News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: PUB LTE: Shame On Chief Gardiner |
Title: | US CA: PUB LTE: Shame On Chief Gardiner |
Published On: | 2003-01-23 |
Source: | New Times (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-21 13:45:40 |
SHAME ON CHIEF GARDINER
I read the article "Cops reluctantly share cannabis with No Runner" in your
Jan. 9 edition, concerning the return of medical marijuana to Donovan No
Runner by the San Luis Obispo Police Department pursuant to the order of
superior court Judge Barry LaBarbera. Assuming the story was reported
correctly, the people of San Luis Obispo should be very concerned about a
police department whose past administrative leader, as well as the one just
taking office, "agreed with the position to ignore LaBarbera's often
repeated order."
Police officers are supposed to enforce the law, not interpret it. Courts
interpret laws. If there is a legitimate disagreement, there is an appeal
process. Should you choose not to pursue an appeal, then the court's order
must be followed.
Police need to remember that our government is comprised of three branches
to avoid just the kind of arbitrary enforcement that is suggested by a
police decision to ignore a court order. The legislature makes the law, the
executive branch enforces the law, and the courts interpret the law, often
comparing those laws to the rights afforded all of us through our state
constitutions.
People have a right to know that those enforcing the law follow the same
laws the rest of us must follow, including court orders, they need to set a
proper example by doing so themselves. It is not a question of whether one
agrees with the court ruling or not. It is also not a question of whether
the order was reluctantly and ultimately followed, but that police even
considered ignoring it in the first place.
Stephen P. Anderson, Esq.
Santa Maria
I read the article "Cops reluctantly share cannabis with No Runner" in your
Jan. 9 edition, concerning the return of medical marijuana to Donovan No
Runner by the San Luis Obispo Police Department pursuant to the order of
superior court Judge Barry LaBarbera. Assuming the story was reported
correctly, the people of San Luis Obispo should be very concerned about a
police department whose past administrative leader, as well as the one just
taking office, "agreed with the position to ignore LaBarbera's often
repeated order."
Police officers are supposed to enforce the law, not interpret it. Courts
interpret laws. If there is a legitimate disagreement, there is an appeal
process. Should you choose not to pursue an appeal, then the court's order
must be followed.
Police need to remember that our government is comprised of three branches
to avoid just the kind of arbitrary enforcement that is suggested by a
police decision to ignore a court order. The legislature makes the law, the
executive branch enforces the law, and the courts interpret the law, often
comparing those laws to the rights afforded all of us through our state
constitutions.
People have a right to know that those enforcing the law follow the same
laws the rest of us must follow, including court orders, they need to set a
proper example by doing so themselves. It is not a question of whether one
agrees with the court ruling or not. It is also not a question of whether
the order was reluctantly and ultimately followed, but that police even
considered ignoring it in the first place.
Stephen P. Anderson, Esq.
Santa Maria
Member Comments |
No member comments available...