Information and News About Your Rights
"FEDERAL JUDGE RULES FLORIDA'S DRUG LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
July 27, 2011
The title of this post is the headline of this press release from the NACDL reporting on a notable habeas ruling handed down today. Here are highlights of the ruling in Shelton v. Florida DOC, No. No. 6:07-cv-839-Orl-35-KRS (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011) (available here), as described by the NACDL the press release: A federal judge in Orlando has declared Florida's strict-liability controlled substances act unconstitutional on the ground that the law could convict an innocent person of drug distribution who unknowingly possessed, transported or delivered a controlled substance. The laws' fatal flaw is the lack of a criminal intent requirement, which the legislature purposely removed from the statutes in 2002.
U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven found that Florida stands alone among the states in its express elimination of mens rea -- the common-law "guilty mind" requirement -- as an element of a drug offense.
The petitioner, Mackle Vincent Shelton, was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and traffic charges. The jury was instructed that "to prove the crime of delivery of cocaine, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that Mackle Vincent Shelton delivered a certain substance; and, that the substance was cocaine." The state did not have to prove that he knew he was carrying or distributing cocaine or any controlled substance at all.
In granting Mr. Shelton's petition for habeas corpus, the court found that Florida's drug distribution law violates due process because it "regulates inherently innocent conduct." Indeed, with no intent requirement, a Federal Express delivery person who unknowingly delivers a parcel containing a controlled substance, would be presumed a felon under Florida's drug law. Such a criminal statute runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is also inconsistent with centuries of common law, sound public policy, and the norms of international legal systems and principles generally embraced by the United States.
Thank You,
Jerry Theophilopoulos
Attorney for COC
ATTACHED IS THE FINAL ORDER VACATING THE PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE RE: TRADEMARKS, WRITTEN BY THE HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, ON JUNE 28, 2011.
To summarize, the Court found:
Criminal forfeiture is a personal to the convicted defendant's. Since the Mongols Nation Club was never indicted, much less ever convicted of any criminal act, then the forfeiture of the trademark owned by the Mongols Nation was in total error.
The Mongols Motorcycle Club, or Mongol Nation, owned the trademark of the club colors since 1969.
Any assignment made by any member of the club to himself or any other individual was void. This is because the trademark was a collective membership mark which can only be owned by the organization for which the Mark stands. Only the Mongols Club, or Mongols Nation could have a property interest or own the patch, colors, or trademark for the patch or colors.
Since the Mongols were not indicted in the criminal action, the property of anyone other than the defendants in a criminal action, cannot have their property forfeited.
This order, and the prior litigation that led up to this order, is a victory for the rights of motorcycle clubs to own, display, and fly their colors, without forfeiture by the government.
Of Interest to All
- Patriot Act
Check out the actual document!
- Register to Vote
Register with the state of Florida to vote! - Aim Information
Aid to Injured Motorcyclists Site
- Biker News / Outlaw Biker World
Largest biker news website!