Court Opinion

ID: 9748861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:15:48.793966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:40.052054
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, J., Concurring.
I concur, because I agree that the revocation of probation is a criminal sanction. It is the express intent of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 to ensure that patients who comply with its terms “are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.” People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 49 P.3d 1067] accurately describes the effect of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 as creating a form of qualified immunity for the possession of marijuana in compliance with its terms. This immunity from criminal sanction takes the possession of marijuana and puts it in a special category apart from other legal acts, such as the use of alcohol, that can properly be made a condition of probation. This disconnect between the law of California and the law of the United States is a sorry situation that injects unnecessary strain and tension into the federal system.
The trial courts are restricted from imposing a reasonable condition of probation that is related to the offense and serves a rehabilitative purpose. Probationers may through compliance with Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 flout the laws of the United States and put law enforcement in the *1448untenable position of either ignoring their sworn duty to enforce all the laws, state and federal, or enforcing criminal laws without the benefit of judicial sanction or oversight. This is a severe and needless price to pay for having sovereign states within a sovereign nation. The people of California and a growing number of other states have recently enacted compassionate use laws. Congress should consider the wisdom of accommodating the people of these states.