Pubdate: Thu, 21 Nov 2013
Source: Sacramento News & Review (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Contact:  http://newsreview.com/sacto/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/540
Author: Jeff vonKaenel
Note; Jeff vonKaenel is SN&R's president and CEO.

SN&R'S INTERVIEW WITH FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR TODD LERAS

The District-Attorney Candidate on Crowded Prisons, Rehab and the War on Drugs

Todd Leras spent the past five years as one of tens of thousands of 
attorneys in the Department of Justice. Based out of Sacramento, the 
recently announced district-attorney candidate has prosecuted cases 
involving mortgage fraud, drug trafficking, sex crimes and even 
white-collar embezzlement. SN&R spoke with the candidate to discuss 
what's working and what needs to change when it comes to law and 
order in Sacramento.

The war on drugs has been a big issue lately. Did Attorney General 
Eric H. Holder's statement about respecting states' marijuana laws 
take you by surprise?

He issued a couple of announcements that surprised. The first was 
early on: He had made a statement about not wanting to pursue 
criminal actions against people who were complying with state 
[medical-marijuana] law. There was an unintended consequence to that. .

And then the second thing was recently when he went to the [American 
Bar Association], and without any warning, announced that he wanted 
to essentially loosen up some of the prosecutions of lower-level drug 
dealers who were facing statutory minimum sentences. Our response, 
immediately, was, "Wow, we didn't see that was coming-and what does that mean?"

Basically, America's drug policy has been to attack the supply side. 
But the demand hasn't changed, so you reduce the supply but increase 
the price. More people get involved in illegal drugs, and it hasn't 
been working-and yet we continue to keep doing it. Am I missing something here?

I think that's a fairly accurate assessment of what the policy has 
been; it's been a supply-side policy. We go after it. You can 
understand why, from a prosecutor's perspective, that is where you do 
want to concentrate. You don't want to pick on the people who are low 
level and using but create the demand for drugs.

But we're putting tons of them in prison for low-level drug use.

Well, what you end up doing is they become essentially, because of 
their drug use, unemployable. Unemployed and unemployable. A lot of 
them get involved in low-level drugs sales and then get prosecuted 
for low-level drug sales and end up going to prison for low-level 
drug sales. That what's you see.

But then, when the Department of Justice changes the guidelines, 
there must be some awkward conversation. "You would be OK, but I just 
happened to be arrested too early."

Invariably, you have those conversations. I had many of them with 
defense attorneys, where I would have to say, ... "I'll go with you, 
and we'll go talk and we'll see if this is gonna change anything."

The U.S. attorney has limited resources. How did medical-marijuana 
prosecutions become a priority?

It's a very interesting issue, because not every drug is the same. 
And from my view, meth and cocaine are poisons. Particularly with 
meth, you see what devastation it wreaks. ...

When there was a change of policy on low-level marijuana, everyone 
thought that meant the feds aren't going after marijuana. People went 
into it, they were making lots of money-they were essentially selling 
marijuana as a commodity. Then, the federal government came in and 
said, "No, it's not legal. California, you have not legalized 
recreational use. So, we're going to come in and crack down on and 
shut down those avenues for selling marijuana," and ... it creates 
this black market of people who are growing in the national forest.

Recently, U.S. Attorney Ben Wagner released a press release about 
Angel Gonzalez, 36, who was going to serve seven years in prison for 
marijuana cultivation in the Sequoia National Forest. Do you actually 
think that putting Angel in jail is going to have any impact?

There will be another Angel.

And so, what are we doing? Isn't this to just keep doing the same 
thing of working on supply, impacting supply? This clearly is not working.

You're reading a press release that obviously is talking about 
someone who's out in the national forest, growing marijuana on our 
land, on our public land. That's something that politically looks 
good in a press release. You're right, that's why it's made, because 
that's our land, we're supposed to be able to go out and hike and 
enjoy it without being threatened by someone who is trying to protect 
their marijuana crop. There's no political will to say let's not do 
that. I understand that completely.

What you're talking about is also sensible. ... That is a major 
source of frustration for the line prosecutors who do those kinds of 
cases. You're right. I think that's why it's important, when you have 
someone who leads an office, that they know what it's like to be on 
the line and they know this is what it's like be a prosecutor. The 
case that you just showed me, the press release, is a great example 
of that. There were many of my colleagues who could not stand to 
doing those cases, those Forest Service cases, for that reason, 
because they felt that there was going to be another one right down the road.

If you were talking to a marijuana collective and they came to you 
and said, "We got your guidelines, we're in compliance with all of 
these guidelines: Can I be assured that I won't be prosecuted?"

I'd tell them no. I'd tell them that you're still likely to get 
prosecuted for the reason that I told you earlier. I'd say, "Look, 
California has not adopted a broad change in its law the way that 
Colorado and Washington have, and so you still risk potentially being 
prosecuted by state authorities."

How do you think things will play out?

My guess for the future? I think there is going to be pressure on the 
various U.S. attorneys throughout the country to comply with what 
Washington has announced. That people will come into line, and there 
will be this expectation that if you're complying with the policy as 
announced that there will not be prosecutions.

As district attorney, what would be your policy for medical marijuana?

Medical marijuana is the law. ... I find the medical-marijuana laws 
to be quite confusing, and I'm sure that anyone who tries to comply 
with them does. If you are in compliance with medical-marijuana laws, 
there will be no prosecution. That's a judgment that has been made, 
and there's no reason to prosecute medical-marijuana users for 
complying with the law. Now, there are significant gray areas, and I 
think the DA needs to be an advocate for trying to get clarity.

We've had a very conservative district attorney, Jan Scully, who's 
been strident in terms of locking people up and not focused on 
alternatives to incarceration. What is your approach to some of these issues?

That's the crux of why I'm getting into the race. We are now in a 
position that what's been happening for the last 20 years is 
unsustainable. You can't do it anymore. You've gotta change the policies.

What do you stand for as a DA candidate?

The crystallized message is that we have to increase public safety, 
recognizing that we have less resources to do it. The way to do that 
is every member of the district attorney's office ... has to be 
taught repeatedly-and the lesson has to be reinforced-that we are 
trying to exercise our judgment to identify ... the worst bad actors 
who we need to protect our community [against] by putting them away.

As for other individuals on the lower levels, we now can't afford to 
incarcerate them the way we used to. We've got to come with 
alternatives. ... I think that's the path forward. That's how we 
increase public safety.

In Sacramento, the realignment money hasn't been spent on these 
rehabilitative policies.

Because we still have the same essential district-attorney policy. .. 
I'm going to take some of that money and try and come up with some 
type of program and use it as an alternative to incarceration, again, 
at the lower levels.

Are there other key issues and changes that you think we should make 
at the district attorney's office?

I know the U.S. attorney's office quite well. I know who is over 
there and who is good and ambitious and would be willing to take on 
things in the area of white-collar crime. ... They have more 
resources and better ability to prosecute than we do. Once the budget 
situation improves over there, I expect they will be anxious and 
hungry for cases.

I think there are the cases here in Sacramento, where you get a 
person who is embezzling from a business here, which wouldn't go to 
the U.S. attorney. My sense is that those cases are complicated; 
they're much more difficult. They're the "good luck on your civil 
trial, we wish you the best of luck" cases.

They get prosecuted. But they don't get prosecuted to the same 
extent, but you have to set priorities. And you're right. I'm going 
to tell you that if I'm setting priorities and I'm looking as alarmed 
as I am by somebody that is embezzling business funds, I don't 
consider it the same as someone who is victimizing a child or 
shooting someone in our community. Those are the people that I think 
need to be the top priority of the DA's office. You need to talk 
about people who are actually victimizing and hurting people and 
kids. That'd be the first level of priority.

But we also had a DA that prosecuted people for doing needle 
exchanges. Embezzlement or needle exchanges-help me here ...

That's what I'm talking about. That's why this race is so important, 
because you have alternatives to these policies that have been 
long-standing policies, and I don't think people really realize the 
implications.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom