« Bipartisan hemp bill introduced in Wisconsin | Main | Eau Claire Leader-Telegram Editorial: Small marijuana cases shouldn't be prosecutors' priority »

March 09, 2007

Text of Dane County DA memo on new pot policy

Posted by Gary Storck
Friday, March 09, 2007

For those who have not yet seen it, here is the memo from DA Blanchard that announced the change in policy. This originally appeared on the WTDY website.

February 7, 2007

To: Chiefs of police

DISTRICT ATTORNEY DANE COUNTY

RE: Drug Investigations And Prosecutions

Please allow me to use a memo to briefly summarize several policy positions of this office in the area of drug enforcement. The occasion for this memo is the continuing reduction in attorney staffing in this office due to the loss of federal grants. I will be happy to address any questions about the following at the next Chief's meeting scheduled for February 15, 2007.

Marijuana Possession and Paraphernalia Cases

We are adjusting our prosecution policy in the area of THC possession, so that we will not charge criminally possession of fewer than 25 grams of THC, regardless of the defendant's prior criminal history. For jurisdictions that have a municipal court and an ordinance, we encourage you to issue ordinance citations. Those agencies that lack a municipal court or ordinance will not have such an option. You may continue to submit THC possession cases to this office. We will be issuing them as County Ordinance violations.

Similarly, we will be declining cases of possession of drug paraphernalia related to use of marijuana. If your municipality has an ordinance, please do not submit those cases to this office. Otherwise, you may continue to do so. We are working with the county to create an paraphernalia ordinance. Until we do, we will either decline or issue as a related ordinance.

Drug Prosecutions Generally

Shrinking resources also require that we raise the bar on the quantum of evidence in all cases. We will not issue charges unless evidence is presented at the time of referral of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that when controlled substances are not found on a person, but rather in a car or dwelling, there must be strong evidence of a link to a particular person or persons. Also, evidence from confidential informants will not be relied on unless corroborated by credible evidence. In short, cases with marginal proof will be declined.

We do not make these choices lightly. We appreciate that today's marijuana is extremely potent, and that its excessive use can and does damage lives. We also know the difficulties you face in gathering evidence of crime, especially chronic drug use and trafficking, and the harms that this conduct creates for individuals, families and communities. We are, however, constrained by our resources to scrutinize more closely the kind and quality of the cases we issue.

Thank you for your continuing cooperation with this office in our shared missions of law enforcement and public protection. As always, I invite any concerns, questions, or suggestions you might have in any of these areas.

BRIAN W. BLANCHARD

District Attorney

JUDY SCHWAEMLE

Deputy District Attorney


Posted by Gary at March 9, 2007 11:22 PM

Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?