Attorney General moves for suspension of Nursing License

The Delaware State Attorney General has called for the Board of Nursing to permanently suspend the professional license of a Delaware nurse who was recently charged with several Pennsylvania drug offenses. Authorities allege that the nurse, a 37-year-old man who is licensed to practice in Delaware but who had been employed at DuBois Regional Medical Center in central Pennsylvania, was in possession of four bags of cocaine and 33 bags of heroin. Stating that he believes the nurse to be an “immediate and imminent danger to public health,” the attorney general reportedly generated the emergency petition to ensure that the nurse will permanently lose his license and never be able to work in Delaware.

The nurse was taken into custody on July 13 by the Towamencin Township Police. He was charged with two counts of drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia and receipt in commerce of a controlled substance. He has reportedly resigned from his position at DuBois Regional Medical Center and faces an October hearing.

While the nurse’s alleged acts are serious, they are at this point only charges. While it may benefit the attorney general to take a tough stance against a health care professional who allegedly committed these offenses, the accused has not been convicted of any crime. He is protected by a presumption of innocence and entitled to due process of law.

When a member of the health care profession is charged with drug offenses, a lawyer will have to challenge the evidence on two fronts: at an administrative hearing in front of the licensing authority as well as in the courtroom. The mere the fact of an arrest does not always rise to the level of unprofessional conduct in the one forum, nor is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the other.

Source: delawareonline, “Delaware nurse faces drug charges; emergency license suspension sought“, Terri Sanginiti, July 31, 2013

Pennsylvania drug laws can result in police seizing property

After a man was convicted of possessing prescription drugs for sale, the Philadelphia District Attorney decided to seize his home according to laws that permit asset forfeiture. The department confiscates between 300 and 600 pieces of real estate annually in cases of drug possession with the intent to deliver. Along with small seizures of cash and property, the Philadelphia DA brings in revenues of about $6 million annually through the confiscations.

While the agency characterizes their actions as a public service, alleged criminals can sometimes be denied their rights for relatively minor crimes even though they have no prior criminal history. In fact, the property owner doesn’t need to be charged, let alone convicted, in order for the DA to seize the land. The city can legally freeze a person’s assets before the case even begins, which means it can be challenging to retain legal counsel.

Despite the father’s conviction, the family claims the drug possession was for personal use only. The DA evicted the family from their residence; they were homeless and went to stay with a relative. Although the government eventually gave up their attempts to seize the house, by then, the family had fallen behind on mortgage payments and the bank foreclosed on the home.

Pennsylvania drug forfeiture statute can be found at 42 PaCSA 6801, et seq, which provides:

§ 6801.  Controlled substances forfeiture.
        (a)  Forfeitures generally.–The following shall be subject
     to forfeiture to the Commonwealth and no property right shall
     exist in them:
            (1)  All drug paraphernalia, controlled substances or
        other drugs which have been manufactured, distributed,
        dispensed or acquired in violation of the act of April 14,
        1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance,
        Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
            (2)  All raw materials, products and equipment of any
        kind which are used, or intended for use, in manufacturing,
        compounding, processing, delivering, importing or exporting
        any controlled substance or other drug in violation of The
        Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
            (3)  All property which is used, or intended for use, as
        a container for property described in paragraph (1) or (2).
            (4)  All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or
        vessels, which are used or are intended for use to transport,
        or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale,
        receipt, possession or concealment of, property described in
        paragraph (1) or (2), except that:
                (i)  no conveyance used by any person as a common
            carrier in the transaction of business as a common
            carrier shall be forfeited under the provisions of this
            section unless it shall appear that the owner or other
            person in charge of such conveyance was a consenting
            party or privy to a violation of The Controlled
            Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act;
                (ii)  no conveyance shall be forfeited under the
            provisions of this section by reason of any act or
            omission established by the owner thereof to have been
            committed or omitted without his knowledge or consent,
            which absence of knowledge or consent must be reasonable
            under the circumstances presented;
                (iii)  no bona fide security interest retained or
            acquired under 13 Pa.C.S. (relating to commercial code)
            by any merchant dealing in new or used aircraft, vehicles
            or vessels, or retained or acquired by any licensed or
            regulated finance company, bank or lending institution,
            or by any other business regularly engaged in the
            financing of, or lending on the security of, such
            aircraft, vehicles or vessels, shall be subject to
            forfeiture or impairment; and
                (iv)  no conveyance shall be forfeited under this
            section for violation of section 13(a)(31) of The
            Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
            (5)  All books, records and research, including formulas,
        microfilm, tapes and data, which are used or intended for use
        in violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
        Cosmetic Act.
            (6)  (i)  All of the following:
                    (A)  Money, negotiable instruments, securities or
                other things of value furnished or intended to be
                furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled
                substance in violation of The Controlled Substance,
                Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and all proceeds
                traceable to such an exchange.
                    (B)  Money, negotiable instruments, securities or
                other things of value used or intended to be used to
                facilitate any violation of The Controlled Substance,
                Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
                    (C)  Real property used or intended to be used to
                facilitate any violation of The Controlled Substance,
                Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, including structures
                or other improvements thereon, and including any
                right, title and interest in the whole or any lot or
                tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements,
                which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner
                or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission
                of, a violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug,
                Device and Cosmetic Act, and things growing on,
                affixed to and found in the land.
                (ii)  No property shall be forfeited under this
            paragraph, to the extent of the interest of an owner, by
            reason of any act or omission established by the owner to
            have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or
            consent of that owner. Such money and negotiable
            instruments found in close proximity to controlled
            substances possessed in violation of The Controlled
            Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act shall be
            rebuttably presumed to be proceeds derived from the
            selling of a controlled substance in violation of The
            Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
                (iii)  No valid lien or encumbrance on real property
            shall be subject to forfeiture or impairment under this
            paragraph. A lien which is fraudulent or intended to
            avoid forfeiture under this section shall be invalid.
            (7)  Any firearms, including, but not limited to, rifles,
        shotguns, pistols, revolvers, machine guns, zip guns or any
        type of prohibited offensive weapon, as that term is defined
        in 18 Pa.C.S. (relating to crimes and offenses), which are
        used or intended for use to facilitate a violation of The
        Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. Such
        operable firearms as are found in close proximity to
        illegally possessed controlled substances shall be rebuttably
        presumed to be used or intended for use to facilitate a
        violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
        Cosmetic Act. All weapons forfeited under this section shall
        be immediately destroyed by the receiving law enforcement
        agency.
        (b)  Process and seizure.–Property subject to forfeiture
     under this chapter may be seized by the law enforcement
     authority upon process issued by any court of common pleas
     having jurisdiction over the property. Seizure without process
     may be made if:
            (1)  the seizure is incident to an arrest or a search
        under a search warrant or inspection under an administrative
        inspection warrant;
            (2)  the property subject to seizure has been the subject
        of a prior judgment in favor of the Commonwealth in a
        criminal injunction or forfeiture proceeding under this
        chapter;
            (3)  there is probable cause to believe that the property
        is dangerous to health or safety; or
            (4)  there is probable cause to believe that the property
        has been used or is intended to be used in violation of The
        Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
        (c)  Seizure without process.–In the event seizure without
     process occurs, as provided herein, proceedings for the issuance
     thereof shall be instituted forthwith.
        (d)  Custody of property.–Property taken or detained under
     this section shall not be subject to replevin, but is deemed to
     be in the custody of the law enforcement authority subject only
     to the orders and decrees of the court of common pleas having
     jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings and of the district
     attorney or the Attorney General. When property is seized under
     this chapter, the law enforcement authority shall place the
     property under seal and either:
            (1)  remove the property to a place designated by it; or
            (2)  require that the district attorney or Attorney
        General take custody of the property and remove it to an
        appropriate location for disposition in accordance with law.
        (e)  Use of property held in custody.–Whenever property is
     forfeited under this chapter, the property shall be transferred
     to the custody of the district attorney, if the law enforcement
     authority seizing the property has local or county jurisdiction,
     or the Attorney General, if the law enforcement authority
     seizing the property has Statewide jurisdiction. The district
     attorney or the Attorney General, where appropriate, may:
            (1)  Retain the property for official use.
            (2)  Sell any forfeited property which is not required to
        be destroyed by law and which is not harmful to the public,
        but the proceeds from any such sale shall be used to pay all
        proper expenses of the proceedings for forfeiture and sale,
        including expenses of seizure, maintenance of custody,
        advertising and court costs. The balance of the proceeds
        shall be dealt with in accordance with subsections (f) and
        (g).
        (f)  Use of cash or proceeds of property.–Cash or proceeds
     of forfeited property transferred to the custody of the district
     attorney pursuant to subsection (e) shall be placed in the
     operating fund of the county in which the district attorney is
     elected. The appropriate county authority shall immediately
     release from the operating fund, without restriction, a like
     amount for the use of the district attorney enforcing the
     provisions of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
     Cosmetic Act. The entity having budgetary control shall not
     anticipate future forfeitures or proceeds therefrom in adoption
     and approval of the budget for the district attorney.
        (g)  Distribution of property among law enforcement
     authorities.–If both municipal and State law enforcement
     authorities were substantially involved in effecting the
     seizure, the court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture
     proceedings shall equitably distribute the property between the
     district attorney and the Attorney General.
        (h)  Authorization to utilize property.–The district
     attorney and the Attorney General shall utilize forfeited
     property or proceeds thereof for the purpose of enforcing the
     provisions of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
     Cosmetic Act. In appropriate cases, the district attorney and
     the Attorney General may designate proceeds from forfeited
     property to be utilized by community-based drug and crime-
     fighting programs and for relocation and protection of witnesses
     in criminal cases.
        (i)  Annual audit of forfeited property.–It shall be the
     responsibility of every county in this Commonwealth to provide,
     through the controller, board of auditors or other appropriate
     auditor and the district attorney, an annual audit of all
     forfeited property and proceeds obtained under this section. The
     audit shall not be made public but shall be submitted to the
     Office of Attorney General. The county shall report all
     forfeited property and proceeds obtained under this section and
     the disposition thereof to the Attorney General by September 30
     of each year.
        (j)  Annual report; confidential information regarding
     property.–The Attorney General shall annually submit a report,
     to the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees of the Senate and
     to the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees of the House of
     Representatives, specifying the forfeited property or proceeds
     thereof obtained under this section. The report shall give an
     accounting of all proceeds derived from the sale of forfeited
     property and the use made of unsold forfeited property. The
     Attorney General shall adopt procedures and guidelines governing
     the release of information by the district attorney to protect
     the confidentiality of forfeited property or proceeds used in
     ongoing drug enforcement activities.
        (k)  Proceeds and appropriations.–The proceeds or future
     proceeds from forfeited property under this chapter shall be in
     addition to any appropriation made to the Office of Attorney
     General.

One study showed that Pennsylvania’s laws on seizure are some of the toughest in the nation; law enforcement agencies can confiscate real estate on a preponderance of evidence, or anything over 50 percent, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Property owners aren’t given the assumption of innocence but must prove they aren’t guilty.

With the tough drug laws and possible seizure of property in the state, someone accused of a drug crime should retain a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. The attorney might be able to help clients recover their property.

Source: Huffington Post, “Philadelphia Family Loses Home Over A Single Drug Charge“, Radley Balko, September 10, 2013

Prosecutors taking the Law too far

When society is confronted with the latest social ills, state legislatures are quick to offer criminal remedies and sanctions to satisfy the public outcry. These laws are often rushed to meet the demands of constituents, and their ramifications are never thoroughly contemplated. Defense attorneys often warn of the “slippery slope” that each new, rushed, and vague law creates. Our arguments toward a “slippery slope” are often dismissed as unreasonable by the public and prosecutors.

Currently, two new areas of new crimes that were created to remedy societal issues are being prosecuted far beyond their intended purpose. We are now prosecuting teenagers with child pornography charges for taking explicit photos of themselves. As a result, normal teenagers in need of help and directions are being met with Felony convictions, life long destruction of their lives, potential megan’s law status, and a child molester stigma.

For example: http://www.vagazette.com/news/va-vg-16yearold-james-city-girl-charged-20140205,0,7353878.story

Child Pornography is a bane on society. Prosecutors are just in vigorously attacking those who create and distribute child pornography. These statues were intended to prosecute dangerous criminals, lurking and preying on innocents, who take advantage and manipulate children. They were not intended to prosecute over zealous teenagers making poor life choices. Unfortunately, the laws created are often so vague that total discretion lies within the reasonableness of the prosecutor as to when to apply them. Common sense and reasonableness often fade in the wake of publicity and political opportunity.

The second area where prosecutors are taking the law too far is the new Drug Delivery Resulting in Death crimes. These statutes were intended to prosecute drug dealers who distribute their product without consequence. The common thug on street corners peddling their wares. Often, prosecuting those criminals becomes difficult to establish chain of custody back to the original dealer. Instead, Prosecutors have set their sights on drug users who share drugs together.

For example: http://www.phillyburbs.com/00redesign/news/local/cops-women-charged-in-separate-heroin-related-deaths/article_0f7d1931-47de-5556-9427-8a38eede9531.html

In Pennsylvania, it is now a first degree felony (the same grading as child molesters, rapists, and attempted murderers) and a potential 40 years in prison for drug users to share drugs with each other, and one of the users dies as a result. Again, an unintended consequence under the law, never intended by the legislature, but vigorously pursued by prosecutors.

Legislatures provide the tools for prosecutors to attack societal problems. Often, these tools are rushed and never fully explored prior to their passage. It is the duty of the prosecutor to apply reasonableness and common sense in their use of these tools when deciding who to prosecute and why

Pennsylvania moves to pass Revenge Porn law

The Pennsylvania Senate unanimously voted Tuesday to criminalize so-called “revenge porn.”

The bill would make it illegal for intimate or former intimate partners to post photos or videos identifying another person who is naked or engaged in a sexual act, without that person’s consent. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Judy Schwank, a Berks County Democrat, would not cover photos posted with a person’s consent.

The bill would create a new crime. Intimate Partner Harassment would carry a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine in cases involving victims who are minors, and up to 2 years and $5,000 when the victim is an adult.

The proposal will now head to the House.

Here is the current bill:

Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in assault, providing for the offense of intimate partner harassment.
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows:

Section 1.   Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated
7Statutes is amended by adding a section to read:

§ 2709.2.   Intimate partner harassment.

(a)   Offense defined.–A person commits the crime of intimate
partner harassment by exposing a photograph, film, videotape or
similar recording of the identifiable image of an intimate
partner who is nude or explicitly engaged in a sexual act to the
view of a third party for no legitimate purpose and with the
intent to harass, annoy or alarm the person depicted.

(b)   Affirmative defense.–It shall not be an offense under
this section for a person to expose an image with the consent of
the person depicted.

 (c)   Grading.–An offense under this section shall be:

(1)   A misdemeanor of the first degree when the person depicted is a minor.

(2)   A misdemeanor of the <-third second degree when the person depicted is not a minor.

(d)   Applicability.–This section shall not apply to any

activity described in section 6321 (relating to transmission of
sexually explicit images by minor).

(e)   Definition.–As used in this section, the term

“nude” shall have the meaning provided under section 5903(b)
(relating to obscene and other sexual materials and
performances).

Section 2.   This act shall take effect in 60 days.

This bill raises serious concerns about the type of conduct that is and is not criminal. Is the showing of a picture to another covered by the statute? What qualifies as intent to harras, annoy, or alarm? Can the “victim” retroactively change their mind and seek prosecution? Can the “victim” revoke consent at a later time? Where and when is the crime committed? Suppose a photo is posted online by phone from out of state? Or the picture is taken out of state?

Attorney General moves for Suspension of Nursing License

The Delaware State Attorney General has called for the Board of Nursing to permanently suspend the professional license of a Delaware nurse who was recently charged with several Pennsylvania drug offenses. Authorities allege that the nurse, a 37-year-old man who is licensed to practice in Delaware but who had been employed at DuBois Regional Medical Center in central Pennsylvania, was in possession of four bags of cocaine and 33 bags of heroin. Stating that he believes the nurse to be an “immediate and imminent danger to public health,” the attorney general reportedly generated the emergency petition to ensure that the nurse will permanently lose his license and never be able to work in Delaware.

The nurse was taken into custody on July 13 by the Towamencin Township Police. He was charged with two counts of drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia and receipt in commerce of a controlled substance. He has reportedly resigned from his position at DuBois Regional Medical Center and faces an October hearing.

While the nurse’s alleged acts are serious, they are at this point only charges. While it may benefit the attorney general to take a tough stance against a health care professional who allegedly committed these offenses, the accused has not been convicted of any crime. He is protected by a presumption of innocence and entitled to due process of law.

When a member of the health care profession is charged with drug offenses, a lawyer will have to challenge the evidence on two fronts: at an administrative hearing in front of the licensing authority as well as in the courtroom. The mere the fact of an arrest does not always rise to the level of unprofessional conduct in the one forum, nor is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the other.

Source: delawareonline, “Delaware nurse faces drug charges; emergency license suspension sought“, Terri Sanginiti, July 31, 2013

Pennsylvania House weighs expansion of designer drug ban

The Pennsylvania legislature is currently considering a bill that would expand the types of synthetic drugs that are prohibited. The state currently has laws that ban these substances, including bath salts, synthetic marijuana and any substance designed to imitate the effects of heroin, methamphetamine or cocaine. However, drug manufacturers are still able to change the formulation of the drug and produce a similar substance that is not contained within the list of illegal substances.

Supporters of the bill, known as House Bill 1217, believe that if it ultimately becomes law, it will be more difficult for synthetic drug manufacturers to get around the law by making minor chemical changes. This may make it easier for law enforcement to catch those creating and selling so-called designer drugs.

The bill was approved by a legislative committee in the House of Representatives on April 22. The full House will now consider the proposed law. If it passes the House, it must also be approved by the Senate before being forwarded to the governor for approval. It was not stated whether or not the governor supports the bill.

Act 7 of 2011 amended the Pennsylvania controlled substance act to make designer drugs a Schedule I controlled substance, which means the government believes the drugs have no accepted medical purpose and a high potential for abuse. Any person who has been charged with a crime related to the possession, sale or manufacture of designer drugs may benefit from speaking with a defense lawyer to discuss the situation. In some cases, a lawyer may be able to get a person into a drug diversion program to avoid some of the penalties of a conviction or possibly negotiate a plea bargain with the prosecution for a reduced sentence.

Source: WHTM, “Pa. bill would expand designer drug ban,” Myles Snyder, April 23, 2013

Source: General Assembly, “SB 1006,” June 23, 2011

The Problem of Mandatory Sentencing

Many states, including Pennsylvania, have begun to reform their sentencing laws in regards to mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing, normally subjected to those convicted of drug charges, is a minimum sentence that is to be given to someone convicted of a specific crime. Since it’s introduction in the 1970s, the prison population in the U.S. has quadrupled. The U.S. currently incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country, including Iran and China.

Many politicians believe that mandatory sentencing is causing more problems than it is solving. In addition to states changing their laws, this concern has pushed the federal government to consider legislation that would do the same. Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder directed prosecutors working on federal cases to not introduce evidence against people with a limited criminal history that could cause such sentences to be given.

Those in favor of reform want to completely do away with these sentences of non-violent crimes. They also want sentencing to be back in the hands of judges for minor drug crimes. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is co-sponsoring federal legislation to reform the practice for federal crimes because he thinks mandatory sentencing is costly and unfair.

These laws have filled prisons with non-violent criminals and haven’t stopped the sale or use of illegal drugs. This movement to end these mandatory minimum sentences may help many people avoid prison sentences that are a harsher punishment than the crime they were convicted of deserves. While Pennsylvania has taken steps to address the issue, those with drug charges still face the possibility of long prison sentences. An attorney may be able to assist those charged with drug crimes better understand what options they have to protect their future. An attorney could also negotiate for a plea deal with the prosecution that results in their client enrolling in a substance abuse program.

Source: The Week, “Rethinking mandatory sentencing“, Dan Stewart, September 14, 2013

Philadelphia police officers sued for planting drugs at apartment

Dozens of drug cases are being dropped by the Philadelphia district attorney’s office after several officers had been accused of making false arrests, using excessive force and planting drugs while conducting drug crime investigations in the area.

When the Philadelphia police officers had their credibility questioned last year, it was also reported that dozens of other cases involving the officers would likely need to be reexamined in order to determine whether similar wrongdoings and violations were made in those cases. And a few weeks ago, three individuals who have claimed that they are victims of these wrongdoings reported that they are now filing a lawsuit against several of the officers for illegally raiding their apartment and arresting them.

The lawsuit was filed by three individuals who were inside an apartment unit when police raided the unit on July 31, 2012. Several officers that are named in the lawsuit are the same officers who were involved in the dozens of cases that had to be dropped late last year due to credibility concerns. Other officers have also been named in the lawsuit for allegedly conducting the illegal arrests and planting evidence at the apartment.

According to the lawsuit, police had executed a search warrant at the wrong apartment unit. Police also allegedly harassed the occupants and then arrested the individuals after planting drugs in their apartment. After arresting the occupants, it was later discovered that police were supposed to execute the search warrant at a different unit at the same apartment complex.

Although many drug arrests are conducted lawfully, folks should always consider consulting an attorney after being accused of committing drug crimes in order to make sure they protect their rights as best as possible. Clearly, mistakes may be made when executing search warrants and conducting criminal investigations, but even when arrests are conducted lawfully, an aggressive defense attorney may still help to mitigate the consequences of a drug arrest in Pennsylvania.

Source: Philly.com, “Lawsuit accuses cops of false arrests,” Morgan Zalot, Feb. 1, 2013

Will Pennsylvania Leaglize Marijuana?

Although several states   have legalized the use and possession of marijuana under certain conditions,   pot is still illegal in Pennsylvania. This means folks in Bucks County and   throughout the entire state may still face serious legal consequences if they   are caught with marijuana.

Despite marijuana being   illegal throughout most of the U.S., there are still many Americans who use   marijuana. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 24,000 people were arrested in   2006 for marijuana-related crimes. The Office of National Drug Control Policy   claims that taxpayers paid about $325.36 million for these arrests and other   costs associated with the alleged drug crimes.

With thousands of people   being arrested and millions being spent on marijuana-related arrests each   year in the state, citizens and lawmakers have often considered whether it   would be better to just legalize marijuana and regulate the substance like   alcohol in order to avoid wasting taxpayers’ dollars and law enforcement   officers’ time and efforts. Although it may be awhile yet before Pennsylvania   even considers legalizing marijuana, one lawmaker has recently stated that he   plans to introduce a bill to legalize marijuana in the state.

Democrat State Sen.   Daylin Leach announced that he plans to introduce a bill that would legalize   the use of marijuana in Pennsylvania. The bill would only make it legal for   residents who are 21 or older to possess and smoke marijuana. The lawmaker   said that he believes legalizing marijuana will not only allow folks to   purchase safer forms of the substance, but it could also reduce wasteful   spending of taxpayers’ dollars.

If the bill is ever   passed, residents could still face criminal charges for marijuana-related   offenses. For example, folks could face criminal charges for driving under   the influence of marijuana or for selling marijuana to those who are under   the age of 21. It will certainly be interesting to see what comes of the   lawmaker’s plans to legalize marijuana in Pennsylvania. We will be sure to   revisit this topic on our blog when more developments occur.

Source: CBS Pittsburgh, “Pa. Senator Introduces Bill To Legalize Marijuana,”   Jan. 10, 2013