singlemost
Member
Boring but very interesting stuff.
State of California Medical Marijuana Rulings
People v. Trippet (1997): Under the Compassionate Use Act, a patient may not possess an unlimited quantity of marijuana, even if he has a physician's recommendation. In Trippett, the court held that the Act provides a defense for transportation of marijuana if the quantity transported, time and distance of transportation are reasonably related to the patient's medical needs.
Lungren v. Peron (1997): This case holds that a medical cannabis dispensary cannot qualify as the primary caregiver of patients simply by providing medical marijuana to patients.
People v. Rigo (1999): A person arrested for possession or cultivation of marijuana before obtaining a recommendation from a physician for the medical use of marijuana may not use this defense retroactively if a physician's recommendation is obtained after the arrest, unless there is a spectacular explanation.
People v. Young (2001): In a ruling directly conflicting with People v. Trippet ruling, the court ruled that the Compassionate Use Act does not protect transportation of medical marijuana.
People v. Fisher (2002): Law enforcement officers are not required to abandon a search for marijuana authorized by a search warrant when a resident of the premises produces documents indicating his status as a qualified medical marijuana patient or primary caregiver.
People v. Mower (2002): This unanimous CA Supreme Court ruling declared that patients and their care providers are entitled to a pre-trial hearing to determine the legitimacy of their medical marijuana defense. If the defense is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the case should be dismissed before going to trial. In addition, the Court ruled that the state must show proof of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in any criminal case.
People v. Tilehkooh (2003): This ruling criticizes the decision in People v. Bianco (2001), which held that it is within the trial court's discretion to impose a probation condition prohibiting all marijuana use for the offense of marijuana cultivation where the defendant's marijuana use was found to have contributed to his offense. Instead, the court ruled in Tilehkooh that no rehabilitative purpose is served by such probation condition in cases where there is no claim of diversion or violent behavior by defendant. [SB 420 now expressly provides for modification of parole conditions to accommodate one's medical marijuana use.] Even if the court imposes a probation condition forbidding all marijuana use, defense counsel may assert the CUA as a defense in any probation revocation proceeding brought against a qualified patient.
Bearman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004): The California Superior Court refused to review an appellate decision blocking the California Medical Board from searching the medical records of Dr. David Bearman and the patient for whom he had recommended medical marijuana. The doctor was being investigated for negligence in prescribing marijuana for the patient. The decision protects doctors and patients in possession of medical marijuana from violations of their privacy rights.
People v. Konow (2004): A defendant may "informally suggest" that the magistrate or superior court dismiss the information or complaint "in the interests of justice." Counsel may do this at any time, even as early as the arraignment, or in connection with a demurrer to the complaint, when the evidentiary foundation is laid through the submission of the doctor's recommendation.
People v. Urziceanu (2005): The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the legality of collectives and cooperatives, and held that SB 420 provides for a defense to marijuana distribution for collectives and cooperatives. Drawing from the Compassionate Use Act's encouragement of the government to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana, the court found that SB 420 and its legalization of collectives and cooperatives represented the state government's initial response to this directive. By expressly providing for reimbursement for marijuana and services in connection with collectives and cooperatives, the Legislature has abrogated cases such as Trippett, Peron and Young, and established a new defense to those who form and operate collectives and cooperatives to dispense marijuana.
People v. Wright (2006): The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that SB 420 specifically provides an affirmative defense to the crime of transporting marijuana to a qualified patient or a person with a state identification card who transports or processes marijuana for his or her own personal medical use. In addition, the Court found that the amounts of marijuana described in SB420 (8 ounces of dried marijuana and 6 mature or 12 immature plants) constitute a floor, not a ceiling, on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess.
People v. Strasburg (2007): The First District Court of Appeal issued a published decision in People v. Strasburg, holding that the CUA does not provide immunity from an otherwise justifiable search, such as when an officer smells marijuana. In its words, "[a]n officer with probable cause to search is not prevented from doing so by someone presenting a medical marijuana card or a marijuana prescription."
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (2007): ASA intervened in a lawsuit that the County of San Diego filed against the California Department of Health Services in San Diego Superior Court. Together with the ACLU Drug Reform Law Project, Drug Policy Alliance, and representing five patients, a physician, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, ASA fought on behalf of the rights of patients across the state. ASA argued that federal law does not preempt state law, and that the County must abide by the Compassionate Use Act and SB 420. ASA's side prveailed in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, as these courts unanimously confirmed the validity of California medical marijuana laws. San Diego petitioned the California United States Supreme Courts for review of these decisions, and both courts denied review.
Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007): For years, there was a question whether courts should order the return of medical marijuana that was improperly seized by the police. In Garden Grove v. Superior Court, the court made clear that a refusal to do so violated both the Penal Code, as well as constitutional requirements of due process. Because the California Supreme Court has denied review of the case, it is binding on all trial courts, requiring them to return medical marijuana to qualified patients where there is no probable cause to believe that they have committed any state law crime.
People v. Chakos (2007): The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reversed appellant's convictions for possessing six ounces of marijuana for distribution based on the "expert" testimony of a police officer that a scale, baggies, and small sum of cash evidenced marijuana distribution. The court found that such testimony evinced a lack of understanding of the patterns of use of marijuana by qualified patients, which rendered the police officer unqualified to testify as an expert and required that his testimony be stricken.
People v. Hua (200
: The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District found that the police violated the defendant's right against unreasonable searches and seizures when they entered his home without a warrant based only on their observation that someone inside was smoking marijuana.
Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications (200: The California Supreme Court issued a decision denying qualified medical marijuana patients any remedy for being terminated from their employment for testing positive for marijuana for using their medicine off-duty. ASA is currently sponsoring legislation in the California Legislature that will overturn the Ross decision and provide employment protections for medical marijuana patients.
People v. Kelly (200: In this case, a patient had 12 ounces of marijuana and the prosecutor successfully argued that his possession of the marijuana was illegal because he had exceeded the "caps" of SB 420. The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed because it found that SB 420's limit of the amount of marijuana a patient may possess constitutes an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 215. While the court reached the correct result, it is ASA's position that the SB 420 quantities constitute floors, not ceilings, as the Court held in People v. Wright. Pending.
(edit ) "The California District Three Second Appellate Court on May 22, 2008 in the case of People v. Kelly ruled that the plant and processed leaf limits implemented by California Senate Bill 420 were an unconstitutional modification to California's Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Act (CUA). The CUA does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. Rather, the only "limit" on how much marijuana a person falling under the Act may possess is it must be for the patient's "personal medical purposes." On July 1, 2008 the California Attorney General filed for a review before the California Supreme Court. On January 21, 2010, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that SB 420 does in fact illegally amend Proposition 215 by defining the amount of medicine and plants that a patient may possess."
County of Butte v. Superior Court (2009): In 2006, ASA filed a civil action on behalf of David Williams and the other six members of his collective because the Butte County Sheriff's Office compelled him to tear down most of the marijuana plants growing on his property, since not all members of the collective physically tilled the soil and, instead, contributed to the collective in other ways. The Superior Court agreed that ASA had properly stated claims for damage, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On July 1, 2009, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District issued a published decision affirming the Superior Court's holding that medical marijuana patients may state civil causes of action for violations of their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the California Constitution where they are acting in compliance with state law. As of this printing, Butte County has stated its intention to seek review by the California Supreme Court.
Federal Medical Marijuana Rulings
Conant v. McCaffrey (2002): The government was enjoined by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco from punishing physicians or taking their DEA licenses for recommending medical use of marijuana. The ruling states that physicians have a First Amendment right to make recommendations, but may not aid or abet patients in actually obtaining marijuana. This ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
US v. Oakland Marijuana Buyers Cooperative (2002): A federal district court issued a permanent injunction against the OCBC, prohibiting it from distributing medical marijuana. The District Court was executing the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that heard this case one year earlier. In that opinion, the Court declared that a person in federal court may not argue that distribution of marijuana to patients was a medical necessity. It specifically left open several questions, such as constitutional limitations on federal authority, which was then litigated in the Raich case, described below. This ruling applied to five other medical marijuana clubs, all of which were sued civilly along with the OCBC.
US v. Ed Rosenthal (2003 & 2007): A jury in San Francisco federal court found Oakland resident Ed Rosenthal guilty of cultivating marijuana, conspiracy to cultivate, and maintaining a place where drugs are manufactured. Jurors were never allowed to hear evidence regarding medical marijuana. Jurors publicly recanted their "not guilty" verdict after finding out the facts that were left out of the trial. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed Rosenthal's convictions because of juror misconduct. The government later reindicted Rosenthal, this time adding counts for filing false tax returns and money laundering. ASA filed a motion to dismiss the financial charges because they were vindictive. The court granted the vindictive prosecution motion and, after Rosenthal was convicted again on marijuana charges, the court again imposed a sentence of one-day with credit for time served.
Alberto Gonzales, et al v. Angel McClary Raich, et al (2005): The United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Raich v. Ashcroft, ruling that federal law enforcement officials could prosecute medical marijuana patients, even if they grow their own medicine and even if they reside in a state where medical marijuana use is protected under state law. The Court indicated that Congress and the Food and Drug Administration should work to resolve this issue. Although Raich's additional claims were rejected in a subsequent decision by the Ninth Circuit, that court noted: "We agree with Raich that medical and conventional wisdom that recognizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes is gaining traction in the law as well. But that legal recognition has not yet reached the point where a conclusion can be drawn that the right to use medical marijuana is 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"
State of California Medical Marijuana Rulings
People v. Trippet (1997): Under the Compassionate Use Act, a patient may not possess an unlimited quantity of marijuana, even if he has a physician's recommendation. In Trippett, the court held that the Act provides a defense for transportation of marijuana if the quantity transported, time and distance of transportation are reasonably related to the patient's medical needs.
Lungren v. Peron (1997): This case holds that a medical cannabis dispensary cannot qualify as the primary caregiver of patients simply by providing medical marijuana to patients.
People v. Rigo (1999): A person arrested for possession or cultivation of marijuana before obtaining a recommendation from a physician for the medical use of marijuana may not use this defense retroactively if a physician's recommendation is obtained after the arrest, unless there is a spectacular explanation.
People v. Young (2001): In a ruling directly conflicting with People v. Trippet ruling, the court ruled that the Compassionate Use Act does not protect transportation of medical marijuana.
People v. Fisher (2002): Law enforcement officers are not required to abandon a search for marijuana authorized by a search warrant when a resident of the premises produces documents indicating his status as a qualified medical marijuana patient or primary caregiver.
People v. Mower (2002): This unanimous CA Supreme Court ruling declared that patients and their care providers are entitled to a pre-trial hearing to determine the legitimacy of their medical marijuana defense. If the defense is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the case should be dismissed before going to trial. In addition, the Court ruled that the state must show proof of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in any criminal case.
People v. Tilehkooh (2003): This ruling criticizes the decision in People v. Bianco (2001), which held that it is within the trial court's discretion to impose a probation condition prohibiting all marijuana use for the offense of marijuana cultivation where the defendant's marijuana use was found to have contributed to his offense. Instead, the court ruled in Tilehkooh that no rehabilitative purpose is served by such probation condition in cases where there is no claim of diversion or violent behavior by defendant. [SB 420 now expressly provides for modification of parole conditions to accommodate one's medical marijuana use.] Even if the court imposes a probation condition forbidding all marijuana use, defense counsel may assert the CUA as a defense in any probation revocation proceeding brought against a qualified patient.
Bearman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004): The California Superior Court refused to review an appellate decision blocking the California Medical Board from searching the medical records of Dr. David Bearman and the patient for whom he had recommended medical marijuana. The doctor was being investigated for negligence in prescribing marijuana for the patient. The decision protects doctors and patients in possession of medical marijuana from violations of their privacy rights.
People v. Konow (2004): A defendant may "informally suggest" that the magistrate or superior court dismiss the information or complaint "in the interests of justice." Counsel may do this at any time, even as early as the arraignment, or in connection with a demurrer to the complaint, when the evidentiary foundation is laid through the submission of the doctor's recommendation.
People v. Urziceanu (2005): The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the legality of collectives and cooperatives, and held that SB 420 provides for a defense to marijuana distribution for collectives and cooperatives. Drawing from the Compassionate Use Act's encouragement of the government to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana, the court found that SB 420 and its legalization of collectives and cooperatives represented the state government's initial response to this directive. By expressly providing for reimbursement for marijuana and services in connection with collectives and cooperatives, the Legislature has abrogated cases such as Trippett, Peron and Young, and established a new defense to those who form and operate collectives and cooperatives to dispense marijuana.
People v. Wright (2006): The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that SB 420 specifically provides an affirmative defense to the crime of transporting marijuana to a qualified patient or a person with a state identification card who transports or processes marijuana for his or her own personal medical use. In addition, the Court found that the amounts of marijuana described in SB420 (8 ounces of dried marijuana and 6 mature or 12 immature plants) constitute a floor, not a ceiling, on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess.
People v. Strasburg (2007): The First District Court of Appeal issued a published decision in People v. Strasburg, holding that the CUA does not provide immunity from an otherwise justifiable search, such as when an officer smells marijuana. In its words, "[a]n officer with probable cause to search is not prevented from doing so by someone presenting a medical marijuana card or a marijuana prescription."
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (2007): ASA intervened in a lawsuit that the County of San Diego filed against the California Department of Health Services in San Diego Superior Court. Together with the ACLU Drug Reform Law Project, Drug Policy Alliance, and representing five patients, a physician, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, ASA fought on behalf of the rights of patients across the state. ASA argued that federal law does not preempt state law, and that the County must abide by the Compassionate Use Act and SB 420. ASA's side prveailed in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, as these courts unanimously confirmed the validity of California medical marijuana laws. San Diego petitioned the California United States Supreme Courts for review of these decisions, and both courts denied review.
Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007): For years, there was a question whether courts should order the return of medical marijuana that was improperly seized by the police. In Garden Grove v. Superior Court, the court made clear that a refusal to do so violated both the Penal Code, as well as constitutional requirements of due process. Because the California Supreme Court has denied review of the case, it is binding on all trial courts, requiring them to return medical marijuana to qualified patients where there is no probable cause to believe that they have committed any state law crime.
People v. Chakos (2007): The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reversed appellant's convictions for possessing six ounces of marijuana for distribution based on the "expert" testimony of a police officer that a scale, baggies, and small sum of cash evidenced marijuana distribution. The court found that such testimony evinced a lack of understanding of the patterns of use of marijuana by qualified patients, which rendered the police officer unqualified to testify as an expert and required that his testimony be stricken.
People v. Hua (200
: The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District found that the police violated the defendant's right against unreasonable searches and seizures when they entered his home without a warrant based only on their observation that someone inside was smoking marijuana.Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications (200
: The California Supreme Court issued a decision denying qualified medical marijuana patients any remedy for being terminated from their employment for testing positive for marijuana for using their medicine off-duty. ASA is currently sponsoring legislation in the California Legislature that will overturn the Ross decision and provide employment protections for medical marijuana patients.People v. Kelly (200
: In this case, a patient had 12 ounces of marijuana and the prosecutor successfully argued that his possession of the marijuana was illegal because he had exceeded the "caps" of SB 420. The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed because it found that SB 420's limit of the amount of marijuana a patient may possess constitutes an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 215. While the court reached the correct result, it is ASA's position that the SB 420 quantities constitute floors, not ceilings, as the Court held in People v. Wright. Pending.(edit ) "The California District Three Second Appellate Court on May 22, 2008 in the case of People v. Kelly ruled that the plant and processed leaf limits implemented by California Senate Bill 420 were an unconstitutional modification to California's Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Act (CUA). The CUA does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. Rather, the only "limit" on how much marijuana a person falling under the Act may possess is it must be for the patient's "personal medical purposes." On July 1, 2008 the California Attorney General filed for a review before the California Supreme Court. On January 21, 2010, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that SB 420 does in fact illegally amend Proposition 215 by defining the amount of medicine and plants that a patient may possess."
County of Butte v. Superior Court (2009): In 2006, ASA filed a civil action on behalf of David Williams and the other six members of his collective because the Butte County Sheriff's Office compelled him to tear down most of the marijuana plants growing on his property, since not all members of the collective physically tilled the soil and, instead, contributed to the collective in other ways. The Superior Court agreed that ASA had properly stated claims for damage, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On July 1, 2009, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District issued a published decision affirming the Superior Court's holding that medical marijuana patients may state civil causes of action for violations of their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the California Constitution where they are acting in compliance with state law. As of this printing, Butte County has stated its intention to seek review by the California Supreme Court.
Federal Medical Marijuana Rulings
Conant v. McCaffrey (2002): The government was enjoined by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco from punishing physicians or taking their DEA licenses for recommending medical use of marijuana. The ruling states that physicians have a First Amendment right to make recommendations, but may not aid or abet patients in actually obtaining marijuana. This ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
US v. Oakland Marijuana Buyers Cooperative (2002): A federal district court issued a permanent injunction against the OCBC, prohibiting it from distributing medical marijuana. The District Court was executing the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that heard this case one year earlier. In that opinion, the Court declared that a person in federal court may not argue that distribution of marijuana to patients was a medical necessity. It specifically left open several questions, such as constitutional limitations on federal authority, which was then litigated in the Raich case, described below. This ruling applied to five other medical marijuana clubs, all of which were sued civilly along with the OCBC.
US v. Ed Rosenthal (2003 & 2007): A jury in San Francisco federal court found Oakland resident Ed Rosenthal guilty of cultivating marijuana, conspiracy to cultivate, and maintaining a place where drugs are manufactured. Jurors were never allowed to hear evidence regarding medical marijuana. Jurors publicly recanted their "not guilty" verdict after finding out the facts that were left out of the trial. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed Rosenthal's convictions because of juror misconduct. The government later reindicted Rosenthal, this time adding counts for filing false tax returns and money laundering. ASA filed a motion to dismiss the financial charges because they were vindictive. The court granted the vindictive prosecution motion and, after Rosenthal was convicted again on marijuana charges, the court again imposed a sentence of one-day with credit for time served.
Alberto Gonzales, et al v. Angel McClary Raich, et al (2005): The United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Raich v. Ashcroft, ruling that federal law enforcement officials could prosecute medical marijuana patients, even if they grow their own medicine and even if they reside in a state where medical marijuana use is protected under state law. The Court indicated that Congress and the Food and Drug Administration should work to resolve this issue. Although Raich's additional claims were rejected in a subsequent decision by the Ninth Circuit, that court noted: "We agree with Raich that medical and conventional wisdom that recognizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes is gaining traction in the law as well. But that legal recognition has not yet reached the point where a conclusion can be drawn that the right to use medical marijuana is 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"
im workin with some pretty outdated sites and books, but i put in a edit and will review the rest to make sure were up to date.