SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 27 2009, 08:57am EDT
Contact:
510.251.1856 or Toll-free 888.929.4367 *,info@safeaccessnow.org
Congressional Medical Marijuana Bill Lifts Ban on Evidence in Federal Court
WASHINGTON
U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) and
more than twenty original bipartisan co-sponsors introduced legislation
today that
would
allow defendants in medical marijuana cases the ability to use medical
evidence at trial, a right not currently afforded them. Because of a
June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the
government has the discretion to enforce federal marijuana laws even in
medical marijuana states. The Raich ruling also allows federal
prosecutors to exclude evidence of medical use or state law compliance
in federal trials, all but guaranteeing convictions of medical
marijuana patients and providers.
Last week, the U.S. Attorney General issued guidelines to federal
prosecutors discouraging them from prosecuting cases in which patients
and providers are "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing
state laws." Unfortunately, the
guidelines neither direct U.S. Attorneys to abandon the more than
two-dozen pending federal medical marijuana cases, nor allow defendants
the ability to use medical evidence to exonerate themselves. "This is a
common sense bill that will help stop the waste of law enforcement and
judicial resources that have been spent prosecuting individuals who are
following state law," Rep. Farr said on Tuesday. "We need strict drug
laws, but we also need to apply a little common sense to how they're
enforced. This legislation is about treating defendants in cases
involving medical marijuana fairly, plain and simple."
During the Bush Administration, more than a hundred federal cases were
prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys against medical marijuana patients and
providers who were prevented from using medical evidence at trial.
Because of an inability to properly defend themselves, scores of people
have been convicted and have received sentences of up to 20 years in
federal prison. While the Justice Department guidelines may result in
fewer federal prosecutions, they are unlikely to assist defendants
currently
being prosecuted. Underscoring the need for the "Truth in Trials" Act,
San Diego U.S. Attorney Karen Hewitt, a Bush appointee, recently
responded to the guidelines by claiming she still does not have to
prove a violation of state law before prosecuting someone under federal
law.
"The 'Truth in Trials' Act will restore the balance of justice and
bring fundamental fairness to federal
medical marijuana trials," said Caren Woodson, Government Affairs
Director with Americans for Safe Access, the legislation's endorser.
"This legislation complements the recent Justice Department
guidelines for federal prosecutors and is now more necessary than ever."
Routinely, federal prosecutors seek long prison
sentences in medical marijuana cases. Charles C. Lynch, a locally
licensed medical marijuana dispensary operator from Morro Bay,
California who had the support of his City Council and local Chamber of
Commerce, was prosecuted and
convicted under the Bush Administration. Although Lynch was accused by
the federal government of violating state law, he could not use
evidence of his compliance with state law at trial. "I was denied an
affirmative defense despite my strict adherence to local and state
medical marijuana laws," said Lynch. "Passage of this bill will allow
jurors to hear the entire story." Lynch is currently released on bail
pending his appeal.
The "Truth in Trials" bill has been introduced by Congress in past
sessions, but is especially relevant now that the Obama Administration
has changed federal policy on medical marijuana. At the time of
introduction, the "Truth in Trials" bill had been endorsed by a diverse
group of more than three-dozen advocacy, health, and legal
organizations, including Americans for Safe Access (ASA), American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National
Association of People With AIDS (NAPWA), National Minority AIDS Council
(NMAC), and
AIDS Action Council. The "Truth in Trials" bill is likely to be
referred to the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. A
companion bill has yet to be introduced in the U.S.
Senate.
Contact ASA at 510-681-6361 to coordinate
interviews with current federal defendants and those convicted without
a defense
For further information:
"Truth in Trials" legislation introduced today:
https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Truth_in_Trials_Act.pdf
Congressional cosponsors of "Truth in Trials" Act:
https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=5825
More information on the "Truth in Trials" Act:
https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/section.php?id=354
Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
LATEST NEWS
USDA Tells Grocery Stores They Can't Give Discounts to People Hit by Trump's Food Stamp Freeze
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
Nov 02, 2025
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Targets Another Late Night Comedian, Saying It's 'Probably Illegal' to Make Fun of Him
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
Nov 02, 2025
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICE's 'Frightening' Facial Recognition App is Scanning US Citizens Without Their Consent
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Nov 01, 2025
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular