[420 Girl]

WA. - The Washington Supreme Court ruled on a medical marijuana case, State v. Fry, last week. It is a messy group of opinions, and a messy outcome.

A few facts: on Dec. 20, 2004, two police officers knocked on the door of Jason and Tina Fry of Colville, Stevens County. Police had been told the Frys were growing marijuana, and as they approached they smelled marijuana smoke. At the door, Tina Fry presented a document from a physician authorizing Jason Fry to smoke it for medical reasons.

The physician, Dr. Thomas Orvald, had written that Jason Fry had a scar behind his right ear and on his chin from injuries inflicted by a horse. Orvald wrote in the notes section of the document: “Severe anxiety!! Can’t function.” And he wrote, “Pt [patient] has found use of medical cannabis allows him to function [with] self control of anger, rage, & depression. Pt has been kicked in head 3 times by horse.”

The police called a judge and asked for a warrant, which was given over the telephone.

Question No. 1: Once the police were shown that document, was there probable cause for a judge to issue a search warrant?

Writing for the court, and joined by justices Barbara Madsen, Mary Fairhurst and Gerry Alexander, Justice Jim Johnson said there was probable cause. “Possession of marijuana, even in small amounts, is still a crime in the state of Washington,” wrote Johnson. All the medical-marijuana law does, Johnson wrote, is to allow the user to argue in court that he should not suffer the penalty.

Justice Richard Sanders disagreed. He argued that the physician’s letter took the meaning away from the smoke, leaving police with no probable cause to search.

The Court’s ruling, Sanders wrote, means a sick person who is supposed to benefit under the law can be searched, arrested, tried, let off, and then searched, arrested and tried again, ad infinitum. Sanders wrote: “I do not find the mercy of the people of Washington for individuals with terminal or debilitating illnesses to be so fickle.”

I don’t know whose legal argument has the most throw weight, but Sanders’ opinion has more common sense to it.

There was a third opinion, written by Justice Tom Chambers and signed by Charles Johnson, Susan Owens and Debra Stephens. It is a concurring opinion, agreeing with Justice Jim Johnson on the outcome but not his reasoning. But this gets us to…

Question No. 2: Given that “Severe anxiety!! Can’t function” isn’t one of the approved medical conditions for smoking marijuana, was the doctor’s letter any good?

Given that the search was ruled valid, Fry needed the letter to be good in order to make a “compassionate use defense.”

Justice Jim Johnson said the letter wasn’t any good. “Fry did not actually have a terminal or debilitating medical condition as provided in the Act,” he wrote. That is what the Superior Court judge had said, too.

Justice Sanders argued that the court had to presume it was good, because the police had not challenged the letter when they had it in their hands.

Justice Chambers argued that while the physician “may have been inartful” in describing Jason Fry’s medical problems, that Fry’s problems probably did qualify. But at trial, when the prosecutor had said Fry’s medical condition wasn’t covered by the law, Tina Fry’s attorney had said, “I think we have to concede that.” And Jason Fry’s attorney hadn’t disagreed. Therefore, Chambers argued, the Frys had conceded that point and couldn’t argue it any more.

In other words, the Frys lost on Question No. 2 because they had inartful attorneys.


http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...rs-letter.html