1. Marijuana Reform Ordinance Cal. No. 31,148 1

2. 2010 Ordinance 2

3. Implementation Compiled almost 50,000 records stretching back over ten years of all arrests and summons Implementation started January, 2011. Compared 2007-2010 to 2011-2014 3

4. What worked? Unnecessary arrests reduced – Saves time, money, man-power – Prevents unnecessary damage to citizen’s lives Advanced social Justice – A more equitable law in effect 4

5. Unnecessary arrests reduced 5

6. 2010 Ordinance and Social Justice 6

7. 7

8. What needs improving? State felony laws were unaffected by 2010 ordinance, were grossly disproportionate to our demographics Overall numbers, while more equitable, still not reflective of our demographics 8

9. State Felony Laws 9

10. 10

11. Overall Numbers Still Not Equitable Total Custodial Arrest and Summons Numbers Since 2010 11

12. Lessons Learned? The New Orleans Police Department exercised discretion justly Where officers did not have explicitly authorized discretion is where inequities resulted – State Felony Laws – Where and how marijuana laws are enforced 12

13. Proposed Ordinance Ord. Cal. No. 31, 148 builds on what works to address what does not – Expanding the municipal code to cover subsequent offenses, reducing the scope of state felony charges – Reduced penalties and explicitly authorized warnings address inequities and privilege in enforcement 13

14. Proposed Ordinance Also codifies existing U.S. Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit case law on indigence as it relates to fines and fees §54-505(H) – If a defendant upon whom a fine has been imposed under this Section alleges indigency, or otherwise fails to pay the imposed fine, the Court must first determine whether the defendant has willfully refused to pay or make bona fide efforts to legally acquire resources to pay; if defendant has not willfully refused to pay and has made bona fide efforts to attempt to pay the fine, the Court shall use its discretion to fashion alternative penalties other than imprisonment, including installment payments or community service. Imprisonment, and/or any other alternative penalties that impose restrictive treatment on defendants greater than they otherwise would have received under this Section if not for their indigency, are prohibited. 14

15. What the proposed ordinance does not do Does not decriminalize – Still a crime – But a law that cannot be enforced justly is not a just law; and penalties should be proportionate to the crime Does not and can not nullify state law – Law enforcement officials will always have discretion to enforce existing state law 15

16. Immediate Impacts On January 17, 2016, four people were incarcerated pre-trial at OPP for nothing more than simple marijuana possession charges. That is just on one given day. How many people for how many days over the course of a year? Even if their stay is relatively short, incarceration has terrible consequences. And at great cost to the city– the annual budget for the jail exceeds $100 per inmate per day, on average 16

17. Additional Impacts Police doing real police work Saves tax-payer money Rebuilding community trust with the police Less congestion at courts Less burden on the public defender 17

18. We know what works, and what doesn’t. Let’s build on what works. 18