Welcome back to Come Back With A Warrant podcast.I'm Brandon Denitz.And I'm Monica Shuck.Before we kick-start this week's episode, this is your reminder that this podcast is not legal advice.It's real, unfiltered, and for entertainment purposes only.If you need to speak with a lawyer, call one.Or better yet, call us.Call us.Welcome back.Today, we are talking all things dreads, drugs, and guns.Yeah.That took me a minute.I was like, "What was the third thing?"Dreads, shrugs, dreadsblah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.Yeah, see?We're talking about dreads, drugs, and guns- Hell, yeah.on this episode of Come Back With A Warrant podcast.We're gonna be reviewing five different big trending cases that are going on right now that cover the categories of dreads, drugs-guns.And we're gonna be talking about a case involving communication between a lawyer and client.But we've got a lot to get into.This is gonna be a really good episode, an exciting episode, and let's break it down.Let's start with the first case.This is Landor V Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.Yeah.So, this is actuallyJust to preface, I know you kinda just did that, but this is like big shit going on right now in the country that really affects almost everybody.It's not just like Florida or people who are facing criminal charges.I think this is likeThat's just an important disclaimer.But yes, going on to Landor V Louisiana DOC, this individual, by the name of Landor, is like an incarcerated person who is a Rastafarian.And heWhen you get booked into prison, they sh- require you to shave your head, and that's like one of the first things they do.And so, doesn't matter if you've had dreads all your life or the reason is, which we're gonna get to, because that is what is being litigated about- what it's being litigated about.But they shaved Landor's head and all his dreads off, and so as a result he filed suit against DOC, and now it's going to be heard by the Supreme Court.And, um, there is a law that protects incarcerated individuals for basically like anything religious.And so, this is a law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and this is a law that he sued under.Basically, under this law, you are s- to, like, honor and protect people's religious, like, whatever their religious con- restrictions are.Rights, customs.Exactly.Right.So, if somebody, you know, is kosher, they are to, you know, have kosher food.Somebody is, in this situation, a Rastafarian with dreads, and he grew out his hair for religious purposes, and as a result suffered damages because of the fact that they shaved his head.Um, this is something that is very important, because it's, it's related to constitutional law.And for the government to do anything, especially when you're going to be suing under any sort ofOh, and he's suing under 1983, the c- which is con law.Under 1980, '83, which everybody, you know, gets- throws that around for civil rights remedies.Um, you can sue for under the Eighth Amendment, you can sue under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.And so, in this situation, they're suing under 1983 and the RLUIPA.I don't know what the- So, the federal, the federal statute 42 U.S.C.1983, which is the Constitutional Civil Rights Act, and then they're also under this Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, so that's where the, the suit is being brought under.And it's just, you know, in plain language, it's a violation of religious liberty by state prison officials.And the question becomes can somebody recover damages for that?And we talk about the qualified immunity that prison officials, and really officers in general, have when they're exercising their job, not being held liable for the things they do while they're doing their job.And this really just comes up because like we're saying, the individual had religious beliefs, and part of his Rastafarian beliefs was that his hair is sacred and it is part of his culture and there are Biblical reasons why people grow out their hair.So, for many different reasons, uh, it is, it is his belief that he is to grow out his hair and keep and maintain his dreadlocks, and this, these being removed from him creates a religious issue.This is no different than, um, you know, it would be asking somebody to remove a yarmulke or certain hair- Head scarf.ThatRight, a head scarf or certain, um, hair that many different religionsJudaism has parts of its religion and people that grow out hair- Yeah.and facial hair.Sikhism has that.There's a lot of different cultures that believe in, um, men growing out their hair, and this specific issue has come up in Louisiana, and it's been brought to the, it's gotten to the Supreme Court.Yeah, which is a big deal, because this is something thatThe, the shaving of the head thing, like, that happens in Florida.I know that for sure.So like, it's definitely going to affect other jurisdictions.And another important fact is that in order for the governmentThis is getting a little legal, but I just wanted to kind of highlight that the government has a very big burden to overcome, because in order for them to enforce anything actually on like citizens generally, and this is where the 1983 part comes in, the constitutional law part comes in, they have to show that there's a compelling government interest and that they are achieving that through the least restrictive means.So, if they prove that, which is a very high standard, it's called strict scru- scrutiny.You know, this is something that is like literally on the bar exam, and like not something that people really need to know, but the point of me saying this is that they have to overcome this burden.And so, um, they would have to show this before the Sim- Supreme Court to be successful under 1983.So that's, that is something also to keep in mind.Obviously, there are standard rules for when you become incarcerated, you have to follow.And those, that's not what they're attacking.But at this point, his head is shaved because he is in custody, and now it's a matter of what damages or relief he can seek.And so in terms of that, you can get, you know, financial damages, or injunctive relief, or dec- declaratory relief, which means that you're asking for the government to stop, when it comes to, like, non-financial damages.You're asking for the court to enforce that the government stop doing what they're doing.And so that's why I'm saying this could really affect other jurisdictions in the sense that if the Supreme Court says this is illegal, would have to be enforced everywhere.Right.And if people are wondering, I think, you know, the compelling government interest for making people shave their heads when you bring them into a ins- you know, a correction institution, is to avoid anything like lice or any diseases or things that could be brought in through the hair.They remove people's hair.And this is something that has been done throughout history of people that are taken into custody.People have their hair removed and, you know, this is, there is clearly a reason to do that to maintain the health and safety and security of the facility.But is it at the expense of somebody's religious beliefs?And that's really the question that this case is bringing about.It's a big question for the Supreme Court to answer 'cause, you know, this is likeI went on a prison tour earlier this year, and we, that was, like, when we went into Florida Reception Center, which is the prison that you would go to to get basically booked into DOC and then get shipped off to wherever you're supposed to be going.And they were showing us, like, where they go to get their head shaved and, like, everything.And people were like, "So even people who have, like, shaved, who have grown"Like, dreads takes time and, like, TLC, you know what I mean?Like, there is so much time and energy put into growing out your dreads.And so people do it for non-religious reasons and for religious reasons, and people were shocked to hear that, and it was actually a prosecutor that was like, "Wait, you guys shave people's dreads off?"And so it was, it was just, like, a, you know, eye-opening experience to see like, okay, yeah, that is something that might be a little bit alarming just for somebody who knows kind of the process of growing out dreads.But obviously, for the purposes of this case, it's more about their religious protections and their constitutional protections.Interesting.Yeah.Well, it's also, like, not a thi- it's not a thing when people go into custody, like, for pretrial detention.Like, at ja- in jail, you have your dreads still.But when you go to prison, that's when it gets shaved off.Very interesting.Yep.So that's that.Stay tuned.That's literally being litigated actively.So the next case, which is, like, a huge one, I think, like, this is going to affect notIt's coming out of the State of Florida, but I think it affects more than 35 states because of the states that are in the similar s- situation as Florida where you have medical cannabis in that state, but obviously, everybody knows it's federally banned because it's considered a controlled substance.And so based off of that, you're not allowed to carry a firearm or possess a firearm at all if you have a medical marijuana card or on any sort of controlled substance.And so the reason why this comes up is because medical marijuana is, marijuana is now medical.Right.That's what I meant to say.Yeah.And so this is actively being litigated before the Sup- Supreme Court, not Supreme Court, sorry, it is the Supreme Court.It is the Supreme Court.Um, first came up, there's two cases that stem from this.First, the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, and that's why I said it comes from Florida, but it affects many states, and they're suing D- DOJ under this ban that's a federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by any unlawful user of or person addicted to a controlled substance.So let's break this down.In Florida, you can obtain your medical marijuana card for various reasons.Uh, marijuana is otherwise illegal in the State of Florida unless you have a medical marijuana card or the marijuana falls under certain categories and falls into regulation under the Hemp Control Act.But the, what you have is an individual that wants to own a firearm, and if somebody goes to purchase a firearm, one of the things that they have to fill out is a federal form.Mm-hmm.And under the federal form, it's an ATF Form 4473.Under that form, you have to swear that you do not use marijuana, and you don't have a marijuana card.Whether you have a marijuana card or not, it doesn't make a difference because the application doesn't make a distinction.So if you are a person that uses marijuana, whether legally or illegally, you are federally banned from owning a firearm.And by saying yes you do and being honest on that application, you will not be able to purchase a firearm.And by saying no and lying on the application, you open yourself up to potential federal, uh- Criminal charges.offenses.Right.Yeah.So, the question becomes, a person who has a medical marijuana card lawfully uses that marijuana as medication, just like any other type of prescription, should they be banned from owning a firearm?And that's a big question, especially in a state like Florida, which is an open carry state.Huh.So, this is not just about whether or not you have a permit to own the gun, because it used to be, in Florida, you couldn't have a medical marijuana card and a concealed carry permit.You weren't el- able to get both at the same time, and that was because of this rule.Now, you don't even need a concealed carry permit.But in order to still get that firearm, you have to pass the federal background check, and you can't pass it, honestly, if you are a medical marijuana holder or use marijuana.Yeah.So, theTechnically, the government's position is that they don't want people who are intoxicated or dangerous to have firearms, which fair, but when you now put on a, like, a prescription to a drug, quotes on drug if you're not watching this , you know, it's now creating a conflict between state and federal law, and federal law is technically supposed to trump, but you don't wanna get caught by the feds.And I think this is something that probably would be enforced.Um- It has been.Yeah, exactly.So, this isYou're- you're using somebody's medical issues against them, in a sense, because now they can'tThey either have to, or I don't wanna say have to, but are in a position where they can lie, um, and face criminal charges, or they can't have a gun for self-defense or self-protection reasons whenJust because they have a prescription for medical marijuana.And let's think about some of the people that use medical marijuana and are really affected by this: veterans.Veterans are affected by this because for them to enjoy hunting or self-protection or collecting guns, they can't do that and treat some of the symptoms they may have with marijuana.There are a lot of veterans that choose marijuana over traditional medications because of side effects or addiction or number of reasons.Cancer treatment.Right.And for them to have to give that up or give up their guns, that's where this question comes up whether or not that's right and whether or not that's fair.You don't see this issue with alcohol, you know?Mm-mm.There are- Period.There's no ban preventing somebody from buying a gun that drinks alcohol.You don't see this with people that take prescription opioids.There's no ban that's preventing people from taking prescription opioids or having a prescription for opioids and purchasing a firearm.We really see this come up with cannabis only, and that's really where this issue comes into play.Now, should somebody that's addicted to any other type of drugs own a firearm?Probably not either.But these people that are being restricted from owning a firearm that simply are trying to consume marijuana in a legal way shouldn't be, and that's where this question is coming up.Um, and to make people either have to lie or have to give up their rights to treatment or their rights to bear arms and collect firearms and have firearms for whatever reason, there is the conflict, and there is the question that is now before the Supreme Court on multiple cases, not just one.Yeah.Yeah, so that second case is United States v.Hemani, which is the one that will be heard before the Supreme Court, and that's also actively being litigated, and that'sThe question is are any drug users allowed to own guns.And so, SCOTUS has to decide.You know, like, they are going to makeThis isLike, these are big decisions that the Supreme Court has to answer that's not just going to affect, again, this once jurisdiction or one state.It's going to affect a lot ofA big portion of the country.So, these are things that you should be paying attention, especially if you have a m- a medical marijuana card and, you know, have a firearm or want to have a firearm.This is something that has created, obviously, conflict under different areas of law, and that's something that they're going to have to basically weigh to see which one is more important, how many, how much protection they're going to give people or freedom to own firearms.So, um, I guess we'll stay tuned.I don't know.This is, like, a very interesting topic.I actually can't wait to see what the Supreme Court's gonna decide on this.I mean, I think, ultimately, if you're gonnaIf the position is that somebody can be an alcoholic and still buy a firearm- That's the thing.there's really no reason why somebody that has a medical marijuana card shouldn't be able to buy a firearm lawfully.Because there's no real way to kind of, like, regulate and see if this person is actively under the influence when they are using or possessing that firearm, versus somebody who can be on very heavy prescribed drugs that's not cannabis and still own and possess a firearm.So, it's like- And it's a, it's a enhanced charge if you areif you have a firearm while intoxicated, that is its ownExcuse me, not an enhanced charge.That's its own charge.So, you can be prosecuted for- Yeah.being intoxicated and having a firearm on you, so if that is a concern, well, that concern should already be alleviated by the fact that that law already exists to prosecute that as a crime.Yeah, and I think that this will give the court an opportunity to maybe say that marijuana's not a controlled substance.Yeah, wouldn't that be lovely?That means that we would all- I don't know whenI don't know if we're at that point, at that- But they-if we're at that point yet.But they could if they wanted to, and that would be a- And this is why people need to stay tuned.that would be another game changer.Yes.Yeah.100%.Uh- But sticking with marijuana, we're moving on to our next case.This is- And this isAnother big one that's important, and this is something that is impacting Florida in a big way, the smell of cannabis has traditionally been enough for an officer to use to search a vehicle or search a person.Now, that is changing because there are 2, at least 2 that we know of, Florida districts that have said that the odor of marijuana alone is not sufficient to give an officer probable cause to search a vehicle.They are requiring that there is something additional to require that there'sSo it would be an odor plus additional circumstances indicating some sort of criminal activity would be the standard.Whereas the original standard used to be just this plain smell doctrine where if they smell it, that's enough for them to search.This is significant and it's significant for a few reasons.Obviously, medical marijuana comes into play.But before we even get to medical marijuana, we have to talk about because hemp itself is governed differently than marijuana.And hemp is part of the marijuana plant, but it does not have the same type of THC that, which is the delta-9-THC, that the illegal cannabis has in it.And it's all about the level of that THC.In Florida, if it is 0.3% of delta-9-THC or more, it is illegal.Hmm.Unless we're talking about the medical.And then there is a- Question has been answered.there's a, there's a medicalThere's different rules and caveats based on medical marijuana, but 0.3% is that threshold.And why that's important is a lot of us go to gas stations- Yeah.liquor stores, and we're starting to see that there are these legal versions of marijuana- THC drinks.Yeah.and THC that is purchasable, and it's not required that you have a medical marijuana card to do it.Oh.So I did a little bit of digging to try to figure out why that is.Yeah.And that is based on the different types of cannabinoids inI hope I said that right.In the marijuana, if they are the delta-8 or delta-10 variant and not delta-9, they can be sold and governed under hemp.Now, that's what's in the drinks that you see at the liquor store, that's what you see in the marijuana that's sold over-the-counter at a gas station.It is sometimes synthetic in its entirety, and it's just something that's made in a lab- Boo.and other types, it's just different parts of the cannabis plant.But the State of Florida is actively trying now to create legislation that would make the alcoholic beverages, or excuse me, beverages that have THC in them can only be sold at places that have liquor license.Also, you can't have, based on what the new legislation w- is trying to do, you can't have a drink that includes alcohol of any kind and THC.That can't be.And I don't believe that that is something that they're selling at the stores right now.I think maybe in states that are fully legal- Yeah.that's different.Maybe.But in, at least in Florida, in the liquor stores, they're selling drinks that have THC in them.It is a different type of THC than the THC, the delta-9, which is what is the illegal THC once you get to a certain point.So it is very scientific, it's very specific, but ultimately, because there are other variants and other cannabinoids and other types of THC out there, if the officer smells marijuana, that doesn't automatically mean it's delta-9-THC that's above a 0.3%.Yeah, and there's no way to tell- Right.from the smell.And because they can't do that and because they can't tell, that is not enough of a reason to search a vehicle.But that'sSo this came out, this law came out in the second District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida.So this is a state case, not a federal case, and the reason why this is very significant is because other district courts of appeals in the State of Florida don't have that same holding.Now I'm getting, like, nerdy again but the reason why it's important is because if there is conflicting law between different courts of appeals in the same state, that gives kind of, that issue, it makes it ripe for litigation for the Supreme Court of Florida to then make a decision.Is the smell of marijuana enough when police stop to search the car in all, throughout the state?Or turn down this second DCA and say, "You know, y- you're wrong.We're gonna overturn this and, you know, it, the smell is enough and that's, that's that."But that's something that would, you know, if you come to Florida for fun.If you are, y- you live here.Like, y- this is like a big state that people come to travel to all the time.Like, things like this matter and would affect your, you know, your stay here.SoYeah.So, make sure you stay tuned 'cause this is something that has been decided by the second DCA, isn't being litigated yet before the Florida Supreme Court, but I am sure will be challenged by someone coming out of a different court of, uh, a different district court of appeals that would be litigating that issue.So, interesting stuff.And I think that's the last one we have on cannabis but another, another issue that came up recently, um, and this is the US Supreme Court.And this honestly came to my surprise but the case is Villarreal v.Texas and this is about your right to counsel during an overnight recess while the client is testifying, mid-testimony.Prior to this, it was always my understanding that if my client wanted me while they're testifying, all they have to say is, "I need my lawyer."And I'm like, "Judge, we need a recess."But things have changed.Yeah.And this is, I mean, specific to the overnight break while there is testimony going on.And apparently, in Texas, it was not something that was proper for counsel to interact with their client in between court days while a case is pending.While that person is giving testimony on the stand, their lawyer shouldn't be contacting them in between while they're still giving live testimony.I guess, the concern being that they could impact the testimony, influence the testimony, change the testimony, fabricate testimony in some way would be the concern.But this creates a huge issue because now you are, in effect, taking away somebody's right to counsel- Mm-hmm.and their right to be able to confer with counsel during trial, which is the most important part of the process for these individuals.To say they can't talk to their lawyer is i- is an unfair and, uh, now we're challenging it as whether or not this is even Constitutional to be able to do.Yeah.And so that's the S- the Supreme Court is deciding this issue again.What theAnd like, this is also, side note, 'cause this is not what the topic is about, but, like, this is why it's so important to preserve legal issues during trial.Like, if the judgeWhat happened here, probably during trial, is that, you know, they were breaking for recess and they asked t- or they asked to speak to their lawyer and they said, judge said no.And then the defense attorney said, "You know, we object because he has a right to his 6th Amendment right to counsel."And the judge said no and so we have to preserve, you know, his testimony.Make sure it's not going to be, um, I guess, messed with or whatever.Like, you're not going to interrupt and tell them to say certain things.And that's, you know, that's always been something that defense attorneys can do versus when you have another witness on the stand and they're not the person that's facing trial or have their freedom 0 on the line.And they are, you know, talking to the State Attorney's office or talking even to the defense attorney if they're the, the attorney that put them on.So, like, in those scenarios, yes, you cannot speak.Th- that witness cannot speak to the attorney but when it comes to the person that's facing whatever amount of time and has a right to counsel, and that's literally where, the 6th Amendment is where it comes from, that's why it's, it's a bigger issue.So, um, and that's why I said it's so important to just, like, k- know to object and, you know, preserve the record as an attorney, if you're an attorney listening.Oftentimes, and this is something that, like, if you don't know how trial goes really, like, this is something that you should be aware of because sometimes you have to break while the witness is on the stand.And if the witness, if you're going all day, the witness sometimes is on the stand for hours at a time and, you know, we have to go home and come back the next day.And so, we will s- like, suspend everything.Put everything on pause, come back the next morning and continue, pick up right where we left off.The witness will literally go sit on the stand, if we're in the middle of the testimony.The attorney will stand in their spot.The, then, then everybody will be like, "You're ready?Okay, bring the jury right in."And everybody just kind of resumes and picks up where we left off from the day before.So, that's also, like, something to keep in mind 'cause I th- I'm sure if somebody's listening to this and has never seen a trial before and was like, "How does that even happen?"You know, that is a process of a trial if it goes on for more than a day.So- If the, at least the testimony goes on for more than a day.Yeah.Yeah.It's always nice to stop at a, like, clean spot where it's like, "You know, no further questions.We've already done cross," nev- but it's n- it doesn't always happen that way.0 oftentimes does not happen that way.Yeah.And this is such an important, an important point to bring up is, this is why if you are practicing in multiple jurisdictions, knowing the individual rules of the jurisdictions that you're practicing in is so important.Whether it's the law.Whether it's something that's procedural.Whether it's something the judge puts in their division instructions.Oh, my gosh.Huge.These are really important things that- Yeah.a lawyer needs to be aware of.You know, that's whether you're practicing in a different jurisdiction than you're used to or you're practicing in your own, you know, the one that you are the most used to.Know the local rules and know the judge's rules and preferences because that can go a long way in getting the best result for your client.because you're doingAnd, and just making sure you're doing everything the right way for your client.Um, that's, know, that's all good lawyering.Yeah.And oftentimes, like in the past when my clients have testified and then we had to like go in the next day, we will practice cross-examination.Like we will prepare them again, like in the middle of the trial, to get them ready for what's to come, because, you know, like trial started, like things change, like you need to kind of pivot and strategize a little bit.It's not to say that you're messing with like the testimony or you're telling your client to not speak the truth, but it's, it's doing things that are better for their interest based off the things that came out.So it's just, you know, making sure that you are giving them access to you throughout the course of the trial.And so I think that is something I hope and pray that this is something that is not stripped from the 6th Amendment as a part of likeBasically you're, you're saying that they do not have full access to their lawyers if the Supreme Court agrees with this ruling, that they do not have access to their lawyer throughout the course of their trial.At least it's a limited right to counsel, which, you know, is just wild to me.And there should also be some sort of, umI think the one thing maybe the Supreme Court should look at is la- lawyers have an ethical duty when we're practicing.So the concern and the idea- Yeah.that we're gonna influence the testimony and change it or do something to manipulate the outcome in a- Yeah.nefarious way is, is wrong.And I think that should be a consideration that the state, that the, that the, uh, Supreme Court takes in, because that is really what the concern is that's being raised is that- Yeah.we don't want the, you knowThe, the reason that this rule would be in place is not having communication with the attorney, the client and the attorney, so that this person gives different testimony.Yeah, no I agree.Or so that they don't give d- different testimony.And I think that's, taking away from the ethical duty that we already have- Yeah.and we know not to do that.Yeah.We know not to manipulate or influence.Like if the case isn't going the way you want and the facts aren't in your way, like that's it.Like sometimes you don't have the facts- Exactly.and that is what it is.But to put a rule out there because you're worried that the lawyer is gonna manipulate the situation, which is kind of what this is, isn't right.Yeah.I agree.So these are likeThis is big shit.Yeah, these are big, these are important, these are important cases.I mean, they're- Yeah.They're each, you know, they'reYou know, we couch it funny 'cause we're saying, you know, dreads and- Yeah.guns and drugs and all sorts of fun, but these are big cases that are gonna have national impact across the board.Mm-hmm.Because they'reWe're talking everything from religion to gun rights to, you know, the ability to- Cannabis.Cannabis.I mean, all of this is so big right now and such trending topics that, 2026 when we see how these cases come out, there could be some big changes in the law.Who knows?Yeah.That's so true.If you like listening to our podcast, make sure you like, comment, and subscribe.We're on all platforms, comebackwithawarrant.pod.Make sure you subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get your weekly gems.Give us a five star review.And if you didn't like listening to usCome back with a warrant.