-------------------------------------------------------------------

Case should give Ninth Amendment new life (An op-ed in the Oregonian by Randy
E. Barnett, a former prosecutor and Boston University law professor, says the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative deserves to win its appeal Tuesday to
the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Oakland's brief
argues that the people have reserved the power to enact popular initiatives.
When the people pass an initiative protecting a particular liberty, judges
should respect this unenumerated liberty as they would an enumerated right.
In other words, the initiative process enables the voters of each state to
decide themselves if a liberty is fundamental, rather than leave that
decision solely to judges. While popular initiatives that restrict personal
or economic liberties should be given the same constitutional scrutiny as any
other state law, the people who approved medical marijuana ballot measures in
California, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington decided to protect
a liberty.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Sun, Apr 11 1999
Source: Oregonian, The (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Address: 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Randy E. Barnett, a former prosecutor, is an adjunct scholar at the
Cato Institute, a Boston University law professor and author of "The
Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law."

Case should give Ninth Amendment new life

State marijuana effort provides court strong test case for rights

On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will help determine the
future of the Ninth Amendment when it hears oral argument in the case of
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative v. United States.

The amendment, long ignored by the courts, reads, "The enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."

Fortunately, the City of Oakland, in a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf
of the cooperative, offers the court a "safe and effective" way to revive
this provision, a practical way that can be embraced by both liberals and
conservatives.

In November 1996, California voters passed the Medical Marijuana Initiative,
which allowed patients to grow and use marijuana when a doctor recommended
such treatment. The Oakland co-op was one of several dispensaries formed to
provide marijuana under the initiative, but the Clinton administration
brought suit to shut this experiment down, claiming that even such medical
use violates federal law.

Who should win?

The conventional answer argued by the government's lawyers is that federal
law trumps the right declared by the people's vote and that's that.
Washington wins; the voters of California lose. Next case.

But what about the Ninth Amendment's protection of unenumerated rights?
Oakland's brief argues that the people have reserved the power to enact
popular initiatives. When the people pass an initiative protecting a
particular liberty, judges should respect this unenumerated liberty as they
would an enumerated right. In other words, the initiative process enables
the voters of each state to decide themselves if a liberty is fundamental,
rather than leave that decision solely to judges.

While popular initiatives that restrict personal or economic liberties
should be given the same constitutional scrutiny as any other state law, in
California (Prop 215), Alaska (Prop 8), Arizona (Prop 300), Nevada (Question
9), Oregon (Measure 67) and Washington (Initiative 692) the people decided
to protect a liberty. When deciding whether such a liberty is fundamental,
federal judges are required by an appropriate judicial conservatism to
respect the people's judgment. Government can still restrict marijuana use.
The language means only the federal government would have the burden of
establishing that its current prohibition on medical marijuana is truly
"necessary" (which it has yet to do) and showing that such a prohibition is
"proper" or within one of its enumerated powers.

Does this mean that, if the people of the states voted to protect the
liberty to use recreational drugs, or view child pornography, the courts
should defer to their judgment? The simple answer is yes, though it is hard
to imagine a successful initiative on behalf of child pornography. And that
is one reason why the initiative process is such a practical "conservative"
way to identify fundamental unenumerated rights.

Courts have, with rare exception, been reluctant to use the Ninth Amendment
in large measure for fear of opening a Pandora's box of alleged rights. This
judicial neglect of the Ninth Amendment could end, however, if the Ninth
Circuit simply recognizes the people's initiative power to designate
fundamental liberties, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto the federal
government to show that restrictions on liberty are both necessary and proper.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Movement On 215 - In the Courts and the Capitals, the Case is Made for
Medical Marijuana (Orange County Register columnist Alan W. Bock examines the
federal and state developments that are converging in ways that could lead to
dramatic break-throughs in the medical marijuana movement. On the federal
front, the Institute of Medicine Report released March 17 shows that
marijuana shouldn't remain a Schedule 1 controlled substance. On the state
front, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer was elected to enforce
California law. Barry McCaffrey and Janet Reno are appointed federal
officials attempting to nullify a law put into place by the people of
California. Lockyer's loyalty should be to the people who elected him and
voted for Prop. 215. The federal government had every opportunity to
challenge Prop. 215 in court. It chose not to do so. To try to nullify it by
administrative fiat is despicable. Bock also reviews several pending court
cases that could lead to reform, including Jon Gettman's rescheduling
petition.)

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:33:41 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Movement On 215
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Pubdate: Sun, 11 April 1999
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Author: Alan W.Bock - Mr.Bock is the Register's senior editorial writer and
columnist. He has been following and studying the War on Drugs and its
various aspects for twenty years.

MOVEMENT ON 215

IN THE COURTS AND THE CAPITALS, THE CASE IS MADE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

More than two years after California voters passed the medical marijuana
initiative, Proposition 215 - now Section 11362.5 of the state's Health and
Safety Code - the law still has not been implemented.

Despite the desire of voters in California and elsewhere to make marijuana
available to people whose doctors believe they could benefit from it,
patients in California - especially if they prefer not to use the black
market - face constant risk from law enforcement. People like David Herrick
and Marvin Chavez in Orange County have gone to jail for trying to implement
Prop. 215 in their own ad hoc fashion.

But the times may be changing. Federal and state developments are converging
in ways that could make for reasonably dramatic break-throughs in the
medical marijuana movement.

For starters, the state's top law enforcement officer and de facto leader on
the matter is Attorney General Bill Lockyer. He supported Prop. 215 during
his campaign and wants to implement it, though he reports continuing
intransigence at the federal level.

Any rationale for federal stubbornness, however, was undermined by a report,
released in March, from the government's Institute of Medicine, which
summarized and evaluated current scientific evidence on medical uses for
marijuana. The report was ordered by federal "drug czar" Gen. Barry
McCaffrey. In what seems to have been a surprise to McCaffrey, the report
noted several current and potential medical uses for the plant.

Meanwhile, a petition asking that marijuana be taken off the Drug
Enforcement Administration "schedule" reserved for uniquely dangerous drugs
with no known medical uses, is wending its way through the federal
bureaucracy and will be ripe for action soon. That would free states and
others to better study the plant and its effects.

And a lawsuit challenging the authority of the federal government to nullify
state laws on medical marijuana should see court action within a few months.

Here's how those seemingly disparate events are coming together - and what
they could mean for medicinal use of marijuana in the future.

ON THE LEGAL FRONT

On the legal front the news is decidedly mixed. Some patients who have been
arrested have managed to avoid jail and Placer County authorities may have
bitten off more than they could chew when they arrested 1998 Libertarian
Party candidate for governor, Steve Kubby, and his wife Michele for drug
trafficking.

David Herrick of San Bernardino and Marvin Chavez of Santa Ana, two early
leaders of the Orange County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group, are in
jail, although their convictions on sales and distribution charges are being
appealed. A third local activist, Jack Schachter of Garden Grove, also faces
criminal charges.

In Los Angeles both Todd McCormick and Peter McWilliams face federal charges
for growing marijuana in quantities larger than deemed suitable by
authorities. McCormick was the "Bell Air mansion" grower, a certified
patient who had more than a thousand plants in his rented house, claiming he
was growing so many for research purposes, to see if different strains had
different effects on different illnesses and conditions.

McWilliams, a long-time publisher and author ("Ain't Nobody's Business of
You Do," Prelude Press) told authorities he had set McCormick up in the
house to do research (results are on McWilliams' website, at
www.petertrial.com). No good deed goes unpunished. McWilliams, who used
marijuana to counter the "wasting syndrome" associated with AIDS, was
arrested as a drug "kingpin."

McWilliams was released on bail (his brother and mother mortgaged their
houses to cover the $250,000) but one of the conditions of bail is that he's
not allowed to use marijuana - though he has recommendations from four
different physicians - and he's drug-tested regularly. So the court battle
means he can't use the medicine he and his doctors believe is prolonging,
perhaps even saving his life. He has filed an urgent appeal to allow him to
do so before his case comes to trial, now scheduled for September.

In San Diego, Steve McWilliams (no relation) has just completed a promising
plea-bargain with the San Diego district attorney. He was arrested for
distribution as he and a friend were bringing a plant to a paraplegic
patient. He pleaded guilty to a single count and got probation. He will be
allowed to run his growing facility in downtown San Diego and will work with
police to develop procedures for acceptable cultivation.

Unlike some of the "cannabis clubs" that have been formally closed, Steve
McWilliams does no distribution. He simply has a place where patients, with
a doctor's recommendation, can bring their own seeds or plants and get help,
advice and some sense of security as they grow.

THE KUBBY CASE

The case that has attracted the most publicity statewide involves Steve
Kubby and his wife, Michele, in Tahoe City. Steve Kubby played a role in
getting Prop. 215 passed and was the Libertarian Party candidate for
governor in 1998. During the campaign he told audiences up and down the
state about his diagnosis of adrenal cancer more than 20 years ago, and his
conviction that marijuana had somehow kept the cancer (almost always fatal
in six months), in remission and helped to control his high blood pressure.
He had a signed recommendation from a licensed physician.

In January more than a dozen armed officers from the local-federal-state
North Tahoe Task Force barged into the Kubbys' rented house. They found more
than a hundred marijuana plants in various basement rooms - but they also
found recommendations from physicians for both Steve and Michele (who has a
funny-sounding but extremely debilitating condition known as irritable bowel
syndrome) and copies of the protocols and guidelines worked out by the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club, which had worked closely with city officials
before the feds closed it down.

No matter. After consultation with the DA's office both Kubbys were arrested
and taken to jail (fortunately a neighbor was able to take care of their
2-year-old daughter). They are charged with conspiracy, cultivation
trafficking, distribution and possession of other illegal drugs. Their trial
confirming date is April 26; the trial could begin in May or June. The local
district attorney has made their conviction a personal crusade.

Steve Kubby thinks his position is strong. He built his "growroom" according
to guidelines developed for the Oakland club, which in turn are based on the
quantities of marijuana the federal government supplies (at tax-Payers'
expense) to the eight patients who received authorization in the early
1980s.

Federal patients get seven pounds a year and the Kubbys had enough plants,
they say, to produce seven pounds of marijuana bud over the course of half a
year for the two of them. They plan to produce expert witnesses and medical
authorities who will discuss the relationship between marijuana and adrenal
cancer. The Kubbys have told me they didn't sell, give away or in any way
distribute marijuana, and so far the prosecutors have not produced evidence
that they did. So under Sec. 11362.5 they should have been immune from
prosecution.

THE LOCKYER TASK FORCE

As various court cases move forward, there is also movement - we'll see if
it's progress - on the official front. Attorney General Bill Lockyer has
appointed a medical marijuana task force headed by state Sen. John
Vasconcellos of San Jose, also and early supporter of 215.

The task force, co-chaired by Santa Clara District Attorney George Kennedy,
includes enforcement officers, cannabis providers, doctors and other
interested parties (although there's no medical marijuana patient, an
inexcusable omission) has met twice but is not likely to offer a program
until its next meeting in May. It has discussed numerous ideas, from a
voluntary patient identification system, guidelines for possession and
cultivation (possibly a statewide standard for how many plants a patient can
cultivate) and the creation of a legal supply system.

The task force's job has been complicated by the federal government's
intransigent attitude toward state medical marijuana laws. When Lockyer
visited with "drug czar" Barry McCaffrey and U.S. Attorney General Janet
Reno in March, Lockyer told reporters that "both were very clear that
medical marijuana use violates federal laws," and that McCaffrey suggested
that a years-long period of research would be needed before that status
would change. In fact, McCaffrey told Lockyer that if Lockyer sponsored
research in California that Lockyer believes is authorized by California
law, he would be risking arrest.

In my discussions with people in Lockyer's office, I haven't heard that
Lockyer called the bully's bluff, telling him that if federal officers came
to arrest him there would be TV cameras and he would see him in court.
Instead, Lockyer's comments were to the effect that California would have to
move to get procedures and protocols in place so it would be prepared if and
when the federal government moved to change the legal status of marijuana at
the federal level.

That's difficult to understand. Lockyer was elected by the people of
California to enforce California's laws. Barry McCaffrey and Janet Reno are
appointed federal officials attempting to nullify a law put into place by
the people of California. Lockyer's loyalty should lie with the people who
elected him and voted for Prop. 215. The federal government had every
opportunity to challenge Prop. 215 in court. It chose not to do so. To try
to nullify it by administrative fiat is despicable.

FEDERAL LAW AND SCIENCE

There are reasons to believe that if Locker took a firmer position with the
federal government he would be on solid legal ground. A compelling case can
be made that the federal government's policies toward marijuana, and
particularly medical marijuana, are in violation of federal law.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 sets out "schedules" with
progressively tighter regulations and distribution rules for various drugs.
The criteria for Schedule I, drugs that may not legally be prescribed by
doctors or dispensed by pharmacists, are as follows:

"(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in
treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug or other
substance under medical supervision."

That's what the law says. According to the Institute of Medicine Report
released March 17 - commissioned by "drug czar" McCaffrey hoping it would
support his view that "there is not a shred of scientific evidence that
shows smoked marijuana is useful or needed" - marijuana doesn't fit any of
those criteria. It shouldn't be on Schedule I.

More specifically, the report (available at www.nap.edu/readingroom/books)
noted that "Although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do," and
that while "a distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified,
it is mild and short-lived." So much for (A).

The report also concluded: "Scientific data indicate the potential
therapeutic value of cannabiniod drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief,
control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation." So much for (B).

And it concluded that "except for the harms associated with smoking [some
respiratory problems have been documented and smoke from the plant does
contain carcinogens, though the report noted there are no known cases of
cancer attributable to marijuana smoking] the adverse effects of marijuana
use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications." So
much for (C)

Therefore, according to the report McCaffrey commissioned, there is no
justification for keeping marijuana on Schedule I. In fact, it is illegal
under federal law to keep it there. It is the Drug Enforcement
Administration, McCaffrey and Reno who are breaking the law. Bill Lockyer
should tell them so and challenge them to see him in court.

TWO IMPORTANT LAWSUITS

There is a less confrontational course available. John Gettman of Virginia
filed a petition in 1995 to have marijuana rescheduled at the federal level,
raising safety and risk issues rather than the medical efficacy issues that
had been rejected in previous administrative proceedings. Gettman's petition
is ripe for action by the Department of Health and Human Services. Lockyer
should endorse it and urge swift action to bring federal policy in line with
the Institute of Medicine's findings.

In addition, another lawsuit, drafted by life extension scientists Durk
Pearson and Sandy Shaw along with doctors in several states and several
medical research organizations, is currently before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. It contends that federal officials lack the
constitutional authority to nullify state medical-marijuana laws in
California and elsewhere. Such dictates violate physicians' First Amendment
free speech rights, and the right of the state under the 9th and 10th
amendments to regulate the practice of medicine.

Furthermore, the lawsuit contends, the U.S.Constitution's Commerce Clause -
the power under which the drug war is perpetrated - does not give the
federal government power or authority to regulate commerce or medical
practices within a state. Lockyer's office has copies of this lawsuit (you
can read it and download it at www.emord.com/complain/htm). He should file
an amicus curiae brief on its behalf and put the full weight of the
California attorney general's office behind it.

For that matter the Vasconcellos-Kennedy task force could take an official
position on the Gettman petition and the Pearson-Shaw lawsuit, even before
they develop guidelines for implementation of Prop. 215.

There is plenty of disagreement on just what kind of guidelines should be
promulgated.

Some say implementation should be left to the local level, with cities and
counties urged to pass ordinances similar to a law passed last year by the
northern California city of Arcata, under which the police set up a
confidential list of patients and a cultivation center is open to law
enforcement inspection.

Others say the Arcata ordinance is too restrictive. Some want the state
government to set up a distribution system. Others prefer authorizing
pharmacists to distribute marijuana along with other drugs.

Prop. 215 has some shortcomings - I wish it didn't include the legally
ambiguous and vulnerable to pernicious courtroom interpretation term
"primary caregiver," for example - but its most important fault is that it
doesn't create exemptions for patients from state laws against distribution,
transportation and sale of marijuana.

One of the task force's most important jobs, therefore, should be to draft
careful exclusions for doctors, pharmacists, patients and maybe for
distribution cooperatives from those laws - perhaps only for patients who
agree to be placed on a state registry with confidentiality safeguards - and
urge the legislature to pass them.

That wouldn't be an amendment to Prop. 215 requiring another vote of the
people, simply revisions to current law that are in the spirit of Prop. 215
and fully within the legislature's power to undertake.

It's helpful to remember, however, that while these decisions have legal
aspects, they occur in a political climate.

The fact that five states besides California have passed initiatives
authorizing access to marijuana for patients has changed that climate, but
not enough to eliminate the intransigence of local, state and federal
officials who see any flexibility on this issue as a threat to their
precious and lucrative drug war.

Medical marijuana advocates and patients will have to be more persistent and
more intelligent in their argumentation and lobbying. This is a long-haul
struggle.

Meanwhile, the intransigent ones, from Barry McCaffrey down to local
prosecutors, would do well to consider another possibility. The general
attitude has been that yielding on medical marijuana could be the sign of
weakness that brings the entire war on drugs to a halt.

But if the people repeatedly demand that marijuana be available to patients
whose doctors believe they could benefit from it and the authorities
repeatedly resist this modest and reasonable reform, they could decide
simply to legalize marijuana - to put it on the same legal status as, say,
oregano.

And that might really lead to an end of the entire drug war.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Politics of Punishment (Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters writes in
the Oakland Tribune that the California Senate Public Safety Committee on
Tuesday approved state Senator Tom Hayden's bill to reform California's
"three strikes" mandatory-minimum sentencing law by requiring the third
offense to be a violent or serious one. The committee also approved another
bill to study the "three strikes" law. But the Assembly Public Safety
Committee cleared a $4.1 billion bond issue to build six more state prisons.
The debate continues.)

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:16:53 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: The Politics of Punishment
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Gerald Sutliff (gsutliff@dnai.com)
Pubdate: Sun, 11 Apr 1999
Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 1999 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
Contact: eangtrib@newschoice.com
Address: 66 Jack London Sq., Oakland, CA 94607
Website: http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/alameda/tribune/
Author: Dan Walters
Note: Dan Walters is a columnist for the Sacramento Bee. His e-mail address
is dwalters@sacbee.com

THE POLITICS OF PUNISHMENT

SUE Reams was near tears as she told state legislators Tuesday how her
son came to face life in state prison.

Son Shane, she said, became involved in drugs and committed some
residential robberies, including one of her own home. She turned him
in to authorities.

"We thought he would get some help," the Orange County woman said,
"some drug rehabilitation."

But Shane's drug involvement continued, and 10 years after his
original offenses, he was nailed as the lookout in a drug sale to
undercover cops. It was his third offense, and under the state's
"Three Strikes, You're Out" law, Shane went to prison for 25 years to
life.

The Reams case was one of several related to members of the Senate
Public Safety Committee as it faced legislation that would soften the
law by requiring the third offense to be a violent or serious one.

The author of the measure, Sen. Tom Hayden, D-Los Angeles, and others
argued that "Three Strikes" had sent thousands of men and women to
long prison terms for relatively minor offenses. Hayden characterized
it as "a belief in preventive detention."

But the committee heard equally stout defenses of the law from police
groups, prosecutors, prison guards and victims' rights advocates, who
insisted that the law has contributed greatly to California's dropping
crime rates.

"Every three-striker made a conscious decision to break the law," said
Cynthia Duarte, one of the victims' advocates.

"Three Strikes" was the most emotional, but certainly not the only,
crime issue facing lawmakers Tuesday.

Advocates for the competing factions dashed up and down Capitol
hallways as two legislative committees dealt with dozens of measures
that would either toughen or soften criminal penalties and build more
prisons to handle an inmate population nearing the bursting point.

While the committee hearings were superficially about statistics,
studies and fine points of morality, everyone involved knows that
crime remains a very potent political icon.

Voter and legislative enactment of the "Three Strikes" law in 1994
capped 15 years of converting California from one of the most lenient
states in the nation, in terms of punishment, to one of the toughest.
The state's prison population is now eight times what it was in 1980,
and law enforcement groups have become powerful political players --
especially the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the
prison guards union.

THE CCPOA's three-pronged agenda of passing tougher crime laws,
building more prisons and electing politicians friendly to the first
two goals has been wildly successful. The guards provided critical
funding to get the "Three Strikes" measure enacted and most recently,
backed Democrat Gray Davis' election as governor.

It's probably no coincidence that Davis sides with guards and other
"Three Strikes" advocates, saying recently that "stronger sentencing
... is one of the reasons crime has gone down" and adding that he is
"reluctant" to tamper with the law.

The Senate Public Safety Committee approved Hayden's measure on a
party-line vote -- Democrats for, Republicans against -- and another
bill to study the "Three Strikes" law. But the Assembly Public Safety
Committee cleared a $4.1 billion bond issue to build six more state
prisons. The debate continues.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Principal Charged In Cocaine Sales (The Chicago Tribune says Delores Hill,
53, a principal known for tough words about drug abuse, has been charged with
running a cocaine ring at the Tabernacle Church of God Elementary School in
Brooklyn, New York. Authorities shut down the private, 160-student school
when Hill was arrested along with the school nurse, a janitor and another
worker after she allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover policewoman on
school grounds.)

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:33:31 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: Principal Charged In Cocaine Sales
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young (theyoungfamily@worldnet.att.net)
Pubdate: Sat, 11 April 1999
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Author: From Tribune News Services

PRINCIPAL CHARGED IN COCAINE SALES

NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- A principal known for tough words about drug abuse has
been charged with running a narcotics ring at her elementary school.

Delores Hill, 53, was arraigned Friday on charges of being the leader of a
small drug ring at the Tabernacle Church of God Elementary School in
Brooklyn.

Hill allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover policewoman on school grounds.
She was arrested along with the school nurse, a janitor and another worker.

Authorities said the defendants dealt drugs to adults while children were in
class.

The janitor, Steven Donawa, 42, was arrested after he stopped by Hill's
apartment and left carrying 51 bags of cocaine, prosecutors said. Patricia
Kersey, 41, the school nurse, was arrested for allegedly selling cocaine to
an undercover police officer.

Hill has been quoted as an opponent of drug use. "There needs to be more
drug education, especially for parents," she told Newsday in 1990. "Our 2nd
graders know more about drugs than some of the parents."

Authorities shut down the private, 160-student school.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth to Supreme Court: Woman's Purse More Than a Container (Marianne Means,
a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, writes in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
about the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision giving police even greater
latitude in searching motorists. Men carry billfolds to hold money and credit
cards, usually in those pockets the court is protecting. But women carry
purses in order to keep with them at all times their most intimate
possessions. The "Supremes" do not realize the mischief they are creating
here. No self-respecting woman is likely to hand over the secrets of her
purse to police snoops without a fight. We have not heard the last of this
issue.)

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:08:10 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Column: Earth To Supreme Court: Woman's Purse More Than A
Container
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Sun, 11 Apr 1999
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
Copyright: 1999 Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Contact: editpage@seattle-pi.com
Website: http://www.seattle-pi.com/
Author: MARIANNE MEANS, HEARST NEWSPAPERS
Note: Marianne Means is Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers.

EARTH TO SUPREME COURT: WOMAN'S PURSE MORE THAN A CONTAINER

WASHINGTON -- Somebody should tell the Supreme Court that a woman's purse is
more than just an ordinary "container."

The majority acknowledged that without a warrant a body search of a
passenger that would include a pocket or "the space between his shirt and
underwear" would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

But a purse? Fair game. Not technically attached to the body.

It's merely attached to the heart and mind and personality of the woman
carrying it, that's all.

A purse is an extension of a woman's identity. It is her very self, her
lifeline, her support system.

Men carry billfolds to hold money and credit cards, usually in those pockets
the court is protecting. But women carry purses in order to keep with them
at all times their most intimate possessions, such as eyeglasses, keys,
appointment calendars and makeup as well as money and pictures of loved
ones. You name it. Purses hold it.

Purses are not to be taken lightly. They come in all sizes and shapes,
depending on the requirements of their owners. Normally they dangle from a
hand or shoulder, serving as virtually a permanent female appendage.

They are miniature suitcases. Most women would rather lose their soul than
lose their purse.

Oddly, the two female justices split on the issue. Sandra Day O'Connor
thought purses were no big deal while Ruth Bader Ginsburg disapproved of the
majority's strained language protecting a man's pocket but not a woman's
pocketbook.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in Wyoming vs.
Houghton, ruled that a closed container like a purse or briefcase belonging
to a passenger in a car legally stopped because the driver was suspected of
transporting drugs can be included in a general police search of the auto
and its contents. In this case, the passenger, Sandra Houghton, was found to
be carrying drugs and related paraphernalia in her purse.

Scalia sought to make this invasion of privacy palatable by making a
distinction between possessions being worn and those being carried. He
conceded that "even a limited search of outer clothing . . . constitutes a
severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security and it must
surely be an annoying, frightening and perhaps humiliating experience. . . .
But such traumatic consequences are not to be expected when the police
examine an item of personal property found in a car."

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a concurring opinion, was troubled by Scalia's
airy dismissal of a purse as just another receptacle for holding goods.
"Purses are special containers," he noted. "I am tempted to say that a
search of a purse involves an intrusion so similar to a search of one's
person that the same rule should govern both . . . "

But Breyer added that in past decisions the court had refused to legally
treat purses differently from any other closed bag or box and he would stick
to precedent.

He was also influenced by the fact the purse was found at a distance from
its owner, rather than clutched in her hands. "It would matter if a woman's
purse, like a man's billfold, were attached to her person. It might then
amount to a kind of outer clothing," Breyer wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the three-justice dissent, arguing that a
warrantless search of a passenger's purse or briefcase involved a serious
intrusion of privacy that could not be justified without probable cause to
suspect that the person owning it has committed a crime. The mere existence
of a purse in a suspect's car does not mean the cops should be free to
rummage in it just for the fun of it.

The "Supremes" do not realize the mischief they are creating here. No
self-respecting woman is likely to hand over the secrets of her purse to
police snoops without a fight. We have not heard the last of this issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[End]