on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08:30 PM EST
    sound like resounding victories, and in a sense they are, they actually make some major parts of the problem worse. The problem with drug prohibition is that the massive profits accrued by those willing to deal illegally result in unbelievable financial empowerment of organized crime. Decriminalizing "small amounts for personal use" leads to increase in demand, but the profits for dealing still remain safely within the coffers of organized crime. If we want to solve the problem which drug prohibition has created, then we have to decriminalize all amounts.

    I don't see this... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    ...as any sort of resounding victory.  Rather, it is a small step on a long, long journey.  It represent progress, but by no means are the larger battles over or the war won.  

    I doubt very much that there has been a marked increase in demand due to the decriminalition here.  It certainly hasn't resulted in an increase in supply.  

    Parent

    It seems like (none / 0) (#10)
    by JamesTX on Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    the "small amount for personal use" laws are going to start falling like dominoes, and I am afraid that is as far as it will go. If so, it is bad policy, and it will never solve the problem. The problem is where the money goes, and that is what keeps the corrupt and misguided system working.

    Although our laws are full of contradictions, this type of change is a whopper of a contradiction. It basically says that the result of committing a felony is legal, only if you don't get caught committing the felony.

    I do see your point that it is a first step, but we mustn't forget that is all it is -- a symbolic recognition that something is wrong.

    Not only does it leave the profits and power in the hands of criminals, it does nothing toward benefiting those who need or want substances but who are law abiding enough to refuse to deal with criminals or to break the law to get them. It doesn't make substances "available", except to those who already deal with criminals. It leaves the gangs in charge, and I don't see the benefit of that.

    It leaves not only the profits in the hands of organized crime, but also the logistics of distribution and the choice of who receives the product. It leaves criminals in control, when we deserve freedom (not just a willingness of the state to look the other way).

    My arguments about drug reform are different from many people, because my arguments about the economic problem are sincere -- not just rationalizations to make the drug available. I really believe the major problem with prohibition is the fact that it empowers criminals. I am not satisfied just to be able to possess the drug, and then not worry about the larger problem. I fear most Americans are in fact satisfied with the "small amount for personal use" decriminalization, which will leave the same fundamental system in place, along with all its problems. Even "small amount for personal use" users will ultimately not gain from it, although they may be shortsighted enough to view it as a gain, and they may even be shortsighted enough to be happy with it overall.

    Parent

    Seems (none / 0) (#3)
    by eric on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 10:55:19 PM EST
    reasonable.  Good for Denver.

    seems perfectly reasonable, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 11:49:18 PM EST
    and i suspect the police (for the most part) will be happy as well; this frees them up to deal with actual dangers to public safety, and reduces time wasted on nickelndime charges in court.

    however, to bring this up to par with alcohol, are people under the influence going to be treated the same way as they are now for liquor? dui is dui, whether it's pot or beer. both adversely affect your ability to drive safely, and should be treated similarly. it's only fair.

    the more we treat pot as being roughly comparable to alcohol, in terms of its affects on reaction time, etc, the easier for the average person to  accept it as comparable, and not as some "demon weed". our politicians will be forced, eventually, to follow suit.

    Jeez - your fines are cheap. (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 09:32:10 AM EST
    Where I live, you can get the following fines:

    not picking it up after your dog defecates on the sidewalk - $250
    letting your dog walk on the grass in the park - $250 to $1000
    not taking the most direct paved path with your dog from the street outside the park to the fenced-in dog runs in the park - $250 to $1000
    dog off leash - $250 to $1000
    parking meter violation - about $38 to $60 (depends on which meter;  some of them are for only 15 minutes per quarter)
    Parking too close to the corner - $51 to $76  (and then there's the boot and towing for non-residents who park on the reisdents-only side of the street.  Figure a couple hundred to get rid of that)
    public urination - $500 to $1000 (they go for the higher fine on St. Patrick's Day)
    public intoxication - $500 to $1000

    I once met someone who got tagged for having two dogs off leash and they had wandered onto the grass in the park.  The dog enforcement officer (who lurks in the parks looking for all the world like a perv who's going to jump out of the bushes and molest someone) hit her with four tickets (2/dog) - total exposure:  $4000.

    I'm all in favor of cutting all sorts of fines, and Denver seems to be leading the way.... more power to them.

    It's still $1.00 too much. (none / 0) (#7)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 10:52:48 AM EST


    Madison Ordinance 23.20 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 01:03:22 PM EST

    23.20 REGULATIONS CONCERNING MARIJUANA AND CANNABIS.

    (Section 23.20 Cr. by Ord. 5833, 4-18-77)

    1. Purpose. The people of Madison specifically determine that the regulations herein contained concerning marijuana and cannabis are necessary to serve the ethical purpose of providing just and equitable legal treatment of the citizens of this community and to preserve the respect of such citizens for law, its process, and its administration.

    2. Definitions. In this section:

    Cannabis. The resin extracted from any part of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., or any other nonfibrous extract from any part of the plant containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

    Casually possess. The possession of not more than twenty-eight (28) grams of cannabis, or one hundred and twelve (112) grams of marijuana.

    Marijuana. All parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds. It does not include cannabis or any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

    Sec. 23.20(2) OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC POLIC

    Practitioner.

    1. A physician, dentist, veterinarian, podiatrist, scientific investigator, or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.

    2. A pharmacy, hospital, or other institution licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.

    Public place. A place which is in public ownership or a place to which the public has access; distinguished from a private place

    (3) A person may casually possess marijuana or cannabis in a private place. Such casual possession is not a crime and is not subject to forfeiture

    (4) No person shall casually possess marijuana or cannabis in a public place unless such marijuana or cannabis was obtained directly from or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of her, his, or its professional practice.

    (5) A violation of Subsection (4) of this ordinance shall be subject to a forfeiture of up to one hundred dollars ($100). (Am. by Ord. 9244, 8-14-87)

    (6) A violation of this ordinance is not a crime and shall not subject a person found in violation thereof to loss of civil rights or to other disabilities imposed upon a person convicted of a crime. No entry or other record may be made which indicates that a person alleged or found to have violated this ordinance has been arrested for, charged with, prosecuted for, or convicted of a crime.

    (7) Separability Clause. If any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.

    (Section 23.20 Cr. by Ord. 5833, 4-18-77)

    The fine under Subsection (4) was originally $5, but upped by the City Council in the 1987 revision, to match the open alcohol penalty.