mt:Include module="Global Settings" /> February 2012 Archives: Colorado Criminal Lawyer Blog

February 2012 Archives

February 29, 2012

Ignorance Of New Law - No Defense to "Spice" Synthetic Marijuana Prosecutions In Colorado

| Share


As a result of some major publicity by a local television station and their investigation of certain types of so called synthetic marijuaua in 2011 - the Colorado State Legislature introduced and passed legislation to outlaw the manufacture - sale and even the possession of the synthetic substance.

Since the enactmenton of the law on July 1, 2011 - synthetic cannabinoids have been illegal to sell in Colorado. Substances like "Spice" and "K2" are known to act like marijuana but are created with synthetic chemicals.

The products were - and apparently still are - sold at various retail outlets and gas stations in Colorado.

In a report in the Denver Post last summer a spokesperson for certain Colorado Drug Task Forces confirmed that law enforcement was taking a slow approach to enforcing th new law.

"We need to enforce the law, but we also want to be responsible and not play a 'gotcha' game with people that are inadvertently selling this and they just don't know better."

But that is changing.


Recent Arrest In Denver Focuses on Gas Station Owner

As a result of a recent arrest of a gas station owner and employee - who sold spice to the public and also to high school students at East High School - the public was reminded of the alleged dangers of spice by the state legislator who introduced the law - Mike Kopp:

"Synthetic cannabinoids ....(spice) "behave substantially differently in a person's brain, and it absolutely should be seen as a controlled substance. There's a charade that has taken place, and frankly, it's a pretty dangerous one, where spice is sold as incense. But it's sprayed with any of five different kinds of chemicals. The odd thing is, none of these chemicals add any odor whatsoever. The only thing they do is serve to produce a high that has landed kids in the hospital with violent hallucinations."

Here Is The New Spice - K2 Law in Colorado

18-18-406.2. Unlawful distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale, or cultivation of synthetic cannabinoids or salvia divinorum.

(1) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to:

(a) Manufacture, dispense, sell, or distribute, or to possess with intent to manufacture, dispense, sell, or distribute, any amount of any synthetic cannabinoid or salvia divinorum;

(b) Induce, attempt to induce, or conspire with one or more other persons, to manufacture, dispense, sell, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture, dispense, sell, or distribute, any amount of any synthetic cannabinoid or salvia divinorum; or

(c) Cultivate salvia divinorum with intent to dispense, sell, or distribute any amount of the salvia divinorum.

(2) A person who violates any provision of subsection (1) of this section commits a class 5 felony.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, a person who violates any provision of subsection (1) of this section by dispensing, selling, or distributing any amount of any synthetic cannabinoid or salvia divinorum commits a class 4 felony if the person:

(a) Dispenses, sells, or distributes the synthetic cannabinoid or salvia divinorum to a minor who is less than eighteen years of age; and

(b) Is at least eighteen years of age and at least two years older than said minor.

(4) As used in this section, "dispense" does not include labeling, as defined in section 12-22-102 (16), C.R.S.

Source: L. 2011: Entire section added, (SB 11-134), ch. 261, p. 1139, § 2, effective July 1, 2011
.
Editor's note: Section 5 of chapter 261, Session Laws of Colorado 2011, provides that the act adding this section applies to offenses committed on or after July 1, 2011.



Posted by H. Michael Steinberg | | Email This Post

February 9, 2012

Accused In Colorado Sex Crime Case Acquitted Based In Large Part On Poor Police Investigation

| Share

Former Greeley police officer Daniel Shepherd was found not guilty by a Colorado jury on February 8, 2012.

What makes this case so important - is that the jury looked at the "he said - she said" nature of the allegations - found both sides had lied or covered up - so they did what jurys are supposed to do - they focused on the absence of forensic evidence that would have pointed the way to the truth. This time - because of the incompetence of the police - there was none

In the words of one juror - who clearly got it right:

All we had to go on was their testimony," Sanchez said. "And we couldn't believe either of their testimonies, with her inconsistencies and previous claims, and he lied throughout most of the (investigation).

" But our job is guilty versus not guilty, not guilty versus innocent."

According to the Greeley Tribune who tracked the story - the investigation leading to the trial and acquittal - took eleven months "Eleven months of hell."

The alleged victim had accused Shepard of unlawful sexual contact of a then 19-year-old woman, after he ordered her to leave a party March 13, 2011.

H. Michael's Take

The jury system worked. When left with pure contradictory testimony - the jury placed the burden of proof squarely where it belonged - on the state of Colorado

As one juror put it "All we had to go on was their testimony,...and we couldn't believe either of their testimonies, with her inconsistencies and previous claims, and he lied throughout most of the (investigation)."

Evidence that could have conclusively proven the innocence of the accused - was never preserved - the alleged victim's clothing was never collected and tested - DNA from and other possible evidence that could have been extracted from a SANE examination and rape kit - was never obtained.

The Greeley police department, in not collecting the relevant evidence - denied the accused the benefit of evidence that could have led the District Attorney to dismiss the charges.

"Clearly, there were errors made at the start of the case, and that made the detectives work harder," said the Greeley Police Department . "This is one of those investigations where I'd say, while very good work was done, it certainly wasn't perfect."

This is the kind of case that should be studied by all Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyers.

This is the kind of case that restores one's faith in the criminal justice system and in the good common sense of the jury - the great equalizer.

Posted by H. Michael Steinberg | | Email This Post

February 2, 2012

GPS Tracking Shut Down By Supremes

| Share

In a unanimous but confusing decision issued by the United States Supreme Court last week - the justices held that a 28 day use of a GPS tracking device paced on a suspects vehicle without the benefit of a search warrant - is unconsitutional.

The confusing part? Scalia did not hold that a warrant was always necessary. Walter Dellinger, who represented the Defendant Antoine Jones at the Supreme Court, said the decision means that any use of GPS technology by law enforcement without a warrant "would be a risky undertaking."

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote majority opinion stating that it was the attachment of the device that violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"We hold that the government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search,' " Scalia wrote.

This issue now is the future -- the Court limited it's holding to the fact of the case and refused to write a clear rule that law enforcement could use for guidance under different circumstances.

The justices - raising clear questions of other technologies equally intrusive wrote in separate opinions, of the sweeping changes technology has brought to society that do not involve government intrusions.

"In the course of carrying out mundane tasks," Sotomayor wrote, Americans disclose the phone numbers they dial, the URLs they visit, "the books, groceries and medications they purchase."

Alito wrote of toll booths that record a motorist's travels, cars that come ready to broadcast their locations and 322 million wireless devices in use nationally.

H. Michael's Take

What is most certainly going to happen at this point is that the States -- picking up on the Court's reasoning will most likely find that the long term use of survelliance devices - of any kind - are suspect - and that the actions of law enforcement in tracking citizens using these kinds of technologies will be presumed unconstitutional.

Posted by H. Michael Steinberg | | Email This Post

« January 2012 | Main Index | Archives | March 2012 »