|
|
|
Mexico issues first permits for marijuana under court ruling
Court Line |
2015/12/13 16:18
|
The Mexican government on Friday granted the first permits allowing the cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal use.
The federal medical protection agency said the permits apply only to the four plaintiffs who won a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court last month. The court said growing and consuming marijuana is covered under the right of "free development of personality."
The permits issued Friday won't allow smoking marijuana in the presence of children or anyone who hasn't given consent. The permits also don't allow the sale or distribution of the drug. Ironically, the plaintiffs said that even with the permits in hand, they don't plan to smoke the marijuana permitted.
They said they filed the suit to make a point about prohibitionist policies being wrong, not to get their hands on legal weed. "The objective is to change the policy, not to promote consumption," said Juan Francisco Torres Landa, one of the four plaintiffs. "We are going to set the example; we are not going to consume it."
The court's ruling didn't mean a general legalization for Mexico. But if the court ruled the same way on five similar petitions, it would then establish the precedent to change the law and allow general recreational use.
The government medical protection agency, known as COFEPRIS, said it has received 155 applications to get such permits. But other applicants would have to go through the appeals process, something supporters say would probably take at least a year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court torn over Texas affirmative action program
Legal PR |
2015/12/11 16:19
|
Torn as ever over race, the Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed whether it's time to end the use of race in college admissions nationwide or at least at the University of Texas.
With liberal and conservative justices starkly divided, the justice who almost certainly will dictate the outcome suggested that the court may need still more information to make a decision in a Texas case already on its second trip through the Supreme Court.
"We're just arguing the same case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said, recalling arguments first held in 2012 in the case of Abigail Fisher. "It's as if nothing has happened."
Kennedy said additional hearings may be needed to produce information that "we should know but we don't know" about how minority students are admitted and what classes they take to determine whether the use of race is necessary to increase diversity at the University of Texas.
Fisher has been out of college since 2012, but the justices' renewed interest in her case appeared to be a sign that the court's conservative majority is poised to cut back, or even end, affirmative action in higher education. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court takes up challenges to drunken-driving test
Court Watch |
2015/12/10 16:18
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether states can criminalize a driver's refusal to take an alcohol test even if police have not obtained a search warrant.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear three cases challenging laws in Minnesota and North Dakota that make it a crime for people arrested for drunken driving to refuse to take a test that can detect alcohol in blood, breath or urine.
At least a dozen states make it a crime to refuse to consent to warrantless alcohol testing. State supreme courts in Minnesota and North Dakota have ruled the laws don't violate constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects. The high court said circumstances justifying an exception to the warrant requirement should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
In the case from Minnesota, police arrested William Bernard after his truck got stuck while trying to pull a boat out of a river in South Saint Paul. Police officers smelled alcohol on his breath and said his eyes were bloodshot. After Bernard refused to take a breath test, police took him into custody.
Bernard was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and a first-degree count of refusal to take a breath test, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison.
He argued that the refusal law violated his Fourth Amendment rights by criminalizing his refusal to submit to a search. A divided Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that officers could have ordered a breath test without a warrant as a search incident to a valid arrest.
The North Dakota Supreme Court upheld similar challenges to its test refusal law, ruling that motorists are deemed to consent to alcohol testing. The court called the law a reasonable tool in discouraging drunk driving.
One of the two North Dakota cases the high court will hear involves Danny Birchfield, who was arrested after he drove his car into a ditch and failed a field sobriety test and a breath test. He declined to take to additional tests and was convicted under the state's refusal law, which counts as a misdemeanor for a first offense.
A second appeal from North Dakota comes from Steve Beylund, a driver who was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and consented to a chemical alcohol test. Beylund later tried to suppress the evidence from that test, but lower courts declined.
In all three cases, the challengers argue that warrantless searches are justified only in "extraordinary circumstances." They say routine drunk driving investigations are among the most ordinary of law enforcement functions in which traditional privacy rights apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South African appeals court nears Pistorius ruling
Court Line |
2015/12/03 06:37
|
An official says a top South African appeals court is finalizing a decision on whether to send Oscar Pistorius back to prison by overturning a lower court's manslaughter conviction and finding the double-amputee Olympian guilty of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Paul Myburgh, registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal, told The Associated Press on Monday that no date for the ruling has been announced.
Eyewitness News, a South African media outlet, says a ruling is expected this week. It cites unnamed court officials.
Pistorius, 29, was released from jail on Oct. 19 after serving a year in prison and is under house arrest.
Prosecutors say Pistorius shot Steenkamp during an argument on Valentine's Day 2013. The defense says Pistorius killed Steenkamp by mistake, thinking an intruder was in his house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Court rules against Northern Ireland's abortion law
Legal News |
2015/12/02 06:37
|
A Belfast High Court ruling is expected to ease Northern Ireland's strict anti-abortion laws to make it easier for women to terminate pregnancies in some cases.
Abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland except in extreme cases when a woman's life is deemed at risk from her pregnancy. Judge Mark Horner said Monday that certain prohibitions violate the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights — cases where a fetus has fatal abnormalities or when a woman became pregnant as a result of sexual crimes like rape or incest.
John Larkin, attorney general for Northern Ireland, said he was "profoundly disappointed" by the court's ruling and said he is studying grounds for a possible appeal.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but it has much more restrictive abortion laws than the other regions.
Judge Horner said the present law making it illegal for a mother to terminate her pregnancy where her fetus cannot survive independently once it leaves the womb constitutes a "gross interference with her personal autonomy." He said in such cases "there is no life to protect."
Horner also said the existing law is unfair to victims of sexual crimes who become pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm & Attorney Directory |
| Law Firm PR News provides the most current career information of legal professionals and is the top source for law firms and attorneys. |
| Lawyer & Law Firm Directory |
|
|
Law Firm PR News RSS
