In a rare rebuke to prosecutors, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings has criticized the decision of the United States Attorneys office to drop charges against well-known blogger Andrew M. Sullivan, who was arrested by park rangers on a Cape Cod national beach for possession of marijuana on July 13th. A conviction would have caused problems for Sullivan — a British citizen — in remaining in the United States.
Collings wrote “fidelity to the law requires that the Court grant leave to the United States Attorney to dismiss the Violation Notice against Mr. Sullivan. That the Court must so act does not require the Court to believe that the end result is a just one.”
U.S. Attorney James F. Lang insisted that prosecution of the writer was “contrary to public interest.” Collings clearly did not like that argument a wee bit.
Collings noted that the facts were “straightforward” and that “[i]t is quite apparent Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others. In fact, there were other persons who were required to appear who were charged with the same offense and who were being prosecuted.”
Collings accused the prosecutors of discarding the principle that “all persons stand equal before the law.” Of course, given this Administration’s effort to protect Bush officials from war crimes and torture prosecutions, this is pretty small potatoes.
I, of course, favor total immunity of bloggers from any crime as a reflection of our social standing and importance to the continuation of civilization as we know it.
Sullivan’s arrest is not unique and, in terms of bad press, pales in comparison to the charges against CNN personality Richard Quest who was able to rejoin CNN and appears to have struck a deal with prosecutors.
The fact is that pot possession is one of the lowest priorities for law enforcement in most jurisdictions. While this does not alter the claim of special treatment, many would like to see a day where we treat everyone equally by not prosecuting people for possession — bloggers or non-bloggers alike.
For the full story, click here.
Laws!!! Laws are for little people.
Although Massachusetts has decriminalized marijuana possession, Sullivan was on federal land and was issued a citation by a park ranger.
The effective cost to a citizen for such a charge would be a small fine. The cost to Sullivan could be citizenship itself.
Some have noted that Sullivan would already be a citizen if the federal government recognized the jurisdiction of states over marriage, as Sullivan is legally married in Massachusetts.
I agree with Professor T. that all bloggers should be dealt with kid gloves at all times by the legal authorities. Mr. Sullivan’s high position insulates him from the government looking into the past. This US attorney recognized that the proper outlook is to look forward and to forget about all past crimes. Especially for a blogger from England.
While this does not alter the claim of special treatment, many would like to see a day where we treat everyone equally by not prosecuting people for possession — bloggers or non-bloggers alike.
Amen.
“While this does not alter the claim of special treatment, many would like to see a day where we treat everyone equally by not prosecuting people for possession — bloggers or non-bloggers alike.”
***************
It is certainly a valid consideration by the US Attorney that Mr. Sullivan’s immigration status would be severely affected by such a petit crime. I am certain this factor was not hidden from the Court. My assessment is that this is a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion and an improper exercise in grand standing by the Court. The decision to prosecute differed from the other defendants because the impact of the conviction was radically different than for the charged citizens. That is not bias, merely the recognition of a manifest fact–something the Court had problems doing.
It stirikes me as more appropriate that everyone else should receive the same treatment as Mr Sullivan for so trivial an issue, not the reverse.
Aren’t national parks one of the best places to “possess” pot?
Jailing non-violent pot possessors is wasting taxpayer dollars. They should be given TARP money instead.
I’m sorry but this whole topic is really starting to harsh on my high.
rcampbell:
“It stirikes me as more appropriate that everyone else should receive the same treatment as Mr Sullivan for so trivial an issue, not the reverse.”
***********************
Agreed, but the law is still on the books and I suspect no one would accept a policy by the US Attorney to forgo all prosecutions. Half a loaf….
I agree with the Prof on this one. The Federal Law law started out purely for political reasons. I have had case where basically 2-14 year olds and a 17 year old got busted for MJ. The 17 year old was the only one charged. It was one of the 14 year olds. The parents were called for the 14 year olds.
Isn’t this the guy that said of the Chris Wallace interview of Dick Cheney: “like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas’ Brothers.”
All this time I thought Organ Pipe National Park was about Cactus.
@Mespo:
I’m inclined to agree with you that this would have been proper prosecutorial discretion had the US Attorney shown the same leniency to other people in Sullivan’s shoes. But the judge noted that this was not the case generally, and that immigration considerations were seldom taken into account by the US Attorney’s office. That crucial bit was left out the Herald article that the good prof linked to, but it’s in the Globe:
“What vexed him, he wrote, was that Loucks’s prosecutors routinely pursue such offenders but were making an exception for Sullivan. If convictions of other people for the same offense jeopardized their immigration applications, he wrote, ‘then why should Mr. Sullivan, who is in the same position, not have to deal with the same consequences?’”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/12/dismissed_marijuana_charge_raises_judges_ire/
Notwithstanding Sullivan’s recent discovery that conservatives tend to be bigots on gay issues, he’s a blowhard and clearly not worthy of exceptional treatment. For his destruction of The New Republic alone, he probably should have been deported.
Now is a time for reflection, not retribution. It is a time to look forward, not backwards.
Good spading as usual Butters.
Looking forward when retribution in order only gets you stabbed in the back. Perhaps our President should take heed of this truism in his dealing with less than honorable men.
From my read, we might count Judge Collings among them. The strongest case against our drug laws is the stark reality of how unevenly they are enforced. When the rich go free and the poor go to jail, that is not a “justice” system, no matter what you call it.
You should have put some sort of “do not read while drinking or eating” warning on that comment. Now I’ve got Sprite and ham-sandwich all over my monitor.
“You should have put some sort of “do not read while drinking or eating” warning on that comment. Now I’ve got Sprite and ham-sandwich all over my monitor.”
tmaxPA,
Fair warning. I’ve gone through 5 monitors since starting to blog here. As bad as Dredd can be, be wary of that rascal seamus too. He’ll sneak up on ya. The guys at my local MicroCenter love him.
Equal protection of the law is a virtue only when the law is not evil. You can see this by imagining the law against marijuana possession as even more evil than it is. Suppose that the penalty for marijuana possession was death, and everyone arrested but Sullivan was executed. Would it be in the interest of justice to execute Sullivan? Or suppose that Hitler had murdered six million people of every religion? Would that have been more just than murdering just six million Jews? (I know that he murdered gays, Gypsies, the disabled, and others, but let’s put that aside for the moment.) It is good that Sullivan got off, for whatever reason. I wish that all the others had gotten off too, for whatever reason.
There is no way that I would ever vote a guilty verdict on a marijuana charge were I on a jury. The drug war is a sham that wastes tax payer money and provides no benefit to society.
The consequences for Sullivan would have been much more severe than for the other individuals. Damn right! The prosecutors did the right thing.
Ken,
You just don’t know how much LEO makes off of the system. Not only do you get busted for that illegal narcotics shit, we have bail bondmen, jail personal, cost of stay, cost of prosecuting, fines, incarceration, costs these are just a few of the amenities that we have to offer. Plus, if you don’t have the good shit and we know what i good and bad you will face a felony. Son, I don;t know about them laws in Arizona but we take drug crime seriously. Hey ma we are looking for some of that peyote. Thats only a misdemeanor here. Bring it on.
You mean there is a Prison-Industrial complex? When did that start?
http://www.november.org/graphs/Americans.gif
I await the right bitching about activist judges. I suspect I will be waiting for quite some time.