JUDGE'S GAG ORDER ON MARIJUANA ADVOCATE BOB NEWLAND RAISES QUESTIONS

The gag order imposed by a Rapid City judge on medical marijuana
advocate Bob Newland as part of his sentence is an unusual penalty
that injects political views over public policy into a legal process,
a spokesman for a national criminal-defense association said Friday.

Jack King, director of public affairs and communications for the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington, D.C.,
said Judge John "Jack" Delaney took an unusual step in forbidding
Newland from taking any public role in the campaign to legalize
marijuana for medical uses for one year. The restriction was part of
the judge's sentence issued Monday for Newland's conviction for
felony pot possession.

Delaney sentenced Newland to a year in jail but suspended all but 45
days, with stipulations including random searches and weekly drug
tests and a ban on public advocacy for medical marijuana. Newland
could end up serving all or part of the remaining jail time if he
violates terms of the sentence.

Delaney lectured Newland on the problems of marijuana use,
particularly among youths, and told the outspoken advocate for
legalizing marijuana for medicinal use that he was "not going to take
a position as a public figure who got a light sentence."

The case was unusual and would be noted by "an entire segment of
society," Delaney said.

King said that other than the speech prohibition, the sentence seemed
"eminently fair, considering that Newland pleaded guilty to a
felony," but he was troubled by the speech restriction in the sentence.

"The judge made it very unusual when it did that," he said. "I don't
know if the judge realized that he was imposing his politics on Mr.
Newland as a condition of his probation."

King said the order was probably within Delaney's authority. Sioux
Falls lawyer Jon Arneson, who represents the South Dakota Newspaper
Association, also said the judge likely had the authority to impose
the speech limitation at sentencing.

"It's an interesting question and certainly merits some discussion,"
Arneson said. "But I think you'll find that judges can do about
anything they want" in that situation. "Obviously, we're taking civil
rights away from people in those cases. And this is one of those civil rights."

Robert Doody, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South
Dakota, said he wasn't prepared to say whether he thought the gag
order was legal. But it is unsettling.

"Even if legal, I find it troubling that we're going to take away
someone's right to even speak about something," he said. "It would be
different if we said you can't speak about how to grow marijuana, or
something like that. But this is just advocating for a public measure."

Newland declined by e-mail to comment for this story. His defense
lawyer, Robert Van Norman, didn't return a call from the Journal
seeking an interview.