Andrew Sullivan is an obnoxious, deranged loon. I don't want to see him get citizenship in the USA. That said, the fact that an HIV+ man smokes a little grass -- I prefer my drug terminology straight outta 1972 thank you very much -- is not the grounds I want to see used to get his barebacked ass deported from this country.

Glenn Beck is a libertarian. I am sure we will get the back story. It will not include anti-drug moralizing.

This is typical for left wing in all western countries.
The left wing always screams for the head of anyone who openly opposes them for any reason. but when their own are involved they expect clemency and accuse the opposition of being either intolerant, racist or both.

I've never understood people's fascination with Sullivan. I've always just assumed he was nuts.

As far as his keeping quiet though, wouldn't his lawyer be telling him to keep his mouth shut?

The fact remains that marijuana is illegal. Have as many opinions on whether it should be or not, but unless the law is changed, you smoke pot on federal land you're committing a crime.

Unless you're the One True Conservative with a man crush on Obama. In which case we can expect David Brooks to light up an enormous doobie at the next get-together of the media's favorite "conservatives." Either that, or perhaps you could get away with it if you're also simultaneously brandishing weapons at polling places and intimidating voters.

Argue all you like about whether drugs should or should not be legal. I don't see much room to argue that the Obama Administration might have, in eight months, established itself as the most corrupt in US history. Nixon, Harding, Grant - all pikers.

Equal protection? What's that? Must have joined "states rights" in the lefty lexicon of discredited and racist phrases.

The significant point may be that now they can prosecute Sullivan when they don't like what he writes.

My experience with criminal law is that small misdemeanors (including federal misdemeanors) are usually dealt with in a summary manner, and the prosecutor makes a quick deal to avoid trial. The more complicated and involved the case gets, the more likely they are to drop it.

Here are the reported facts:

***QUOTE***

Sullivan, who lives in Washington but owns a home in Provincetown, was stopped by a park ranger for smoking marijuana on the beach shortly before 3:45 p.m. When the ranger asked Sullivan if he had any other joints, the writer fished one out of his wallet and said, "I thought small amounts of marijuana were legal to have in Massachusetts," according to court records.

Massachusetts voters approved a referendum in November that decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, but the change does not apply to federal property.

***END QUOTE***

If we ignore the fact that this was a prominent blogger (if not a politically connected celebrity), right off, there are four legal issues:

1. Probable cause for the stop. What attracted the officer's attention? Was it a hunch? Or were there articulable reasons such as the characteristic smell which the officer based on his experience and training recognized as marijuana?

2. Miranda rights. Did the officer tell Sullivan he was under arrest before questioning him? Did he warn him that anything he said could be used against him? If not, then the statements and possibly the results of the search would be suppressible.

3. Search and seizure. Again, was it valid? Did Sullivan consent freely? Or did he do so under the mistaken belief that his conduct was legal? (The latter is also relevant to whether he knowingly violated the law, which is an element of any crime.)

4. Chain of custody/testing of the substance. Did they save it? Do they have it? Did it test positive for marijuana? Every element has to be proved to obtain a conviction.

So, I'm seeing a possible messy case, even without considering who the suspect was. I don't know much about the priorities, the court docket, etc., and I would want to see statistics on how these cases are handled, especially since the state law was changed.

Sullivan obviously has attorneys, and if they made it clear that they were going to litigate this case every step of the way, I could see many a reasonable prosecutor being willing to decline prosecution, especially if there were weaknesses in it. (Here in Detroit, they don't even prosecute most burglaries.)

So, while the suspect's celebrity status (and the political favoritism which the judge complained) obviously influenced the decision, I'd still like to know more.

I stand here today humbled by the task before [url=http://www.bawwgt.com]dofus kamas[/url], grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our [url=http://www.bawwgt.com]cheap dofus kamas[/url]. I thank President [url=http://www.bawwgt.com]dofus[/url] for his service to [url=http://www.bawwgt.com]buy dofus kamas[/url], as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.