Good news in Arizona today. The state Supreme Court threw out a mandatory sentence saying it was too severe:

Taking a slap at legislatively imposed mandatory sentences, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a 52-year prison term a judge was forced to impose on a 20-year-old man for having sex with two teen girls. The justices pointed out that if the man had committed second-degree murder instead of consensual sex with underage girls, he would have gotten the same prison term.

They also said Arizona's penalties for the man's sex offenses were the harshest in the nation. Thursday's ruling does not mean the man is set free, but that he is entitled to be resentenced - this time without regard to the mandatory minimum.

The ruling also spells out that judges must have the discretion to depart from mandatory minimums as circumstances warrant.

Good news in Arizona today. The state Supreme Court threw out a mandatory sentence saying it was too severe:

Taking a slap at legislatively imposed mandatory sentences, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a 52-year prison term a judge was forced to impose on a 20-year-old man for having sex with two teen girls. The justices pointed out that if the man had committed second-degree murder instead of consensual sex with underage girls, he would have gotten the same prison term.

They also said Arizona's penalties for the man's sex offenses were the harshest in the nation. Thursday's ruling does not mean the man is set free, but that he is entitled to be resentenced - this time without regard to the mandatory minimum.

The ruling also spells out that judges must have the discretion to depart from mandatory minimums as circumstances warrant.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that nervousness alone cannot support a vehicle search when police stop the car for a traffic violation. The court invalidated a consent to search that was obtained during the stop.

Noting that innocent people are frequently nervous when confronted by a law enforcement officer — a phenomenon Judge Rosemary Barkett said is shared by lawyers presenting cases to appellate judges — the court said more is necessary to change a traffic stop into a drug search.

The case has a fact pattern familiar to any lawyer who defends drug cases. The "crossed over the white line" offense.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that nervousness alone cannot support a vehicle search when police stop the car for a traffic violation. The court invalidated a consent to search that was obtained during the stop.

Noting that innocent people are frequently nervous when confronted by a law enforcement officer — a phenomenon Judge Rosemary Barkett said is shared by lawyers presenting cases to appellate judges — the court said more is necessary to change a traffic stop into a drug search.

The case has a fact pattern familiar to any lawyer who defends drug cases. The "crossed over the white line" offense.

Skippy asks a pertinent question:

Why is it that when the will of the people to recall a democratic governor and install a repubbblican one, it's a good thing, but when that same electorate votes to allow use of medical marijuana, it's a bad thing?

Prop. 215 , the Compassionate Use Act, was passed by the California voters 7 years ago. Its purpose is to allow those suffering from chronic pain and other medical problems to obtain relief through the use of marijuana. Why are those running marijuana co-ops getting jail time instead of support from state authrorities?

Skippy asks a pertinent question:

Why is it that when the will of the people to recall a democratic governor and install a repubbblican one, it's a good thing, but when that same electorate votes to allow use of medical marijuana, it's a bad thing?

Prop. 215 , the Compassionate Use Act, was passed by the California voters 7 years ago. Its purpose is to allow those suffering from chronic pain and other medical problems to obtain relief through the use of marijuana. Why are those running marijuana co-ops getting jail time instead of support from state authrorities?

Here's more on yesterday's yesterday's Supreme Court decision rejecting the Government's appeal of a 9th Circuit marijuana decision upholding a physician's right to recommend medical marijuana.

Go over and vote in the medical marijuana poll. As of 7:00 am Denver time, 94% favor medicial marijuana, 4% oppose and 2% are unsure. It's early here and only 47 total votes are in. Register your opinion and check back with the poll throughout the day.

A federal judge ruled today that five reporters must reveal the confidential sources of information they used in writing articles about former weapons laboratory nucelar scientist Dr. Wen Ho Lee. The reporters were also ordered to turn over to their notes and other material generated during their prepatory work to Dr. Lee's lawyers.

Judge Jackson ruled that First Amendment protections that shield journalists from government interference were outweighed in this specific case by the need of Dr. Lee's lawyers to provide evidence of government leaks in their suit against the government.

We wonder if anyone at the White House is shaking in their boots yet. Can a similar ruling in the Valerie Plame case be far behind?

Can it really be necessary for border agents to dismantle gas tanks of cars coming across the border? The Bush Administration says yes. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said no. The Supreme Court will decide.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide if border officers can randomly search gas tanks of vehicles coming into the country, security measures the Bush administration argued are important in the war on drugs and terrorism.

An appeals court had said that officers can visually inspect gas tanks, but not dismantle them unless they have reason to suspect wrongdoing.

...the White House, argued that the decision would make it easier to sneak weapons, drugs and even people into America. On the other side, lawyers said it's unconstitutionally intrusive, and potentially hazardous, for vehicles to be taken apart at border stops.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Supreme Court has held that people entering the United States can be subjected to routine searches without suspicion. At issue here is whether such gas-tank searches are routine, or whether reasonable suspicion is required before a search.

We agree with the defense that:

...there's a difference between dismantling searches with mechanics and routine inspections involving drug dogs, fiber optic scopes or manual steps like tapping on the tank.

Dismantling, which is far more instrusive, should not be performed at the direction and discretion of border agents, absent evidence of wrong-doing. The case is United States v. Flores-Montano, 02-1794.

Great news....

The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.

Justices turned down the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or perhaps just talking about the benefits of the drug to sick patients. An appeals court said the government cannot.

This case was unusual in that it involved not just medical marijuana but doctors' First Amendment free speech rights.

This one presented a more difficult issue, pitting free-speech rights of doctors against government power to keep physicians from encouraging illegal drug use. A ruling for the Bush administration would have made the state medical marijuana laws unusable.

Some California doctors and patients, in filings at the Supreme Court, compared doctor information on pot to physicians' advice on "red wine to reduce the risk of heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, or chicken soup."

Here are some details of the case and opinions that we posted in July.

Update: Marijuana backers react to the ruling. Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times describes the case and issues.

Good news and bad news for marijuana users in Canada today. The Ontario Court of Appeal has strengthened the rights of medical marijuana patients and growers, while reinstituting a ban on recreational use of small amounts of the drug.

As to medical marijuana, the Court struck down provisions of the existing law that:

...restricted licensed growers of medical marijuana from receiving compensation for their product, from growing the drug for more than one qualified patient and from pooling resources with other licensed producers.

The ruling agreed with a lower court ruling in January that found the regulations were unfair because they forced those who qualified under the program to either grow their own pot or buy it on the black market.

"Many of these individuals are not only seriously ill, they are also significantly physically handicapped and therefore cannot possibly grow their own marijuana," the synopsis said. "A scheme that authorizes possession of marijuana by seriously ill individuals but which drives some of them to the black market ... undermines the rule of law and fails to create a constitutionally valid medical exemption to the criminal prohibition against marijuana."

As to recreational users, tough luck. The ruling:

...reinstates the pot-possession laws that were effectively suspended in Ontario late last year. "This narrow remedy would create a constitutionally valid medical exemption, making marijuana prohibition ... immediately constitutionally valid and of full force and effect and removing any uncertainty concerning the validity of the prohibition," said a synopsis of the ruling issued by the court.

Drug War Rant has some analysis of the ruling. Here's some more news.

Update: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has suspended Judge Nottingham's order declaring telemarketer's "do not call lists" unconsittutional while it considers the validity of the ruling.

********************

Kudos to Kevin Drum of Calpundit for being the lead-in to this morning's Denver Post article about U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham and his controversial ruling declaring the telemarketing "no call" list unconstitutional.

Ruling puts no-frills judge in hot seat

Over the past two weeks, people across the country have wondered, as have those who post their opinions online at Calpundit, a California Web log - just who is this Edward Nottingham?

"WHO IS EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM? AND WHY DO 51 MILLION PEOPLE NOW HATE HIM? Judicial activism must be stopped!" was how the Nottingham thread opened on Calpundit.

The article goes on to quote local attorneys and others familiar with Judge Nottingham, the strictness with which he runs his courtroom and his rulings. Most acknowledge that the Judge, appointed in 1989 by Bush, Sr., leaves his politics out of the courtroom.

We'll agree.