California Criminal Lawyers Blog

Our Chino drug crimes criminal defense attorneys wrote a few months ago about the trial of Jovan Jackson, the owner of a San Diego medical marijuana dispensary. Jackson was acquitted of drug possession and sales charges about a year ago, using the defense that he was selling marijuana legally under California medical marijuana law. However, the office of San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis brought him up on similar charges in September and won a ruling that Jackson couldn't use a medical marijuana defense. That time, he was convicted of marijuana possession and sales and imprisoned. On Dec. 7, Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy organization, moved for a new trial on the grounds that Jackson should have been allowed to use a medical marijuana defense and was a victim of double jeopardy.

Jackson was one of two dispensary owners originally prosecuted in San Diego following a federal raid. Jackson and the other defendant were both acquitted after being allowed to present evidence that the actions for which they were being prosecuted were legal under California law. That was in state court, where California law is applied, not in federal criminal court. However, after Jackson's acquittal, prosecutors brought new charges based on a different investigation of Jackson's dispensary. Before that trial, the judge ruled that Jackson could not use a medical marijuana defense, saying collectives and cooperatives are not protected if their primary purpose is sales rather than cultivation. This viewpoint is controversial and may be contradicted by court decisions, as well as by 2008 guidelines issued by the state attorney general. In its motion, ASA said it argued that the medical marijuana defense should have been allowed and that Jackson faced double jeopardy in violation of the Constitution.

As Huntington Beach drug crimes criminal defense lawyers, we wish ASA and Jackson luck overturning this verdict. As we wrote in September, we do not believe Jackson should have been tried again after his first acquittal. The second trial may not have technically been double jeopardy, since it was based on different events, but it's hard not to conclude that he was retried because Dumanis didn't like the outcome of the first trial. ASA's success on that part of the appeal likely depends on the details of each case. However, we think there's a stronger argument that Jackson should have been allowed to present a medical marijuana defense. This is routinely available in other state courts, most of which reject the interpretation of the law used by the trial judge and Dumanis. Interestingly, one article on this trial from the San Diego Union-Tribune said jurors didn't want to convict Jackson, but felt they had no choice under the law.

Continue reading "Medical Marijuana Advocates Move for New Trial for San Diego Dispensary Owner" »

As Pico Rivera DUI criminal defense lawyers, we frequently read about people who are accused of driving under the influence of alcohol -- but news about marijuana DUIs is much less common. That's why we were interested in a recent and highly publicized column by Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Lopez, who decided to drive stoned and write about it at the request of the Los Angeles City Attorney. Law enforcement was interested in the stunt because several groups believe that if Proposition 19, the initiative to legalize marijuana, passes, the number of marijuana DUIs will increase. So they asked Lopez and a KABC radio host, Peter Tilden, to drive on a closed course, then smoke medically prescribed marijuana and drive again to compare their performances.

Lopez and Tilden drove through a slalom course and attempted to park in tight spaces. They also were asked to choose the lane with the green light when the lights in three forks in the road changed suddenly as they approached. This last requirement didn't bother Lopez when he drove the course sober. However, when he approached the same green light choice while stoned, he said he swerved violently. On the other parts of the course, he said, he thought he did fine and didn't feel as impaired as he would have after a few drinks or while playing with a cell phone. An officer observing him said Lopez had only touched a few traffic cones, but concluded that Lopez was less confident in his abilities and had shown impairment "across the board." Tilden reportedly also felt fine but made a hash of his parallel parking.

Of course, this is far from a scientific look at driving under the influence of marijuana. Scientists have performed several more scientific studies on the subject. As a rule, these studies find that marijuana does impair driving, but not to the degree that alcohol does. In fact, a British study found that marijuana is also less harmful than texting while driving. This is part of why we, in our work as Cypress intoxicated driving criminal defense attorneys, have found that a marijuana DUI is easier in some ways to defend than an alcohol DUI. The scientific establishment has also not produced clear scientific standards about what substances in the blood show impairment. Nonetheless, driving stoned is still less safe than driving sober, not to mention illegal, and would remain illegal even if Proposition 19 passes.

Continue reading "Newspaper Columnist Experiments With Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana" »

Our Murrieta drug possession criminal defense attorneys were interested to see a recent item about a drug possession arrest way up in northern California. According to the Marin Independent Journal, a San Diego County woman and a Humboldt County man were arrested for marijuana possession in Novato Oct. 13. Sonia Shvimer of La Mesa and Seth Lukasha of Meyers Flat were originally pulled over on suspicion of speeding and "minor violations" not specified in the article. But after they were pulled over, the officer discovered more than 11 pounds of marijuana in the back of their SUV. Shvimer and Lukasha were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell and transportation of marijuana. They are both currently free on bail.

The article says the two were on their way to southern California from Meyers Flat, a town in Humboldt County. In the early hours of Oct. 13, a Novato police officer spotted their SUV speeding on Highway 101 and pulled them over near Ignacio. Shvimer was driving. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed a smell of marijuana and eventually discovered more than 11 pounds of the drug in two bags inside the vehicle. It was not clear how the marijuana was found. Shvimer, 34, and Lukasha, 28, both have medical marijuana cards permitting them to possess certain amounts of marijuana, the article said. But a spokesperson for the Novato police said the amount of marijuana in their possession, and other evidence, suggested more than merely personal use. Shvimer and Lukasha were not available for comment.

If our firm were defending this case, our Newport Beach drug possession criminal defense lawyers would be very interested in some of the details of this arrest, especially the evidence leading to the possession with intent charge. The quantity of marijuana was cited as one reason police believed there was intent to sell, and it's true that 11 pounds is far more than two individual patients are authorized to have under state medical marijuana laws. However, that may not be true if the patients are part of a collective or cooperative with enough members. An experienced attorney would look at the strength of this and any other evidence cited to support the intent claim. Even more importantly, defense attorneys in this situation should always, always look at the legality of the traffic stop and search that led to the arrest. If either action was illegal or violated the arrestees' civil rights, the resulting evidence would be tainted and should be thrown out of court, potentially gutting the case against Lukasha and Shvimer.

Continue reading "San Diego Woman and Companion Arrested for Drug Possession With Intent to Sell" »

As San Marcos medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to see a recent article about the start of a trial for a man accused of illegally selling medical marijuana for profit. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported Sept. 20 that Jovan Jackson, 32, is being tried in California state court for drug possession and drug sales. The charges stem from a raid on his San Diego medical marijuana dispensary, Answerdam Alternative Care in Kearney Mesa, on Sept. 9, 2009. Medical marijuana is legal throughout California, but prosecutors in Jackson's case argue that he was operating Answerdam for profit, which is not allowed under state law. In opening statements, a prosecutor argued that the business was a profitable drug enterprise, not a medical dispensary.

This is actually the second trial for Jackson on similar charges. Last December, he was acquitted of drug sales charges stemming from a separate investigation, in which an undercover detective bought drugs on two separate occasions using a valid marijuana card. In that trial, Jackson was permitted to present evidence that he was selling the marijuana legally under California's medical marijuana laws, an he was acquitted on all charges. However, the Union-Tribune said he cannot use the same defense in this trial, because the judge has ruled that the medical marijuana defense applies only to groups whose primary purpose was cultivation, not retail sales. The defense did not make an opening statement in the trial, but Jackson has said in the past that he believed he was running Answerdam legally. Jackson's San Diego medical marijuana defense lawyer said he was confident about another acquittal.

Our Temecula medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys wish them luck. We are particularly disappointed in the San Diego district attorney's office for trying Jackson twice on similar charges. Because the trials stem from different incidents, this is not "double jeopardy" as prohibited by the Constitution, but it certainly seems like an attempt by prosecutors to retry the same issues. The article does not give many details explaining the judge's reasons for denying Jackson the right to use a medical marijuana defense, but under state law, medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives have a clear right to use such a defense. A collective or cooperative, including a dispensary, should not be prosecuted only for providing medical marijuana, as long as it is not for profit and does not violate other sections of the law. We hope the jury in Jackson's case is aware of this and makes its decision fairly, even if Jackson's defense is not permitted to bring it up.

Continue reading "Trial Starts for San Diego Man Facing Criminal Charges for Medical Marijuana Shop" »

As Fullerton medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were pleased to read some good news or the medical marijuana community for once. The news came Sept. 13 from the San Diego Union-Tribune, which said the City Council has taken a step toward approving zoning laws that would allow dispensaries in certain non-residential areas. Currently, there are no zones at all in the city that allow medical marijuana dispensaries, which means all dispensaries are illegal within city limits. The council did not change the law in its vote Monday night, but it did approve moving forward with the ordinance in a 6-1 vote. Councilman Carl DeMaio was opposed and Councilwoman Marti Emerald was absent. The city said a final vote could happen in January.

The city department in charge of finding violators has said that there are 125 dispensaries operating illegally within city limits. Under the proposed ordinance, none of these would be grandfathered in; all of them would have to comply with the terms of the ordinance. That law would require all dispensaries to have a nonprofit legal structure; to be located in commercial or industrial zones; and to be at least 1,000 feet from other dispensaries, parks, youth centers, religious buildings, day care centers and schools. The council considered adding colleges and universities to that list, after receiving a petition from the University of California at San Diego; the University of San Diego; and Point Loma Nazarene University. That measure failed because some of the councilmembers wanted to study the effect before approving it; Councilwoman Donna Frye said she did not want to create a "de facto ban."

Our Leucadia medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers are pleased that the councilwoman and others are considering these issues without intentionally seeking a de facto ban. This issue has become huge in our home base of Orange County, where many cities have outright legal bans despite a recent court ruling saying bans are not necessarily legal. The zoning restrictions laid down in San Diego's proposed ordinance are certainly restrictive, but they do allow patients to avoid driving over the city border into neighboring cities like La Mesa or Chula Vista. Similarly, we appreciate that the council is considering allowing patients to fill prescriptions at nonprofit dispensaries. State law does not exactly require a nonprofit legal structure, although the attorney general has said that dispensaries must not be for profit. This is far more restrictive than the rules for other types of pharmacy or even for liquor stores, but it does at least allow patients to get their medicine.

Continue reading "San Diego City Council Moves Closer to Allowing Some Dispensaries With Regulation" »

As Laguna Beach medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to read an article about a marijuana "bust" in which the men arrested said they were growing medical marijuana. The Orange County Register reported Sept. 2 that the two men were arrested in a condominium complex in Laguna Hills after a six-hour standoff with the police. One was released; a second man, 34-year-old Matthew Greenberg, was arrested on unnamed charges and booked into Orange County's Men's Central Jail. A third man fled the building and remains at large, according to the article. The Orange County Sheriff's department rejected the medical marijuana claims, saying the operation was "way outside the medical marijuana program."

The incident started at 1:30 p.m. that day, when U.S. Marshals attempted to serve a search warrant at the condo. The article did not say what the search warrant was for or whose home it was. It also did not say what led to the subsequent standoff with police, which reportedly lasted five and a half hours, although a photo caption said a man with a high-powered rifle was believed to be inside. However, a SWAT team was called and surrounded the building on Caminito Luisito. When the standoff was ended around 7 p.m., for reasons not reported, sheriff's deputies were able to enter an empty condo. There, they found 171 marijuana plants being cultivated with elaborate indoor lighting and irrigation systems, as well as a device to increase the electricity in the condo. Deputies also found 1.5 pounds of dried marijuana, a shotgun and two semi-automatic weapons. The two men taken into custody said the marijuana was intended for a medical collective.

Our Cypress medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers would like very much to see more information that could help determine whether this was a legitimate collective's growing operation or an excuse from people who are selling drugs illegally. Without a doctor's recommendation for more, patients and their primary caregivers may have up to six mature marijuana plants or 12 immature marijuana plants at a time, plus up to eight ounces of dried marijuana. That means a collective or cooperative that is a primary caregiver can have those amounts for each patient. The grow operation the deputies found would support 14 to 29 patients, depending on the maturity of the plants -- if it was really a collective's farm. If it was, Greenberg and the other men should be able to prove their claims relatively easily by providing all of the right paperwork. Police officers prejudiced against medical marijuana may not be willing to look at that paperwork, but an experienced attorney can use the paperwork to have the case thrown out of court.

Continue reading "Men Arrested for Cultivating Pot Indoors Claim Plants Were Medical Marijuana" »

Our Long Beach medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers wrote in mid-August about the appeals court ruling in Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim. That ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal was called a mixed victory in the media, but one victory for patients was its ruling on federal preemption of California's Medical Marijuana Program Act. That is, the court said the city of Anaheim may not ban all medical marijuana dispensaries on the grounds that federal law makes all marijuana illegal. The case was sent back to trial court to consider other issues. But, as media outlets including the LA Weekly reported, medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access contacted more than 140 local governments Aug. 31 to remind them that cities will have to find other justifications for a complete ban.

The letter from ASA (PDF) came two weeks after the ruling, which said unanimously that federal law alone does not preempt state law, and that the court should explore the issue of whether state law can preempt local dispensary bans. The letter said that this shows that local dispensary bans may violate state law, and asked cities to reconsider. No news reports show that any city has changed its laws in response. In fact, media reports show that at least two cities are considering their own dispensary bans, including the city of Downey in Los Angeles County as well as the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove. At least one of the proposed bans is based on the same federal preemption argument that was discredited in the Qualified Patients ruling. That ruling is the only such ruling thus far in California, although observers expect the issue to eventually reach the state Supreme Court. The letter ends by noting that ASA will "explore [its] legal options," although the accompanying press release does not mention litigation.

As Ontario medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we hope no further lawsuits are necessary. We are disappointed in the attempt by Downey to ban medical marijuana based on federal preemption, since the ruling explicitly said this alone is not an acceptable reason for an outright ban. Both cities also use arguments that dispensaries attract crime, which were discredited as unproven in the ruling, as well as by an ASA study (PDF) showing that well-regulated dispensaries actually see a slight decrease in crime. ASA's letter to the cities with dispensary bans offered to help those cities develop appropriate regulations to achieve this. However, we suspect cities will continue to fight for outright bans, using the same spurious arguments. Not only does this deny patients access to the medicine they have been legally prescribed, but it makes them and the dispensary operators into criminals for doing what they are legally allowed to do under state law.

Continue reading "Americans for Safe Access Calls on Cities to Abide by Qualified Patients Court Ruling" »

In a move that surprised even the people who drafted its law, the Los Angeles city government has announced that only 41 dispensaries in the city will be permitted to stay open. As Orange medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were very interested to see the Aug. 26 Los Angeles Times article announcing the decision. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become a political issue in Los Angeles, which led to strict laws on how many dispensaries may exist, where they may be and who may run them. To curtail what was seen as out-of-control numbers of dispensaries, the council said it would shut down shops that didn't meet the new legal requirements. However, the article said, the strict elimination process the city left only 41 shops, far fewer than the roughly 130 it expected to stay open.

Before the crackdown, it was estimated that about 580 dispensaries were operating in the city, which has 470 square miles of land. The ordinance regulating dispensaries was expected to shut down about 400, according to the LA Weekly. However, the Times wrote that using that ordinance to eliminate dispensaries left just 41 in the city, which even co-author and special assistant city attorney Jane Usher said was a surprise. A spokesperson for the city clerk said the office took a very strict interpretation of the ordinance, which required no more than one change of location, no changes in management and no serious criminal record for managers. Because the number left was so low, the article said, the city has suspended its efforts to choose between dispensaries, which could have inspired a new round of lawsuits by eliminated businesses. Instead, the city planned to file its own lawsuit Aug. 26, asking a judge to declare that its selection process was legal. No one will be shut down before a court ruling.

As the article notes, the city already faces almost 30 lawsuits by 85 dispensaries that have been asked to shut down. Our Torrance medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers suspect that it's right to expect more lawsuits from this admittedly strict selection process. This is particularly true because, as the LA Times notes, some of the eliminated dispensaries are among the most reputable in the city. Fundamentally, we believe the city is regulating medical marijuana dispensaries so harshly because politicians are trying to please a vocal minority that is against marijuana despite the lack of any real evidence of problems. For example, opponents of dispensaries frequently say they attract crimes, but have failed to cite statistics that show a greater-than-ordinary amount of crimes in and around the dispensaries. In that context, it's difficult to see the point of shutdown orders that make reputable collectives and cooperatives into ordinance violators and, by implication, dangerous "drug dealers."

Continue reading "Only 41 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries May Remain Under Strict Los Angeles Rules" »

Like much of the Orange County medical marijuana community, our Anaheim medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys have eagerly awaited a ruling in a case challenging the city of Anaheim's ban on dispensaries. On Aug. 18, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which hears appeals of cases from Orange County's Superior Court, issued a ruling -- but it's not a definitive yes or no, the Orange County Register reported. Rather, the court sent the bulk of the case back to Superior Court, saying it did not have enough facts to make a decision on several important issues. It also made rulings on other issues, some of which pleased medical marijuana advocates and some of which pleased advocates of the ban.

The ruling in Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim (PDF) was widely anticipated because both sides believed it would set a precedent on dispensary bans. Instead, the 38-page ruling addresses other issues. In the original case, Qualified Patients Association -- medical marijuana advocates -- argued that state law allowing medical use of marijuana should invalidate Anaheim's ban on dispensaries. They also argued that the ban discriminated against disabled people in violation of state civil rights laws. In essence, the court said the civil rights argument was wrong, but the state preemption argument had merit and should not have been dismissed without a hearing. In concluding this, the court did not determine whether state law did or should preempt local ordinances, but it did say federal law alone does not preempt state law. It also ruled that state civil rights law applies only to business establishments, meaning the patients could not use that law to claim they were discriminated against by the city, a non-business.

On the whole, our Murrieta medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers are pleased by this ruling. While it is not the strong precedent against the ban that we had hoped for, it is a carefully considered ruling that will strengthen the case against the ban. By sending the case back to trial court, the appeals court said the federal preemption issue is not as clear-cut as the city of Anaheim had argued. Indeed, the appeals court wrote that it would be odd to conclude that the city may criminalize a use of property that is expressly allowed by state law, especially since the Legislature has explicitly departed from federal policy in other areas. The disability rights ruling is disappointing, but not unreasonable after a close reading of the statute. And the ruling does not necessarily foreclose a disability rights claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which does explicitly ban discrimination by public entities.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Sends Much Watched Anaheim Dispensary Ban Back to Trial Court" »

As Riverside County medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to read an article about a medical marijuana arrest up north. According to an Aug. 11 article from the Marin Independent Journal, a woman from Mountain View is facing multiple drug charges after a traffic stop at which police found nearly three pounds of marijuana in her car. The California Highway Patrol says Sloopy Clarice Barreau was pulled over after officers spotted her weaving on the highway in San Rafael. Inside the vehicle, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and searched the car. She said she is a medical marijuana provider but had documentation allowing only personal use.

According to the article, officers saw Barreau's vehicle on 101 north near North San Pedro Road early on the morning of Aug. 8. They say she was weaving, but there are no allegations that she was driving under the influence. Rather, the officers smelled marijuana and searched her vehicle, finding 1,200 grams of marijuana -- nearly three pounds -- along with packaging materials, marijuana seeds and photographs of a grow operation. She told officers that she was a medical marijuana provider trying to sell to dispensaries, but did not have documentation showing this. During the arrest, officers said, she was combative and charged at them. She has pleaded not guilty to resisting arrest, transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale, and will appear in court Aug. 17.

Our Placentia medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers do not recommend that clients fight officers, because this can result in additional charges like Barreau's resisting arrest charge. In fact, this account suggests Barreau's actions could complicate her defense -- but that doesn't mean her case is hopeless. If she is indeed a legal medical marijuana provider, she should be able to prove it in court using the proper documentation. In a fair court, this should result in dropping the two felony charges -- the transportation and possession for sale charges, which carry a combined total of up to seven years in prison. It should not in itself result in dropping of the resisting arrest charge, but this is a misdemeanor with no prison time. It's also possible that Barreau truly was attempting to sell to medical marijuana dispensaries, but without the proper documentation. This is not a good idea, but failure to follow bureaucratic procedures is not the same as selling illegal street drugs, and an experienced attorney should be able to make that case to a jury.

Continue reading "Bay Area Woman Found Driving With Medical Marijuana Faces Felony Drug Charges" »

As Chino medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers, we were disappointed but not surprised to see that the Riverside County city of Wildomar is unlikely to overturn its current ban on medical marijuana dispensaries. The Riverside Press-Enterprise reported August 4 that the city's Planning Commission, which manages things like growth and transportation within the city, voted 3-2 to recommend that the City Council continue its two-year-old dispensary ban. The Planning Commission does not have the final say on the matter; the City Council will ultimately make the decision. But the commission's meeting still heard at length from opponents and proponents of the dispensaries, with about 20 of the 35 speakers opposing any dispensaries at all.

In Riverside County, only one city, Palm Springs, allows medical marijuana dispensaries. Wildomar is considering a law that would allow the dispensaries, but limit where they may be. The proposed law, modeled after one in Laguna Woods here in Orange County, would allow any number of dispensaries as long as they are in commercial zones and away from schools and parks. Only storefront dispensaries that are not for profit would be allowed. Several people on the Planning Commission suggested limiting the number of dispensaries to two, in a city of about 31,000 people. Commissioners discussed how the law might be affected if California's Proposition 19, which would legalize and regulate marijuana for all adults 21 and over, is passed this fall.

As Orange County medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we do not believe that the passing of Proposition 19 would change the minds of the most fervent opponents of dispensaries. Numerous cities throughout Southern California have used their zoning laws as a battering ram to essentially force medical marijuana delivery services out of those city. As one person quoted in the article said, this is despite the fact that a majority of California voters legalized marijuana for sick people more than a decade ago, and despite instructions from the state attorney general that nonprofit dispensaries are legal. We believe some people are simply too prejudiced against marijuana to respect this authority and are determined to oppose dispensaries, even when that means denying medicine to the sick.

Continue reading "Wildomar City Planning Commission Votes Against Ending City Ban on Dispensaries" »

AsDana Point medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were disappointed to see that the city of Orange is considering making its medical marijuana moratorium permanent. The nonprofit news site Voice of OC reported July 27 that the Orange City Council was set to consider making the ban permanent that evening. There was no follow-up report on whether the city made a decision. Orange has had a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries since XXX, but that temporary ban was set to come to an end, the city attorney said. An Orange Planning Commission document dated June 10 (PDF) shows that the moratorium was scheduled to expire September 22, after having been extended twice since its inception in November of 2008.

The city council's action comes at a time when medical marijuana dispensary bans are being challenged in California's appellate courts. Patients sued the city of Anaheim over its ban on dispensaries, saying it was unfair to patients and counter to the Compassionate Use Act that authorizes medical marijuana, but a judge dismissed the case. The patients appealed the decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, and that court is set to make a ruling on the case Aug. 18. Ten cities are backing Anaheim in the case, including the city of Orange. The ruling will help establish whether cities have the right to ban dispensaries, although observers on both sides expect it to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. The ruling could overturn any ban that Orange may adopt.

Our Chino Hills medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers believe the patients are right that cities may not ban medical marijuana dispensaries. For one thing, dispensary bans put a real burden on sick patients, who may have to travel a long way to get their medicine. With the amount of bans in Orange County, this can add up to significant travel for a sick person. Furthermore, the bans treat medical marijuana dispensaries like threats to their neighbors, despite the lack of evidence for this. In fact, the Orange Planning Commission report cites no increase in crime aside from briefly noting that dispensaries are targets for crime. This is also true of liquor and jewelry stores, which have not been banned. It also speculates that the marijuana is smuggled from Mexico and sold to illegitimate "patients," which can be handled on a case-by-case basis and without infringing on the rights of truly sick people.

Continue reading "City of Orange Considering Whether to Permanently Ban Medical Pot Dispensaries" »

Our Fountain Valley medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys believe medical marijuana users who follow the law should be free of legalized harassment by law enforcement. So we were pleased to see recent reports about protests by the medical marijuana community of DEA raids on several people in California who are not accused of breaking any state law. Americans for Safe Access issued a press release July 21 about a protest in San Diego following multiple raids on dispensaries there two weeks earlier, as well as raids on a legal grower in Mendocino County and another in Saginaw, Mich. A similar protest was organized in Michigan. The protests came in the same week that medical marijuana activists called on the Obama administration to drop the nomination of Michele Leonhart, who they believe is leading and inspiring the raids, as head of the DEA.

According to the San Diego chapter of Americans for Safe Access, the San Diego raids were "aggressive SWAT-style raids" against the Green Kross, Kush Lounge and Unified Collective dispensaries. As many as 12 people were arrested, the chapter said, and the federal government seized marijuana, money and patient paperwork, which may be confidential under federal law. The raid in Mendocino County was on the Covelo home of Joy Greenfield, 68, who had Mendocino County's first cultivation permit. The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat said the DEA took 99 plants -- with county-issued zip ties showing they were legal -- as well as a computer and paperwork. Greenfield was not home. None of the dispensaries or people were accused of violating the state laws that allow and regulate medical marijuana use, but were accused of federal drug crimes.

Medical marijuana organizations oppose Leonhart's nomination in part because they believe she supports raids like these. Leonhart is a Bush appointee who once headed the DEA's Los Angeles office, and is currently acting administrator of the DEA. She is believed to have supported or ordered the recent raids, which are in defiance of an order from Attorney General Eric Holder. That order says the DEA will not raid medical marijuana patients, growers or organizations that are in compliance with the laws of their states. However, Leonhart is believed to be an enthusiastic proponent of raiding medical marijuana organizations, and was deputy administrator during more than 200 raids in California and other medical marijuana states. She also recently refused to allow expansion of research into therapeutic use of marijuana.

As Riverside County medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers, we're disappointed at this nomination, which is likely to endanger the lives and livelihoods of people in the medical marijuana community. Collectives, cooperatives and patients who do their best to follow state law may still be raided and brutally prosecuted by the federal government -- despite an explicit assurance from the Department of Justice and the president that they should not be. If Leonhart is defying administration policy on this issue, she should not be confirmed or allowed to continue in her current position of power. Raids on dispensaries treat medical marijuana growers and patients as if they were dangerous criminals and put them in danger of spending years in prison for actions that they had every reason to believe is legal.

Continue reading "Medical Marijuana Community Protests Raids and Appointment of DEA Leader" »

A few months ago, our Murrieta medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys wrote about a man who is facing federal criminal charges for running a medical marijuana collective in Vista, in San Diego County. James Stacy is not accused of violating state medical marijuana laws. Rather, he is facing federal charges of conspiracy to cultivate and sell marijuana, actually growing marijuana and a firearms violation. At a hearing this week, SanDiego.com reported July 16, the judge in Stacy's case dealt a blow to the defense by ruling that Stacy can't use an argument of "entrapment by estoppel." In this case, that means he can't argue that he should have been safe because the Justice Department had already said it won't prosecute people who are in compliance with state law.

Stacy was one of two dispensary owners charged last fall after an undercover sting by the DEA. The other such person, Joseph Nunes, pleaded guilty and will serve a one-year prison sentence. Stacy was offered the same deal, the article said, but rejected it because he does not feel that he has done anything wrong under state law. In fact, the DEA agrees as far as state law goes, but medical marijuana remains prohibited under federal law, which is the law being used to try Stacy. Stacy's case will be closely watched because he is expected to use his compliance with state law as a defense to federal charges. This strategy has been rejected in previous cases, thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzalez v. Raich, but Stacy's case may be the first to go to trial since the Justice Department's statement. This ruling weakens his chance of using that statement as a defense, but may not remove the defense entirely.

As Chino Hills medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers, we're sorry the judge ruled the way he did. As someone quote in the articled pointed out, it's perfectly possible to be heavily prosecuted by the federal government for the same actions that are fully compliant with state law. The Attorney General's memo saying medical marijuana defendants will not be prosecuted is not legally binding on the DEA or U.S. attorneys -- as this case shows -- but it's the clearest guideline currently available for how the federal government intends to handle this discrepancy. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that federal agents and prosecutors are not willing to abide by that memo, and it's even more unfortunate that the judge won't admit evidence of this at trial. Stacy may still be able to appeal the issue, and we wish him the best of luck.

Continue reading "Judge Bars Entrapment Defense From Use at San Diego County Medical Marijuana Trial" »

If you've been following the fight over medical marijuana in Orange County, you may recall that the city of Lake Forest recently ordered all of the dispensaries within city limits to close. Our Riverside medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys are proud to say that we're a part of the fight by some dispensaries to stay open. As KPCC reported June 18, some dispensaries defied the late May order to close, causing lawyers for the city to seek a ruling holding them in contempt of court for failing to follow that order. Our partner, Damian J. Nassiri, represents one client that filed an appeal of that order last week, which means we've asked a higher court to reconsider whether the trial court's order was legally correct.

The problem stems from Lake Forest's attempt to use zoning law to drive out medical marijuana dispensaries. The dispensaries are legal under state law, but the city and many others in California have discovered that they can use city zoning laws to deny business permits to dispensaries. These cities claim they cannot license dispensaries because marijuana is illegal under federal law. Trial court have upheld this reasoning; the issue is currently before the California appeals courts. As a result, however, a court ordered the Lake Forest dispensaries to shut down. The one dispensary that remains in defiance of that order is our client, Lake Forest Wellness Center and Collective. As we noted in the Orange County Register, the city has not served our client with formal notice to shut down. We also believe that filing an appeal should stay the contempt order until a decision on the appeal is made.

As San Clemente medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers, we're sorry it's come to this. As Damon Harris told the newspaper, the collective has not violated state law, so it's unclear why the city believes it should leave. We believe city dispensary bans are an attempt to end-run around the Compassionate Use Act, which some cities, neighbors and police officers may dislike for their own emotional reasons. This would not be a sound basis for public policy that defies state law and the will of the votes. In addition to denying patients their legal medication, this means our clients could lose their businesses and all of the investment they put into them; and could also face criminal penalties for contempt of court or any "nuisance violations" the police can find to cite them for. In some cases, Californians who run legal dispensaries have even been charged with drug crimes, which carry years in state prison and can destroy a law-abiding person's life.

Continue reading "Lake Forest Dispensaries Defy Shutdown Order With Appeal to Higher Court" »