|
CA Appellate Court Upholds Medical Marijuana Law |
|
|
|
|
By rain drop keep fallin' on Bill Horn's head
|
|
Thursday, 31 July 2008 |
CA Appellate Court Upholds Medical Marijuana Law
San Diego County
challenge to state ID card is rejected
San Diego, CA -- The
Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California issued a published
opinion today stating that federal law does not preempt the state's medical
marijuana law. The County of San Diego filed suit against the state in February
2006, which was rejected by the Superior Court in December of that year. The
lawsuit challenged the validity of the state identification card program, as
well as the foundation of California's medical marijuana laws, but both lower
and appellate courts found that the ID card program and state law remained valid
and does not violate the state constitution.
"This is a
huge win for medical marijuana patients, not only in California, but across the
country," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access, who
argued before the appellate court on behalf of patients. "This ruling makes
clear the ability of states to pass medical marijuana laws with an expectation
that those laws will be upheld by local and state, if not federal,
officials."
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alex McDonald, the
court ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) "signifies
Congress's intent to maintain the power of states to elect 'to serve as a
laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to
the rest of the country' by preserving all state laws that do not positively
conflict with the CSA."
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) defended the
interests of patients in the appeal and filed briefs along with the ACLU Drug
Law Reform Project. Both organizations successfully intervened as defendants in
the lawsuit in August of 2006, while the case was still being litigated in the
Superior Court. ASA intends to launch an educational campaign soon that will
apprise elected officials across the state of their obligation to implement
state law, in particular the state ID card program, which both assists law
enforcement and bestows greater protection for patients.
San Diego County
was originally joined by San Bernardino and Merced Counties, but Merced chose
not to appeal, opting instead to implement the state ID card program and a
Sheriff's policy on medical marijuana patient encounters. Against the wishes of
the San Diego City Council, the County of San Diego filed an appeal in February
2007, along with San Bernardino County. Publicly voicing its opposition to the
lawsuit, the City of San Diego filed an amicus 'friend of the court' brief in
December 2007, siding with the Attorney General and medical marijuana patient
advocates.
"More than eleven years after the passage of Proposition 215,
it's about time that we all got on the same page with regard to medical
marijuana and the protections afforded by California law," continued Elford.
"With two appellate court decisions clearly stating that federal law should not
be an excuse to avoid enforcing state law, it is now time for full
implementation in California." In March, the California Supreme Court denied
review of City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, another appellate court
case that found the state's medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal
law.
For further information:
Today's appellate court ruling: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/San_Diego_Appeal_Ruling.pdf
ASA's
web page on the San Diego case: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=4405
City
of San Diego friend of the court brief: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/SD_City_Amicus_Brief.pdf
Appellate
court ruling in City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf |
|
ASA will file to depublish people vs Kelly |
|
|
|
|
By Compassion HQ
|
|
Sunday, 27 July 2008 |
ASA will file to depublish people vs Kelly
In a suprise announecment Americans for Safe Access chief counsel Joe Elford Plans to ask People v. Kelly http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do … 195624.PDF decision be depublished. From the ASA forums: The reason that we requested depublication of the Kelly
decision is that ASA has consistently viewed the quantities specified in SB 420
as thresholds, rather than ceilings. The authors of SB 420 expressly stated
this and the California Supreme Court has, at least implictly, recognized this.
While ASA fully supports the outcome of the Kelly decision, we believe that the
court erred in holding that the SB 420 guidelines constitute ceilings, rather
than floors. Depublication will not change the fact that Kelly's convictions
have been reversed, as he should never have been prosecuted. But this does not
mean that ASA should sit silently by while a court holds in a published decision
that the SB 420 quantities constitute ceilings -- they are thresholds.
I will post our letter requesting
depublication and the other relevant briefs on Monday. |
|
Oakland police make major marijuana growing bust |
|
|
|
|
By My aim is true
|
|
Thursday, 24 July 2008 |
Oakland police make major marijuana growing
bust
By Harry Harris
and William Brand, Staff Writers
Article Last Updated: 07/24/2008 02:49:11 PM
PDThttp://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_9983491
OAKLAND _ Police broke up one
of the largest marijuana growing operations they've seen in recent years,
raiding three homes Wednesday night and seizing more than $225,000 cash,
arresting four people and confiscating $60,000 worth of marijuana.
It was
a bust that extended to Mendocino County where some of the marijuana was grown.
Police said the suspected ringleader, Theodore Christos, 29. grew marijuana on
property he owns in Mendocino County and at a house in the Oakland hills where
151 young plants were seized at a house Christos owns in the 500 block of
Crestmont Drive.
Oakland Police Sgt. Oritz said all the marijuana
transactions were made at a house in the 1000 block of 56th Street in North
Oakland. Christos kept records of his sales at his home in the 3500 block of
Harrison St.
Sgt. Ortiz, who supervises Problem-Solving Officer Unit 2,
said the investigation started a few months ago, based on information developed
by the unit's Officers Ercivan Martin and Marcel Patterson. They discovered that
Christos was distributing huge amounts of marijuana. Surveillance led to the
raids Wednesday night at the three Oakland sites.
Ortiz said Christos was
arrested at the 56th Street residence as he sold 15 pounds of harvested
marijuana to a man who turned out to be wanted on criminal charges in Florida.
He was identified as Daniel Bradien, 32.
Police also arrested two men at
the grow site on Crestmont. Their names were not immediately released. Police
also found a revolver at the Crestmont house.
Police believe Christos was
selling the marijuana for at least $2,000 a pound.
Sgt. Ortiz said
Christos had been "rolling underneath the radar" for some time. Christos was
arrested on suspicion of cultivation of marijuana, possession for sale and for
sales of marijuana.
Oakland police have also contacted the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration. That agency is expected to take over the
case.
The grow site on Crestmont was very sophisticated, with the latest
watering and lighting technology. But the plants were basically seedlings,
police said.. Ortiz believes the pot being sold was grown in Mendocino.
Authorities in Mendocino have also been contacted.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 24 July 2008 )
|
|
|
Seattle police seize marijuana patient files |
|
|
|
|
By Wild Horses
|
|
Thursday, 17 July 2008 |
Seattle police seize marijuana patient files
Seattle police seized files on nearly 600 medical marijuana
patients when officers searched the headquarters of a patient support
group, activists said Wednesday.
By GENE JOHNSON
AP Legal Affairs Writer
SEATTLE — Seattle police seized files on nearly 600 medical marijuana
patients when officers searched the headquarters of a patient support
group, activists said Wednesday.
The search occurred Tuesday after a nearby police bicycle officer
reported the smell of marijuana. Martin Martinez, who runs the Lifevine
cooperative as well as Cascadia NORML, the local chapter of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said no one was
arrested but officers seized about 12 ounces of marijuana in addition
to the patient files and a computer.
There were no marijuana plants growing there, Martinez said. He is a
longtime advocate of legalizing the medical use of marijuana, following
a severe motorcycle crash that left him with nerve damage in 1986.
Three other patients authorized to use pot under Washington's medical
marijuana law were also present when officers arrived at the office,
which does not dispense marijuana, he said.
Cascadia NORML has been issuing identity cards to medical marijuana
patients, but before doing so, it requires the patients to provide
their medical authorizations for verification. That's why the patient
files were in the office, Martinez said. The cards are not issued
pursuant to the state's medical marijuana law, but are designed to help
identify the patient as legitimate if confronted by police.
Some of the nearly 600 patients are now dead, and some others are no longer actively using marijuana, he said.
The police "have a heck of a lot of patient records I don't think they
should have," said Douglas Hiatt, a Seattle attorney who specializes in
medical marijuana cases. "For one thing, those records are protected
under federal privacy laws. If you're a medical marijuana patient, you
don't want the police to know who you are or where you live, and this
is why - because you don't get treated very well."
Hiatt and Martinez said that before the search they tried to convince
the officers as well as a deputy King County prosecutor there were no
violations of the medical marijuana law.
The police department did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment Wednesday.
Dan Donohoe, a spokesman for the King County prosecutor's Office,
confirmed that officers consulted a deputy prosecutor before searching
the office Tuesday, but he said police have not referred the case to
his office.
Under Washington's medical marijuana law, doctors can authorize
patients to have as much as a 60-day supply of marijuana to treat
symptoms of AIDS, cancer and other debilitating or chronic conditions.
The law doesn't define what a 60-day supply is, but the state Health
Department proposed this month that it be defined as 24 ounces of
usable pot, along with six mature plants and 18 immature plants.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
According to Hiatt, the seized documents included patient
authorizations, full medical histories, and the names of doctors who
authorized the marijuana use.
Alison Chinn Holcomb, who follows marijuana issues for the Washington
state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said there doesn't
appear to be any evidence that the group was providing or growing
marijuana, and no information that has been revealed thus far would
seem to justify seizing the patient files.
"These are very sick people with very serious conditions, and we're
sure none of them want the nature of those conditions made available to
the public or to anyone who doesn't have a valid need for it," she said.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company |
|
|
Lawyer Wants Troopers to Prove Pot-Sniffing Abilities |
|
|
|
|
By downtown train
|
|
Wednesday, 09 July 2008 |
Lawyer Wants Troopers to Prove Pot-Sniffing Abilities
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
AP Newswire
CALHOUN, Ga. — The lawyer for a man accused of having 10 pounds of
marijuana said something about the arrest smells. He wants two Georgia
State Patrol troopers to prove they can sniff out pot tied up in a
trash bag inside a car trunk.
If troopers Jeff Adamson and Kevin Turner are unable to repeat the feat
with a random car in the Gordon County courthouse parking lot, attorney
David West says the evidence against Jarmane Vernon Knox should be
suppressed for lack of probable cause for a search.
West says: "If these officers really think they are human drug dogs, let's put them to the test."
Knox and passenger Derrick Mikes were stopped on Interstate 75, initially because the license plate tag light was out.
|
|
|
Mendocino County won't enforce pot measure |
|
|
|
|
By Hattie Carrol
|
|
Friday, 04 July 2008 |
Mendocino County won't enforce pot measure
Sheriff, D.A. cite legal challenges in sticking to 25 marijuana plant limit
By MIKE GENIELLA
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 5:32 a.m.
Mendocino County's top law enforcement officials
announced Wednesday they won't be enforcing a voter-approved crackdown
on medical marijuana cultivation.
Citing pending legal challenges to local and state-approved limits, the
Sheriff's Office and district attorney said they will temporarily not
enforce the plant limits set forth in Measure B.
Instead county law enforcement will continue to allow possession and
cultivation of 25 plants. However, in a change of policy, the county
limit will apply to the number of plants on a parcel, and not simply
the number grown for an individual's use.
The twist is provided in a marijuana ordinance approved by the Board of
Supervisors. It also bans growing of marijuana for any reason within
1,000 feet of a school, school bus stop, church, youth-oriented
facility or a park.
In effect, county officials said they believe the property standard is
independent of the legal issues surrounding individual plant limits.
Medical marijuana advocates are challenging any individual limits on
possession, citing Prop. 215, a 1996 statewide initiative that
decriminalized marijuana use for medicinal purposes. They contend the
initiative didn't specify numbers, stating only that medical marijuana
use should be "reasonable" depending on a patient's need.
The decision not to enforce Measure B guidelines stems from a local
Superior Court case, which challenges the new limits. It cites a May
state appellate court ruling that found state guidelines, which Measure
B adopted, were unconstitutional.
Whether state officials plan to challenge the appellate court ruling to the state Supreme Court remains undecided.
While state and local officials struggle with implementing medical
marijuana guidelines, federal authorities refuse to recognize their
authority. Under federal law, marijuana cultivation and possession for
any reason is illegal. |
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
|
| Results 1 - 16 of 24 |
