The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0572.003 2008-2010 page 910 Submitted by Sara Steiner i T ICE HE, JUST Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana October 19th, 2009 Posted byTracy Russo Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laves authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those guidelines are contained in a memo from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden which visas sent to United States Attorneys this morning. The text of this memo is provided below for reference. You may also dow nload a PDF version of the memo by clicking, here. October 19,2009 MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laves vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory, oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities. The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels. The Department is also committed to maldug efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are "invested q;9mm• No. statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in t&f. To: Ref. Dote 2009 http://blogs.usdoi.gov/blog/archives/192?print=l 10/19/2009 page 910 exercise of such authority." Id This authority- should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance. The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state late who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlavNlully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent Mth the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities. Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest: • unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms; • violence; • sales to minors; • financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law; amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compfiance with state or local law; • illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or • ties to other criminal enterprises. Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not "legalize" marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or 4Iil criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192?print=1 10/19/2009 page 910 Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests. Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local taw enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution. cc: All United States Attorneys Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, Attorney Generars Advisory Committee Michele M. Leonhart Acting Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys Kevin L. Perldns Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigation POSTED IN: Attorney General, Office of the AttorneyGeneral ( PERMALiNK http://blogs.usdoj.gov/bloglarchives/192?prinr2 10/19/2009