SUPREME COURT: BUY DRUGS ON YOUR CELL CARE FREE

*The following is an illuminating post written by YW legal representative and affiliate Spencey Cochrane. I implore you to read it...

As a youwildin reader I am making a bold assumption: you have done drugs in the past, are currently high, or plan on getting high once you get off work (assuming you even have a job). I’m guessing you may have used your cell once or twice to buy drugs. You might have even called some dude to meet you on the street in a completely unobvious hand-to-hand transaction.

Well, if you are one such reader, the Supreme Court recently handed down a decision that will directly affect you and the rest of the wildin world.

Here’s are the Facts: The FBI tapped the cell phone of a suspected coke dealer, Mohammed Said (no relation to that dude from Lost you boners). During their investigation, they recorded six separate calls between Mr. Said and Salman Khade Abuelhawa. On two of the calls, Abuelhawa arranged to buy a gram of coke (or the Dapwell Sunday Bruch Special) from Said. Under current federal law, Abuelhawa’s two purchases were misdemeanors and Said’s two sales were felonies. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) makes it a felony “to use any communication facility in committing or in causing or facilitating” certain felonies, including drug sales. A cell phone call is considered a communication facility.

Here is where the government starts wildin. The government charged Abuelhawa with six felonies on the theory that each of the calls were “facilitating” Said’s distribution felonies and therefore, were felonies in their own right under the CSA. Abuelhawa was looking at 24 years for twice buying a gram of yak (or a Young Tholomus I-Banking motivator) over the phone.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because the lower federal courts were split on the CSA’s application. During oral arguments, Sri Srinivasan represented Abuelhawa (dude is like 40 and argued 4-5 cases before the court this year alone- a fucking cockstar in this 1L’s world). He made sure his arguments fell within both the text (to get Scalia) and the purpose of the statute (Breyer’s main focus). Justice Kennedy asked some real fancy hypotheticals to which Ginsberg basically told him to shut the fuck up by interrupting and asking what the “real world” implications of the statute were. The government’s lawyer was a real loser. He was mad nervous and it was clearly the first case he argued before the court [this might be reading too far into the tea leaves but maybe the Obama (who admitted kakane use during his college days here in NY) Justice Department put this rookie on because the case originated under Bush (a Yolanda white aficionado in his earlier days) and they didn’t really want to win].

So does the Supreme Court let this guy, who could easily be any fan of this blog, face 24 years of shitty food and male rape for buying 2 grams of kokayeen or do they do the sensible thing and declare that mere drug possession does not facilitate the dealer’s distribution felonies.

Thankfuckly, the Supreme Court held that using a cell phone to buy drugs for personal possession is not facilitating the felony of drug distribution.

Here’s why:

1. The government’s use of “facilitate” does not fit with the ordinary use of the word. When I buy an industrial sized tub of lube from Costco, am I “facilitating” Costco distribution of lube? You could make the argument that I do, but it really seems like a stretch. The distribution of goods is inherent in any sale, therefore the law’s use of the word “facilitate” must mean something other than simply buying drugs.

2. The broad reading of “facilitate” would skew the traditional proportions between buyer and seller penalties. Normally, sellers are punished more severely than buyers. Before 1970, the purchase or sale of drugs were both felonies (these penalties did a really good job curbing drug use during ‘60s). In 1970, the CSA downgraded possession to a misdemeanor. Under the government’s use of “facilitate” they would have effectively reversed Congress’ change and made drug possession a felony again.

3. The Court also noted the Government’s general wildin when they said: it does not follow that Congress also meant a first-time buyer’s phone calls to get two small quantities of drugs for personal use to expose him to punishment 12 times more severe than a purchase by a recidivist offender and 8 times more severe than the unauthorized possession of a drug used by rapists…the Government’s position is just too unlikely.

Fear not, wilding has once again ruled the day. Go pick up your cell and buy a bag right now.