THE CALIFORNIA LEGAL UPDATE
Remember 09/11/2001 | Support Our Troops | Support Our Cops
LU Ref# CAI00020
March 15, 2022
Author Ref. No: Vol.27 No. 3
LU Ref# CAI00020
March 15, 2022
Author Ref. No:   Vol.27 No. 3
CONSOLIDATED ISSUE

Robert Phillips
Deputy District Attorney (Retired)

THIS EDITION’S WORDS OF WISDOM:
“Some call it multi-tasking. I call it doing something else while I try to remember what I was doing in the first place.”
CASES INDEX
CASE BRIEF
Medicinal Marijuana and the Due Process Clause
COURT CASE REFERENCE: United States v. Langley (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2021) 17 F.4th 1273
LEGAL UPDATES REFERENCE NO. CAC00060
RULES
The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, being contrary to a prior Ninth Circuit case decision and not a “substantive right,” remains illegal under federal law.  Its continuing illegality under federal law does not violate the Due Process Clause.   The fact that multiple states have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has no effect on federal law.
FACTS
In 2017, defendant Richard Langley plead guilty to possession of child pornography (per 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)) in federal court.  He was sentenced to time served (56 days) with ten years of supervised release (i.e., probation).  The conditions of Langley’s supervised release included that he “not commit [a] federal, state or local crime,” “not illegally possess a controlled substance,” and “refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.”  It is a statutory requirement under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)) that these conditions be imposed. Defendant accepted these conditions (the alternative being that he stay in jail) despite being prone to smoking a little doobie once in a while.  He claimed that smoking marijuana was necessary for him in order to alleviate the pain he felt from a previous amputation of his right leg below the knee; the result of a motorcycle accident.  Sometime that same year, defendant returned to the federal district court and asked that his supervised release conditions be amended to permit him to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, as was then allowed under California law.  Marijuana possession and use still being illegal under federal law, his motion was denied.  In 2020, defendant renewed his motion, coming to court this time with a physician’s report opining that marijuana was the best medical solution to his pain issues.  His motion was denied again.  Defendant appealed from this denial.