Cuomo Endorses Bill to Reduce Marijuana Arrests

ERROR

no box found for context_ad_box

ERROR

no box found for date_header_box

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:02:00 AM EST

ERROR

no box found for timestamp_update_link_box

Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

ERROR

no box found for aggregator_widgets_box

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced a legislative proposal that would make marijuana possession in public a violation punishable by a fine, and enforced via a summons in lieu of arrest. That's the current law in New York for personal possession of small amounts of marijuana (up to an ounce) not in public view.

Smoking marijuana in public would remain a misdemeanor. But Cuomo endorsed the police department's use of stop and frisk.

“Stop-and-frisk is a well-accepted police strategy all across the country,” the governor said in announcing his legislative proposal yesterday.

Mayor Bloomberg is supporting Cuomo's bill. Why go halfway? Neither public nor private possession of marijuana should be a violation or a crime. [More...]

According to Bloomberg:

The governor’s proposal today is consistent with the commissioner’s directive and strikes the right balance by ensuring that the NYPD will continue to have the tools it needs to maintain public safety, including making arrests for selling or smoking marijuana,” Bloomberg said.

Some argue the change in law will not eliminate the racially disparate effect of marijuana penalties:

If the bill passes, Harry Levine, a Queens College sociologist, offered a warning: There may be fewer marijuana arrests, but he says we'll probably see tens of thousands more summonses issued for marijuana possession in the same precincts where people were previously getting arrested.

“So it will be young blacks and Latinos ― mostly men ― who are being given the summonses, just as it is mostly ― 87 percent ― of those who are being arrested now,” he predicted.

Also, if those summoned don't show up to pay the fine, they can still be arrested.

Is the bill an improvement over the current law? Yes. Is it enough? No.

< Bon Jovi Flies With Obama on Air Force One | Nine Jurors Picked for Jerry Sandusky Trial >

ERROR

no box found for diary_vote_box

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

no box found for story_info_box

More smoke and mirrors (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by lentinel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:17:27 AM EST

from the chicken-hearted.

Cuomo and Bloomie are still enamored of what they lovingly refer to as "stop and frisk". As we all know, stop and frisk is a, "well accepted strategy all across the country" sayeth the gov.

So - because this blatant disregard for civil liberties and individual rights has been going on for quite awhile now, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, we can declare that this "strategy" has been "well accepted".

Please.

This is why we get nowhere.

In exchange for not being jailed for possession of a flower, we are meant to accept being stopped and frisked.

Thanks a bunch.

Your Accepting the Premise (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:53:42 AM EST

I would argue the only place know it's "stop and frisk" policy is NYC. While I am certain it happens in a lot of cities, NYC is the only one that seems to think it's acceptable and worthy of praise.
-----------

What is the point of the summons, so a judge can scold people ? It's a major inconvenience to go to court for BS, especially if you get the summons in a part of town you don't live in. And for out-of-towners, the inconvenience of having to come back for court could be greater than an actual arrest.

Why not let people mail in a fine and call it a day.


I think the "summons" would be (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:57:07 AM EST

no different from a traffic ticket/citation which is also considered a summons to appear in the event you do not pay the fine in time - or want to be heard on the merits of the violation.


: That's What I Was Thinking... (none / 0) (#7)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:20:13 AM EST

...but this infers one would be required to actually show up, no ?

Also, if those summoned don't show up to pay the fine, they can still be arrested.
If that's not the case, then what's the problem ? Seems like treating weed as dangerous as speeding isn't too bad a deal.

Maybe because (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:27:27 AM EST

The inconvenience might make someone think twice about doing it?


Yes, because look at how traffic tickets (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:03:17 AM EST

and parking tickets have nearly eradicated the problem of drivers exceeding the speed limits, driving under the influence, and parking illegally, among other things.

All those people who once wouldn't have thought twice about breaking the law are models of propriety, making it a real pleasure to motor the nation's highways and roads...


Well (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:44:29 AM EST

Then why should I feel sorry for the "inconvenience" of all those poor out of towners who just can't send in a fine?

BTW - I'm not saying I approve of a "stop and frisk", but the argument that if caught, you shouldn't have to appear in person is ludicrous.


Then why did cities and towns all over (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:58:05 AM EST

the country stop requiring people to appear if they paid their traffic and parking fines before the due date?

Because the system can't handle the volume of people having to appear just to pay a fine, and the powers that be figured out a way to get people to pay for not being inconvenienced.

No one's asking you to feel sorry for anyone - that would be pretty much a waste of time, wouldn't it?


The prohibition is what is ludicrous... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:46:10 AM EST

having to appear, miss a day of work, etc. is a hassle, and so infuriantingly unnecessary considering the non-crime we're talking about here.


That is a different argument (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:51:25 AM EST

As the law currently is - MJ possession or sale is illegal. Everyone who smokes that knows that and does it anyways. If you are adult and "free" enough to make that choice, then why should you not be adult and "free" enough to take the results? If you are inconvenienced, then, oh well, too bad - that goes along with the choice you made and should be accounted for in your decision making process.

You, on the other hand, as well as many in this thread, are arguing that because you believe it should be legalized now or at some point in the future, then no consequence should befall you now, which is an entirely different argument.


: As the law in NY currently is, it is (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:08:39 AM EST

not a crime to possess small amounts of marijuana - it is a violation, the equivalent of a traffic ticket.
The problem, as I pointed out to kdog, is that it is still a crime to publicly display it, so cops were stopping people and ordering them to empty their pockets and if marijuana was found, were charging them with a crime for it being publicly displayed.
It makes no sense that the same substance goes from being a violation to a crime by virtue of whether it's in your pocket or in your hand, and for cops to be facilitating that progressio; the law is being proposed to remedy that inconsistency.

: Because the results... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:05:32 AM EST

are more criminal than the supposed criminal offense.
Just because everybody knows or should know the law doesn't make the law right or just, nor the consequences. All complaints are totally legitimate.

The inconvenience (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by lentinel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:04:08 AM EST

might make people think twice about doing what?


I may be late to this question but, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:19:20 PM EST

what is the rationale for "stop & frisk?" I mean, I realize it's a giant fishing expedition, but how do they get around "probable cause?"

Because SHUT UP that's why n/t (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Repack Rider on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:35:03 PM EST

Thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:41:15 PM EST

That may be the real explanation, but I'm looking for the legal pretext.


You've made me laugh (none / 0) (#28)
by sj on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:26:00 PM EST

about three times today.


: Then, (none / 0) (#29)
by NYShooter on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:57:32 AM EST

I have fulfilled my life's goal:)

See "Terry v. Ohio": (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:29:48 PM EST

Almost reads like... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:34:37 AM EST

a marijuana exemption specific to stop & frisk, as being stopped and frisked is the only way I can think of to get pinched while not actually smoking herb.

Scrapping the unconstitutional stop & frisk program would be preferable, but I'll take any movement in the right direction. For a so called "liberal" state we so far behind the curve on this it's ridiculous.

That was actually the problem - (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:51:00 AM EST

it was only a violation to possess small amounts of marijuana, but it was a crime to publicly display it. People being stopped and frisked were being ordered to empty their pockets , or cops were reaching into their pockets to bring the dope into view, and once the marijuana was being "publicly displayed," the cops were charging them with a crime.

So, essentially, the law takes away the cops' ability to turn a violation into a crime.

It's all pretty stupid, but I suppose some progress is better than none...


Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:02:22 AM EST

not allowing the police to stop and order pockets emptied without probable cause would accomplish the same thing. But they love their stop & frisk, so I think this is all about making stop & frisk more palatable.

Cuomo and Bloomberg certainly don't have any newfound respect for our liberty.


Weird. Did not know about (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by brodie on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:33:38 AM EST

this bizarre law enforcement practice. It's not just stupid but fundamentally wrong in a civilized society to be turned into a criminal for complying with a cop's request which most would consider they had no choice but to comply with.

This one should have been eliminated a long time ago, day one of a new administration. Nice that Cuomo is finally getting around to it but he's a little late and it's hardly a courageous bold move.


: Imagine if They Did It With Liquor (none / 0) (#25)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:20:33 PM EST

Empty the brown bag, ohhhh, your publicly displaying alcohol, off to jail with you.
Unrelated and not sure if this is the case in NYC, but in Houston one of the dumbest laws ever is requiring alcohol be bagged in public. Unless of course it's in it's own case like a 12 pack.
What is the rationalization, someone might see the label and run off and get drunk ? That a container of alcohol is so offensive it must be covered like a nudie mag ? But then it just doesn't matter if it's simply too big to put in a bag, like a case of beer. Stupid.

Does anyone actually know (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:15:08 AM EST

whether or not you can mail in the fine as you can in many traffic arrests??

I'm pretty sure... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:42:57 AM EST

you will have to appear in court, you just won't be arrested anymore. No mailing in a fine.

That's how it worked for summonses I have received for open container violations, there is no plead guilty and pay by mail option, you have to drag your arse to the courthouse. Often you get lucky and the cop doesn't show up, and the charges are dropped/reduced, but you're still out a day's pay.

Or You Get Unlucky... (none / 0) (#26)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:31:06 PM EST

...and you have to wait for about 1000 mf'ers trying to get out of some BS ticket and you spend the entire day on a wooden bench too scared to slip out and use the can.

I don't know if they go alphabetically, but I have never not been one of the last men/women standing for BS court.

Although my last 'must appear' was for a inspection sticker and as soon as I walked in, there was a window next to the courtroom for people who just wanted to pay the fine. Not sure if everyone had that luxury of just the idiots who were driving another person's car and didn't realize the inspection sticker was in the visor.

They could have let me pay the $20 fine online and saved the world some pollution and congestion by having me drive out to the burbs to do it. But I was happy as hell.


: Speaking of idiots, (none / 0) (#27)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:33:56 PM EST

has anyone noticed that most municipalities, in their zoning laws, require ten times more parking spaces than necessary for stores, yet municipal buildings have no public parking spaces at all?

Why go halfway? (none / 0) (#20)
by lentinel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:48:12 AM EST

Good question.

Those who would oppress us don't go half way. They go all the way.

The rightwingers don't go for halfway. They are relentless and totally committed to their ideologies.

The leftwingers, or the remnants thereof, settle for half way.
And that is what we are being encouraged to accept that as the best we can do. The most we can or should expect.

They enable those who oppress us and want us to thank them for it.

So, Has President Choomwagon (none / 0) (#30)
by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 09:14:08 AM EST

weighed in on this issue?

After all, it has been well established that no one who smokes pot ever amounts to anything.

no box found for comment_post_box

ERROR

ERROR