In an opinion that should produce a bunch of smirks, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a criminal defendant can be in constructive possession of drugs found inside his co-defendant's vagina. Before we start the inevitable "slippery slope" sort of arguments a case like this is destined to produce, let's look at the facts. In State v. Sherman, an opinion announced by the COA April 22, 2015, the court found that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's MJOA "based on its determination that a reasonable juror could conclude that he constructively possessed 5.67 grams of cocaine found in his codefendant's vagina." Sure.
Tomorrow, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases that literally did not pass the smell test. Both involve when and how police may legitimately use drug sniffing dogs to effect warrantless searches and when or how such nosy intrusions on our privacy amount to an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
President Obama is apparently planning on putting greater focus on the War on Drugs if elected to a second term. And although it is not yet clear what policies might result from the effort, it may mean that those partaking in medical marijuana programs have more to be concerned about.
At Raivio, Kohlmetz & Steen, P.C., we are often retained by clients facing Oregon State drug delivery charges. One of the most frequent complaints we hear from clients facing such charges is that the client never sold or delivered the drugs in question. "How can they charge me with delivery when I never sold anything?" The answer has to do with a tricky and dangerous quirk of Oregon's drug delivery laws.