San Francisco police thought the same with a father and son team they suspected of abusing the state's medical marijuana law by allegedly operating an illegal trafficking operation.

But both cases were tossed out along with many other marijuana possession cases in recent weeks because of a California Supreme Court ruling that has police, prosecutors and defense attorneys scrambling to make sense of a gray legal area: What is the maximum amount of cannabis a medical marijuana patient can possess?

No one can say for sure how many dismissals and acquittals have been prompted by the ruling, but the numbers are stacking up since the Supreme Court on Jan. 21 tossed out Patrick Kelly's marijuana possession conviction.

The high court struck down a 7-year-old state law that imposed an 8-ounce limit on the amount of pot medical users of marijuana could possess. The court said patients are entitled to a "reasonable" amount of the drug to treat their ailments.

Law enforcement officials say the ruling has made the murky legal landscape of marijuana policy in California even more challenging to enforce.

Since California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, there has been tension between local law enforcement officials and federal authorities, who view marijuana as absolutely illegal.

That tension is expected to become even more pronounced if the state's voters approve a November ballot measure legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Lawyers for Billy Joe Magwood want to argue that Alabama law was changed to make Magwood's crime a capital offense after it had already been committed.

Defendants aren't allowed to appeal using arguments that could have been brought in the original case, but Magwood's lawyers say that since he was sentenced to die a second time, he should be able to use a new argument in his second round of appeals.

"If it's the second time around, then it's just barred," Justice Anthony Kennedy said.

"Well, it shouldn't be barred. Because it's a new judgment, the defendant should be able to get relief the second time around," said Jeffrey L. Fisher, Magwood's lawyer.

Magwood, 58, has been on Death Row since 1981 for the shooting death of Coffee County Sheriff Neil Grantham in 1979. He got that death sentence thrown out, but then was resentenced to death.

Lawyers for Bobby Cutts Jr. filed an appeal with the nation's highest court earlier this month. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to review Cutts' case.

The former Canton patrolman is serving a life sentence in the killings of Jessie Davis and the nearly full-term fetus she was carrying. Her disappearance in 2007 prompted a huge search that drew national attention.

Cutts' attorneys say the trial should have been moved because of all the publicity. Defense lawyer Fernando Mack says the Supreme Court should review the case because it has "uniqueness."

Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday in his opinion for the court that debtors must normally prove undue hardship. Thomas said the bankruptcy judge was wrong to approve Francisco Espinosa's bankruptcy plan in 1993, but the lender did not object at the time. The judge's error was not serious enough to undo the agreement, Thomas said.

The case involved a dispute over $4,582 in interest on Espinosa's four student loans.

Connecticut's Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a lawsuit that could lead to major changes in the state's education system and how it is funded.

The decision released Monday says the state constitution promises an education that prepares students for a job or higher education.

The Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding had sued, saying achievement gaps between rich and poor towns showed some students are not receiving an adequate education to prepare them for jobs and adult life.

The decision could force a review of the state's 22-year-old formula for funding schools, which the group says has drastically hurt some towns and their students.

Two women who claimed they were forced to have gynecological exams and others strip-searched in city jails have settled a class-action lawsuit with the city for $33 million.

The suit was filed on behalf of people arrested on misdemeanor drug and weapons charges and strip-searched at Rikers Island and other jails.

Under the agreement, class members can receive between $1,800 and $2,900 each, depending on how many people respond. The plaintiffs who claimed they were forced into gynecological exams are entitled to $20,000 each for their alleged injury and suffering, according to the decision reached last week and finalized Monday.

The case included people arrested, but not convicted, between July 15, 1999 and Oct. 4, 2007. The court has already ruled that the practice violated the prisoners' constitutional rights.