If city commissioners decide to take a new approach to handling marijuana crimes, the impact - in terms of sheer numbers of cases - wouldn't be huge.
Dist. Atty. Charles Branson had estimated his office would be spared two or three cases per week if marijuana-possession and drug-paraphernalia cases were directed to the more informal, streamlined municipal court rather than District Court.
But the actual number of cases might be more like one or two per week.
According to a review of court files Wednesday by the Journal-World, there were at least 139 marijuana-related cases - including simple possession, cultivation and drug dealing - filed in District Court during 2004.
Of those 139 cases, 60 could have been eligible to be tried in city court instead of District Court if the city had a marijuana-possession ordinance like the one currently proposed.
Those cases either involved marijuana-possession and drug paraphernalia charges alone, or were coupled with other minor offenses of the sort typically seen in city court, such as traffic violations or battery.
The remaining 79 likely would have remained in District Court, either because they happened outside city limits or because they involved felonies or more serious crimes that aren't handled in city court - such as drug dealing, domestic battery or possession of cocaine.
The actual number of marijuana cases from 2004 could be slightly higher than the 139 reviewed because, on any given day, a small percentage of court files are absent from the shelves in the District Court Clerk's office.
"That sounds about accurate," Branson said. "My estimation was a little bit higher than that. We see probably two or three cases a week for marijuana. I don't know that we would probably see any real noticeable impact in it from our perspective. ... But I think it's still going to be more efficient as far as the cases being processed faster."
A newly formed group, Drug Policy Forum of Kansas, is asking the city commission to write a marijuana ordinance that would steer cases to city court. The group's leader says the move would cut down on prosecution costs and keep Kansas University students from losing financial aid for a marijuana conviction.
"If there are five to 10 cases a month which are diverted to municipal court, then the city prosecutor's office won't be overloaded, and the DA's office will have more time to prosecute persons charged with property and personal crimes," said Laura A. Green, the group's executive director.
It's difficult to say exactly how much one criminal case costs in District Court. Typically, defendants are charged costs at the end of a case that can range anywhere from $400 to $1,000. A common scenario in cases where the only charge is marijuana possession is for the defendant to pay a $117 docket fee, a $100 diversion fee or a $25 probation fee, and a $400 lab-testing fee to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.
The KBI has tested drugs in virtually all marijuana cases in recent years in Douglas County before charges have been filed.
But city prosecutor Jerry Little said if cases come to municipal court, he likely would not require the suspect substance be tested unless there's a dispute about whether it is, in fact, marijuana.
"If the person says, 'I want to plead guilty,' we're not going to have it tested. There's no point to have that $400 expense," he said.
Little also said he likely would not require police officers to write affidavits if they seize marijuana. Instead, the person would be given a notice to appear in municipal court, much like a traffic ticket.
The estimated 139 marijuana-related cases in 2004 represented about 7 percent of the overall caseload for the District Attorney's Office.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Perhaps the city and county should consider allowing farmers to raise industrial hemp. The city library had/has a dsiplay on many products produced from industrial hemp.
I would rather imagine smoking this stuff would soon have someone making an appointment at the EEN&T clinic. It's probaly extremely harsh and not fun.
Let's give Kansas farmers an opportunity to make some money on a crop which at one time was common for making rope. It might self sustaining which would be a blessing considering Kansas weather.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
They need to get out of the box o nthis. Branson has sorely underestimated the cost. One only need to look at the court/treatment industry to really start adding up the dollars spent on this.
Most cases will take almost a year and a half to get thru , most defendants appear a minimum of three to five times in court , there are post violation probation supervision , post sentencing probation supervision , treatment assessments , lab costs , administration of community service sentences , the cost of DCCCA , or Heartland treatment , which is proven for the last 50 years to be largely inneffective , although the county has a nice little cottage industry in raking dollars from drunks and pot users.
When you start to add all the indirect costs up it is quite expensive to prosecute low level pot usage.
Doubt these thoughts , go sit thru a few dockets at district court and watch the number of continuances , the public defenders showing up 3 minutes before hearings and then crying about thier fees . This system is all about feeding itself dollars.
Set up a fast track system . Learning theory has proven that fast consequences have an impact. Have drug court , you appear from jail , get your quick two day sentence , slap a 500 fine on em and give them thirty days to pay. Get rid of the treatment industry which is a joke. Fast quick , have an impact !
joemite (anonymous) says…
Just hand out fines for simple possession (similar to a parking ticket). That way the entire court system would be spared. This would be similar to a proposal being made in Chicago.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
free pot provided for the homeless, start it now.
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
Why is pot even illegal in the first place?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Cowboy, I see your point, but I'm thinking that those expenses will not occur because what they are planning on is to just tell the cops to not make arrests for possession of pot, period. Think of it being like when the anarchists camped out in the park and blocked traffic: it was illegal, but the cops looked the other way on purpose. No doubt because someone at City Hall told them to.
Boog already said that's what should be done, he said it an interview right after he took over as mayor.
One thing is for sure: he is not a "do nothing" leftie. He has an agenda, and he is pushing it through as quick as he can. He and his progressive/communist-wannabe buddies no doubt realize he won't get re-elected so they are making hay while the sun shines.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
if pot cases would alter little, why screw with this?