Federal Marijuana Prosecution Guidelines

Federal marijuana prosecution guidelines



We are not supposed to have this.

To: DEA, HIDTA, Federal task force partners in California for internal law enforcement use only.Not for public use or circulation From: California United States Attorneys This memorandum outlines factors that all four California U.S. Attorneys Offices (the USAOs)agree may render a particular marijuana case suitable for federal prosecution. Identification of these factors is intended to assist federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in determining whether a particular marijuana case has significant potential for federal prosecution and conducting investigations in a manner that develops the best evidence to support federal prosecution (Footnote 1). The USAOS will consider for federal prosecution cases investigated by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies that implicate federal interests as reflected in the factors. Cases investigated by federal agencies will generally be given priority over cases adopted from state or local investigations. The factors listed below are relevant to the USAOs consideration of whether a marijuana case should be prosecuted federally but the presence or absence of one or more of the factors will not guarantee or preclude federal prosecution in any case. In general the federal interest will be greater in prosecuting leaders and organizers of the criminal activity as opposed to lower level workers.The memorandum is intended as prospective guidance only, is not intended to have the force of law and is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied on to create any right, privilege or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person or entity against any type of the USAOs, DOJ or the United States. 1. Domestic distribution cases. Federal prosecution of a case of domestic distribution of marijuana should generally involve at least 200 or more kilograms of marijuana and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution (Footnote 2—This guidance for domestic distribution cases does not apply to cases involving distribution within or smuggling into a federal prison.18 USC 1791). Typically the more marijuana above 200 kilograms the better the potential for federal prosecution. Domestic distribution cases involving quantities of marijuana below 200kilograms should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana distribution as the sole federal charge. Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that USAOs believe indicate a federal interest in a domestic distribution case.*Distribution by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or a poly-drug trafficking organization.*Distribution of significant quantities to persons or organizations outside California. *Distribution by individuals with significant prior criminal histories. *Distribution by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct. *Distribution for the purpose of funding other criminal activities. *Distribution near protected locations or involving underage or vulnerable people (e.g. in violation of 21 USC 859 persons under 21, 860 near schools, playground and colleges, 861
employment of persons under 1. *Distribution involving the use or presence of firearms or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924c. *Distribution generating significant profits that are used or concealed in ways that would support charges of federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note:Generation of significant profits alone generally will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution. *Distribution in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation.2. Cultivation cases. Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on non-federal or non-tribal land,indoor or outdoor, should generally involve at least 1,000 marijuana plants so that the quantity necessary to trigger the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence can be clearly proven and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Typically, the more marijuana above 1,000 plants, the better the potential for federal prosecution. Non-federal or non-tribal land cases involving quantities below 1,000 plants should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana cultivation as the sole federal charge. Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on federal or tribal land should generally involve at least 500 marijuana plants and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Cases on federal or tribal land involving quantities below 500 plants will be considered if they demonstrate a strong federal interest, if the cultivation has caused significant damage to federal or tribal lands or has occurred in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction (Footnote 3-- The USAOs will consider the totality of circumstances with respect to all marijuana plant quantities in these guidelines. For example, the presence of especially mature, large or robust plants will generally weigh in favor of prosecution while the presence of seedlings or immature plants will generally weigh against prosecution).Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that the USAOs believe indicate a federal interest that may justify federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation whether on federal, tribal or other lands.*Cultivation causing significant environmental damage, risk to human health or interference with particularly sensitive land or significant recreational interests, ie damage to wilderness area or wildlife, danger to innocent families using a recreation area or use of toxic or dangerous chemicals.*Cultivation by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or poly-drug trafficking organization. *Cultivation of significant quantities on behalf or persons or organizations outside California. *Cultivation by individuals with significant prior criminal histories. *Cultivation by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct. *Cultivation for the purpose of funding other criminal activities.

Click to expand...

For more follow the link.
http://californiacannabiscoalition.org/?p=1988

thanks for the link-

good info.

Great post!! Thank you for sharing this with us!

damn too bad thats not for whole country

I saw a story from Montana to the effect of why didn't they tell us first and bust us second?

They are busting first and slowly being outed for their memo they are not releasing nation wide.

then what about the letters that went out to every landlord? were they just empty threats unless the club meets those prosecution requirements?

No, I'm sure it is a knee-jerk reaction to Weed-Wars and the ilk to be directly honest.

The Feds play politics and since there is National coverage on T.V. they went for this "crack down"

The way I see it, and I was not popular for this point of view circa 2010, is that some folks are getting rich while others cannot grow a single plant without going to prison.

Now I am not against canna-business but once we stopped fighting for all to be free we lost something.

\ Do you remember when we were all "Stoners" fellow brothers and sisters in weed?
Then we got Medical and we separated into two camps.

So in a way I am glad this forces us to go back and join together so we can make cannabis commerce legal for all equally.

Hell I would love to maintain the Tiki-Jo line and keep the supply of original genetics available to everyone. By that I would grow and breed, sell and market and like any other strain-tender hopefully make some cash at it.

But we can't even grow plants in the Sun in many areas of California.

So Medical! It's time you got off your high horse and get back to legalizing for all or you won't have any commerce at all.

We may have to step back and regroup.

Prop 19 wanted to solve the problem by having Dry and Wet counties. That is like having Free and Slave States.
In reality California is a patch work of Dry and Wet where we have smoke shops but no smoke or smoke shops and smoke depending on which county one is in.

So WTF, ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL! Or Nothing.

Legalize for all in 2012 and beyond.