Brief summary abput a case - Essay Example

United s vs. SDI future Health, Inc In this case, US attorney general Gonzales (defendant) was sued by Raich and Monson (both were plaintiffs). The constitutional/congressional federal law seeks to regulate the usage and possession of marijuana. This law is responsible for interstate economic activity. The states have their own laws. Some states do allow minimal use of marijuana with doctor’s approval. In this particular case, the ruling upheld that the congressional law should take preeminence because a collection of many small cases of medically approved marijuana intake can affect the demand and supply of marijuana across states.

Therefore, interstate commercial and economic trend can be affected if this ruling failed to be upheld. The congressional federal law had the rationale to regulate any activity that affects interstate economic activity. In this case, the constitutional federal law preempted California state law. SDI, Kaplan and Brunk had filed a case in a district federal court arguing that they had stood to challenge the legality of the search and that their right as stipulated in the fourth Amendments had been violated, (Reilly, 1983, p141).

They requested that since the search warrant was vague and overboard then the evidence presented by the IRS agents was inadmissible and should be suppressed, (Reilly, 1983, p141). The district federal court ruled in their favor. The government appealed through the court of Appeal Ninth Circuit. This decision was reversed by the court of appeal. The judges said that there was no evidence that SDI, Kaplan and Brunk made steps maintain the privacy of the items, they had no direct control over the property that was seized as evidence, and they did not have a strong connection with the seized items, (Reilly, 1983, p143).

All these were vital requirements for the items to be perceived as private. However, the court acknowledged that they had direct control over both the premises and the entire building. Therefore, there was a certain extent of privacy accorded to them by that virtue alone. However, with regard to their standing to challenge the search, further proceedings were necessary and the decision by the district federal court stood reversed. It was noted that some evidence was admissible while other was not, (Reilly, 1983, p143).

Works CitedReilly, Michael. Criminal law and procedure.1st ed. Diane Books Publishing , 1983. Print.