Philly lawyer and attorney John Molloy and his client, Philadelphia attorney and attorney Peter Dusak, are working to get their client into a place where he won’t have to go to jail for pot possession, but rather the state can revoke his driver’s license.
The attorneys say the state is violating their client’s constitutional rights and that he needs to be able to drive again.
The attorneys have asked a judge to allow them to challenge a ruling by the state’s attorney general that the attorney general should not revoke their client from his license because of his marijuana conviction.
The attorney general’s office issued the decision after they received information that an attorney in Dusakhs home had sold pot to a customer and was in violation of the state law.
The attorneys said the state should have been aware that there were marijuana grow houses in Duesakhs backyard and that the man who sold pot had recently pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
“The attorney general has the authority to determine who can be a caregiver, but this case was clearly not about caregivers or pot growers,” Molloys lawyer, David A. Rafferty, told ABC 7 News.
“The Attorney General’s Office has no legal authority to interfere with the right to personal property.”
Molloy has argued that the state was using a “de facto forfeiture” tactic to seize his client’s property and is also arguing that Dusaks marijuana conviction is invalid because he was not convicted of a crime.
The lawyer and his clients have filed suit against the attorney in Harrisburg.
In his ruling, Harrisburg’s court of appeals said the attorney did not have a constitutional right to appeal.
The case has sparked a debate about marijuana laws in the Philadelphia region, which is one of the states that allows recreational marijuana, and the possibility that Pennsylvania could eventually legalize the drug for recreational use.
The lawsuit also has raised questions about the legality of allowing an attorney to represent people in court in cases where they have been convicted of marijuana crimes.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Molloys office has argued to the court that he has the right under Pennsylvania law to represent the client who was convicted of an offense in a courtroom.
The attorneys are expected to take the case to the Pennsylvania Court of Appeals.