Suit Challenges CHP Confiscation of Medical Pot

By Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Source: Los Angeles Times

Sacramento -- Mary Jane Winters, a registered nurse, doesn't dispute that the California Highway Patrol officer had a right to pull her over and write a ticket for speeding. But what galls Winters is that he took her medicine.

In her case, that medicine is marijuana.

She has a legal recommendation from her doctor to use cannabis to numb the pain and spasms in her back, damaged while trying to lift a 421-pound patient a decade ago. None of that mattered to the CHP officer who stopped her last Thanksgiving as she zipped through Mendocino County. He confiscated her pot and cited Winters for possession of more than an ounce.

Within two months, the charges were dismissed, as authorities reasoned that Winters had a legal right under Proposition 215 - the state's 1996 medical marijuana law - to use the drug her doctor recommended.

But Winters, 53, isn't mollified. She and other pot patients who have run afoul of the CHP are launching a counterattack.

Americans for Safe Access, a patient support group, plans to announce today in Oakland a lawsuit against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the CHP and Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer asking that the state stop confiscating medical marijuana from patients.

Police confusion about medical marijuana is nothing new. Medpot activists say the CHP remains the worst offender, confiscating even the smallest amounts of pot and sometimes arresting patients even after they present documentation from a physician.

The CHP has "an obligation to uphold state laws. And medical marijuana is legal in California," said Joseph Elford, an Americans for Safe Access attorney.

CHP officials say the matter is hardly so clear-cut.

Tom Marshall, a CHP spokesman, said there remains a conflict between state law and the federal government's prohibition against pot use for any purpose.

But the biggest sticking point for the CHP, he said, is the absence of state identification cards for medical marijuana patients. The cards were authorized by the Legislature in 2003, but state health officials balked at launching the ID program because of budgetary constraints.

"Until the day arrives that there's a card," Marshall said, "we're going to continue to enforce the law as we always have."

Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access said that the ID cards are voluntary and that patients can provide a doctor's written recommendation as proof they're legal. The CHP, she said, "is fooling themselves."

Tiffany Simpson, 23, a college student from Richmond, has a doctor's recommendation to use pot for chronic pain in her back and knee. A CHP officer smelled pot in her car after pulling Simpson over on Christmas morning for what he said was a registration problem.

The officer found that Simpson's car was properly registered. But he cited her for less than an ounce of marijuana and lectured her on the conflict between state and federal law on medicinal uses.

"I just don't understand what's going on with the Highway Patrol," she said. "They don't do this with diabetics."

Simpson will be one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, along with Tony Bowles, 28, of San Francisco.

Bowles was two blocks from home last May when two CHP officers pulled him over and confiscated 4 grams of marijuana. A caregiver for his mother, Bowles said he was toting the drug home for her use. He showed the officers an ID card issued by the San Francisco health department. They wouldn't accept it as proof.

"They said they were following maximum enforcement of the law," he said. "I thought Proposition 215 was the law."

San Francisco prosecutors dropped the case against Bowles within a few weeks.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Published: February 15, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Link to article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/chp.htm

 

By Michelle Locke, Associated Press
Source: Associated Press

Berkeley, Calif. -- Medical marijuana advocates have filed suit against the California Highway Patrol, demanding that officers stop confiscating pot from authorized users. The suit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, is the latest salvo in the long-running debate over medical marijuana in California, approved by voters in 1996, opposed by federal authorities ever since and applied unevenly all over the state.

The suit, which also names the governor and attorney general, says the highway patrol's "rigid policy," of seizing medical marijuana "causes law abiding citizens to suffer pain, humiliation, loss of dignity, extreme anxiety and a fear of the police."

"It's been more than eight years since California voters approved the right to use marijuana medically and since that time law enforcement has resisted upholding that right," said Kris Hermes, legal director of Americans for Safe Access, the Berkeley-based group bringing the suit. "While this resistance is pretty widespread across California, CHP are the worst violators by far."

At CHP headquarters in Sacramento, spokesman Tom Marshall said department officials have not seen the suit and therefore had no comment.

As for CHP policy in general, he said, a doctor's note alone isn't enough to prevent confiscation of marijuana. Marshall said the agency is waiting for authorized user ID cards to be issued by the state Health Department.

The voluntary ID card program was authorized by legislators in 2003 but cards haven't been issued yet. Department of Health Services spokeswoman Norma Arceo said the program had been delayed for lack of funds, but officials are developing a pilot program with 10 counties and hope to have the system set up statewide by year's end.

People with a medical recommendation to use marijuana will be able to apply for the ID card and the department will also have a toll-free number and Web site to help officers check to see if a person is an authorized user, she said.

Hermes took issue with the argument that a doctor's recommendation isn't sufficient.

"The law states quite explicitly that a qualified patient is someone who presents a recommendation from their physician or a voluntary identification card," he said.

The suit also names Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer. The governor's office referred calls to the CHP and a Lockyer spokesman said he had not seen the suit and had no comment.

The suit seeks a court order stopping the CHP from seizing marijuana from legitimate patients.

"It's like someone being pulled over and getting their Motrin taken away that they use to relieve their pain," Hermes said.

On the Net: http://www.safeaccessnow.org

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Michelle Locke, Associated Press
Published: February 15, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The Associated Press
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20245.shtml

 

By Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Source: Los Angeles Times

\t\tSacramento -- The California Highway Patrol has ordered its officers to \t\tstop confiscating medical marijuana during routine traffic stops, a \t\tvictory for patients hoping to win broader acceptance of the \t\tcontroversial medicine from balky police departments around the state.
\t\t
\t\tHighway Patrol officials sent out a bulletin last week to field \t\tcommanders spelling out the policy shift, which would allow patients to \t\ttravel on California's highways with up to 8 ounces of marijuana as long \t\tas they have a certified user identification card or documented \t\tphysician's approval.
\t\t
\t\tPatient advocates say the change will make the state's highways a "safe \t\thaven" for those who use marijuana with a physician's permission. They \t\talso hope the shift by the CHP sets an example for law enforcement \t\tagencies around California.
\t\t
\t\t"This is going to send a very clear message: The constitutionality of \t\tpatients needs to be protected," said Steph Sherer, executive director \t\tof Americans for Safe Access, a marijuana patients group that sued the \t\tCHP to force the policy change. "Our hope is this will ripple around the \t\tstate."
\t\t
\t\tLt. Joe Whiteford, a CHP spokesman, called the policy shift "a revision" \t\tneeded in part because of confusion among rank-and-file officers over a \t\trecent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
\t\t
\t\tThe high court declared in June that medical marijuana laws in a dozen \t\tstates, including California, don't protect patients or suppliers from \t\tfederal prosecution. But the ruling did not sweep away state medical \t\tmarijuana laws and had no effect on local and state police such as the \t\tCHP.
\t\t
\t\tAlthough voters legalized medical marijuana in California nearly nine \t\tyears ago, police statewide have wrangled with activists over how to \t\tenforce the law.
\t\t
\t\tPolice officers have griped in particular about the difficulty of \t\tdistinguishing true patients from recreational pot smokers.
\t\t
\t\tWith the Highway Patrol's new medical marijuana policy, officers in the \t\tfield "have got their marching orders," Whiteford said. "Now they're \t\tpretty clear what to do."
\t\t
\t\tFor the last fiscal year, ending in July, Americans for Safe Access \t\tcollected reports from 457 patients and caregivers who were arrested or \t\thad their medical marijuana seized by police officers in California.
\t\t
\t\tAbout a quarter of those cases involved the Highway Patrol, and the rest \t\twere spread among police and sheriff's departments in 48 of California's \t\t58 counties.
\t\t
\t\tThe Oakland-based patient group sued the CHP and Gov. Arnold \t\tSchwarzenegger in February, asking the Highway Patrol to alter its \t\tconfiscation protocols for medical marijuana. Activists said CHP \t\tofficers would seize even the smallest amounts and sometimes arrest \t\tpatients after they presented documentation from a physician.
\t\t
\t\tHighway Patrol leaders balked initially, saying they wouldn't halt \t\tmedical marijuana confiscations until the state launched an ID card \t\tprogram so officers could more easily distinguish legitimate cannabis \t\tpatients.
\t\t
\t\tCalifornia health officials started an ID program earlier this year, but \t\tparticipation has lagged, with cards issued to only 176 patients. \t\tMeanwhile, some cities and counties have issued thousands of cards. San \t\tFrancisco has 8,000 registered medical marijuana patients with ID cards.
\t\t
\t\tThe CHP's new rules of engagement on medical marijuana advise patrol \t\tofficers to accept state or local ID cards as proof of a patient's \t\tmedicinal need. Patients can also provide a physician's written \t\trecommendation.
\t\t
\t\tIn the CHP's Aug. 22 bulletin, commanders spelled out how a typical \t\tscenario might be handled in the field. If an officer observed marijuana \t\tand the patient presented a doctor's written recommendation, the officer \t\twould call dispatch to attempt to verify its authenticity. If the \t\tdocument was valid, the marijuana would not be seized.
\t\t
\t\tThe new rules allow leeway for officers, authorizing them to use "sound \t\tprofessional judgment" to judge a patient's medical claim.
\t\t
\t\tBut the bulletin advised officers to be alert for indications of \t\ttrafficking, such as "pay/owe" records, large quantities of cash or a \t\tbig stash of the drug packaged as if for sale.
\t\t
\t\tWhen a patient cannot provide proper proof or has more marijuana than \t\tallowed, the officer will confiscate the drug. The officer is also \t\trequired to advise the person that he or she can file a motion with the \t\tcourt for the return of medical marijuana.
\t\t
\t\tPatients who have jousted with the Highway Patrol over medical marijuana \t\texpressed delight with the new rules.
\t\t
\t\tMary Jane Winters, a 54-year-old nurse from Ukiah, was pulled over for \t\tspeeding in November 2004. She said she was driving to deliver flowers \t\tto a homeless shelter. She was cited for possession of 2 ounces of \t\tmarijuana. Winters said she has used the drug for a decade to offset \t\tpain from a back injury.
\t\t
\t\t"I'm ecstatic," she said of the policy change. "This is the first step \t\ttoward justice."
\t\t
\t\tThe next steps will likely come in court.
\t\t
\t\tJoe Elford, chief counsel at Americans for Safe Access, said the group's \t\tlawsuit against the CHP won't be settled until the new policy is \t\taffirmed in court or in a binding legal document.
\t\t
\t\tThe group will continue monitoring medical marijuana seizures by police \t\taround the state, Elford said, and will file lawsuits "against any \t\tdepartment, big or small, that doesn't follow the lead of the CHP."

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Published: August 28, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Link to article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/ounces.htm

 

By Karl Fischer, Contra Costa Times
Source: Contra Costa Times

California -- Contra Costa health officials will soon offer an identification card to medical marijuana users to help local law enforcement distinguish them from people illegally carrying the drug. The Health Services Department "is working on the very early stages of developing this policy," said Francie Wise, director of the county's communicable disease program. "We're going to be talking with all the people involved to make sure that when we issue a card, everyone understands what it is for and what it means."

County officials have not worked out specifics or notified most local law enforcement agencies, but do expect to begin issuing cards within a few months. The program would be similar to those operated by San Francisco and Oakland, Wise said, and would be used only to identify the carrier's legal rights to police.

Wise said she did not know how many county residents would use the program. The Contra Costa Sheriff's Office, meanwhile, is reviewing its arrest and seizure policies.

"As we speak, we are reviewing our policies and procedures regarding medical marijuana in response to concerns expressed by the county health department as well as the district attorney's office," said sheriff's spokesman Jimmy Lee. "Our goal is to make a policy that is in accordance with state law."

That neatly echoes a policy shift broadcast to Highway Patrol field offices across the state last week from Sacramento. Officers will now accept local identification cards and many other forms of proof that someone uses marijuana legally -- a departure from a more narrow policy that cannabis activists claim violated state law.

"The CHP's reluctance to follow state law was more than just superficial, it was unlawful," said Kris Hermes of Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access. "They had a policy of seizing marijuana that was enforced regardless of whether the patient supplied proper documentation."

The group sued the CHP this year, claiming the agency was the state's most egregious violator of medical marijuana law based on the number of traffic-stop arrests of cannabis patients. The suit remains unresolved but the group heartily approves of the policy change.

The CHP previously accepted cannabis cards from the state Department of Health Services, said Lt. Joe Whiteford, though that agency's relatively new program has only issued a few hundred cards. By contrast, San Francisco has issued more than 8,000.

Questions from officers about how to enforce state law and this summer's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that federal drug prohibitions still applied in states with medical marijuana laws prompted the Highway Patrol administration to change the policy, Whiteford said.

"We ask our officers to use sound professional judgment. We will ask for information to validate" information on an identification card, doctor's note or other forms of proof, Whiteford said.

Highway Patrol officers still have the legal right to search cars of medical marijuana patients who acknowledge they are carrying the drug, Whiteford said, to verify they are carrying legal quantities.

The CHP will impound an amount larger than 8 ounces regardless of whether the owner carries a cannabis card, and it will wait for a court order to return seized medical marijuana.

Officers will also arrest anyone suspected of driving under the influence or with paraphernalia that appears to be recently used.

Few Contra Costa police agencies have such a succinct medical marijuana policy. The Contra Costa District Attorney's office has seen a drop in police seeking criminal charges against cannabis patients, said District Attorney Robert Kochly.

"Nobody is trying to keep marijuana from people who need it, at least in amounts that are appropriate," Kochly said. "What the Highway Patrol is announcing is not inconsistent with what we would advise our local jurisdictions to do."

Source: Contra Costa Times (CA)
Author: Karl Fischer, Contra Costa Times
Published: Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Knight Ridder
Contact: letters@cctimes.com
Website: http://www.contracostatimes.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21074.shtml

 

By Dean E. Murphy
Source: New York Times

Oakland, Calif. -- In a turnaround, one of the state's biggest law enforcement agencies says it is taking a hands-off approach to the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. The new policy, by the California Highway Patrol, states that an "individual is to be released and the marijuana is not to be seized" if the person qualifies under state law to possess marijuana for medicinal purposes. It also says that officers "shall not conduct traffic enforcement stops for the primary purpose of drug interdiction" involving the authorized use of medical marijuana.

Though data on arrests is incomplete, medical marijuana advocates say the highway patrol had been responsible for more arrests of patients and caregivers than any other agency in the state.

A spokesman for the highway patrol said on Monday that the new rules were issued last week in response to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in June and legal action by Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group based here in Oakland that sought a court order against the highway patrol's previous policy of arresting patients and confiscating their marijuana.

"There were numerous field inquiries in response to the Supreme Court ruling," said the spokesman, Lt. Joe Whiteford. "They wanted clarification of the law, and we wanted to make sure all of our officers are on the same page."

At a news conference here called by Americans for Safe Access, patients and their advocates described the policy change as a breakthrough and predicted other law enforcement agencies would follow suit.

"It gives us renewed confidence that it is appropriate to bring these cases to court and that good things can come from doing so," said Joe Elford, a lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, adding that the group would file more lawsuits if the highway patrol "model is not replicated" across the state.

The Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Raich, declared in June that medical marijuana patients are subject to federal prosecution even if they live in a state that allows medicinal uses of marijuana. The decision dealt a blow to medical marijuana users around the country, but it did not overturn laws in 12 states, including California, that allow some uses of marijuana.

Though voters approved California's medical marijuana law in 1996, it was only after the Supreme Court ruling that the highway patrol got sufficient legal guidance from the state to relax its enforcement, Lieutenant Whiteford said.

"There was a lot of ambiguity in the law," he said, "so basically it made it a little tough for law enforcement to come up with a solid policy to enforce it."

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Mr. Lockyer sent memorandums to law enforcement agencies throughout the state reminding them "that California law still stands."

Under the California law, people can possess up to eight ounces of marijuana for medicinal purposes on the recommendation of a doctor. So-called caregivers are also permitted to possess and cultivate the marijuana for sick people.

"It was Lockyer's intention to help guide local agencies in looking at their internal policies," said the spokeswoman, Teresa Schilling.

The highway patrol's 7,100 sworn officers are responsible for enforcing traffic laws on state and county roads.

Lieutenant Whiteford said officers would still stop people if there was a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal drug activity, including driving under the influence of marijuana.

Complete Title: California Patrol Won't Seize Marijuana Used as Medicine

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Dean E. Murphy
Published: August 30, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21075.shtml

 

By Marsha Rosenbaum and Craig Reinarman, AlterNet
Source: AlterNet

California -- After decades of trying to make it go away, last month two California law enforcement agencies acknowledged that marijuana is a fact of life. First, the California Highway Patrol announced that they would no longer confiscate marijuana from patients whose physicians have recommended it as medicine. The CHP reversed its policy after Attorney General Bill Lockyer defended California's Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative, which voters passed by a large margin in 1996.

Last spring, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Raich v. Ashcroft that federal marijuana laws trump state laws like Prop 215, leaving California's thousands of medical marijuana patients at risk of federal prosecution. But Lockyer ruled that while the feds might arrest people on the basis of federal law, California voters had spoken and the Supreme Court decision did not invalidate 215. Citing his decision, the CHP took the courageous step of announcing that absent other offenses they will leave medical marijuana patients alone.

The next day, the Los Angeles Police Department announced that it will no longer automatically screen out job applicants who have used marijuana. The LAPD has a long history of enthusiasm for the war on drugs (former Chief Daryl Gates once said that all drug users "should be taken out and shot"), and it relies on federal drug war funds. So this small step showed a certain amount of courage, too.

Obviously, the LAPD is not looking to hire current drug users. Its new policy simply acknowledges the fact that nearly 100 million Americans have used marijuana, 25 million of them in the past year, according to the latest federal government survey. The department deserves credit for recognizing that it is simply unrealistic to rule out a huge swath of the population solely for having once engaged in a common form of drug use that is considered normal in many conventional segments of society.

Of course, ardent prohibitionists and pundits will claim that these actions by the Attorney General, the CHP and the LAPD "send the wrong message" and that "flakey" California is going to pot. Is there any reason to worry that these steps will somehow signal moral laxity and encourage marijuana use?

The evidence is reassuring. In the 1970s, the Netherlands effectively decriminalized marijuana use. Thirty years later, the Dutch have tightly regulated, tax-paying shops that sell small amounts of marijuana to adults, while last year the U.S. arrested over 600,000 Americans for mere possession of it. Yet national surveys show that the prevalence of marijuana use in the Netherlands has remained about half that in the U.S.

In fact, there has never been a clear relationship between policy and use levels. In the 1970s, 11 U.S. states sharply reduced penalties for marijuana possession. Some people predicted the collapse of civilization, but follow-up studies showed that none of these states experienced any more drug use or drug problems than neighboring states that retained harsh penalties.

In 2004, England reclassified cannabis use as a minor offense. Last week the U.K. Department of Health reported that its annual survey of over 9,000 youth found cannabis use had declined since the reclassification.

The same is true in the U.S. The most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that illicit drug use among youth (most of it marijuana), was down in 2004. Indeed, marijuana use declined in each of the 10 states that have passed medical marijuana laws -- including California, where use among youth was down more than in other states without such laws.

It is increasingly clear that neither reducing criminal penalties for marijuana use nor allowing medical marijuana lead to increased use. In short, the "wrong message" approach sends the wrong message. No one wants more young people smoking anything. But a moral crusade against marijuana that denies sick and dying people a medicine they and their doctors have found therapeutic is not only bad medicine but bad morals. California voters said this in 1996, and California law enforcement officials are wisely saying this now.

Some will criticize California for its leadership on drug policy reform. But Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis long ago recognized that the individual states were vital "laboratories of democracy" where needed experiments in public policy could be conducted. With all the criticism directed at government these days, it seems only fair to notice when public officials take measured steps toward positive change.

Craig Reinarman is professor of sociology and legal studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Marsha Rosenbaum is director of the San Francisco Office of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Source: AlterNet (US)
Author: Marsha Rosenbaum and Craig Reinarman, AlterNet
Published: October 3, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Independent Media Institute
Contact: letters@alternet.org
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
DL: http://www.alternet.org/story/26244/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21161.shtml

 

By Brett Rowland
Source: Hollister Free Lance

Hollister, CA -- A legal battle erupted in the San Benito County Courthouse Thursday when the county's public defender demanded a court hearing to determine whether the local California Highway Patrol commander broke the law by refusing to return a man's medical marijuana confiscated during an arrest last year.
Public Defender Greg La Forge argued before Superior Court Judge Steven Sanders that Hollister-Gilroy CHP Commander Otto Knorr should return 4 grams of medical marijuana, or face the possibility of being held in contempt of court because a judge had already issued a court order mandating the marijuana be returned.

But Knorr said that while California recognizes marijuana as a medicine under certain instances, the federal government does not. That is why he cannot return the substance CHP officers confiscated from 28-year-old Eugene Popok, a Los Angeles-area resident, during a traffic stop for speeding on Highway 156 in October of 2004, he said.

Popok was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana at the time, and La Forge said the criminal charges against his client have already been settled. La Forge did not know what ailed Popok, who was not present during Thursday's hearing, however the primary cause for medical marijuana is chronic pain.

The case was continued to Jan. 19, at which time La Forge said he will ask Sanders to hold Knorr in contempt of court if the commander fails to hand over the marijuana. A misdemeanor contempt of court charge carries a sentence of up to six months in jail. Knorr said he did not know what he would do if Sanders ordered him to return the marijuana in January.

"I'll cross that bridge when I come to it," he said. "I'm in quite a quandary. I stand very strongly on my ethics and have a responsibility to the people of the state of California, the California Highway Patrol and my officers to uphold the law. If I lose my integrity, I have nothing else to stand for."

La Forge called such reasoning "garbage" and pointed to a federal law that protects law enforcement officers from criminal charges related to enforcing state controlled substance laws. Ethics, he said, should not factor into anyone's decision to follow a state law or court order.

"They are trying to get around the court order by hiding behind a penalty that doesn't exist," he said. "The DA's argument that he is being put between a rock and a hard place is garbage."

The case playing out in San Benito's courtroom is a familiar one to Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He said similar cases have also been heard in other states.

"It has happened before - usually the local police literally walk across the street and drop it on the steps of the federal courthouse," he said. "It's a very contemporary question.

The citizens of California have voted that (marijuana) is a medicine. It would seem malevolent, if not foolhardy, to not return what has been deemed legal."

La Forge believes Knorr's refusal to return the marijuana is in direct conflict with the CHP's policy on medicinal marijuana. Typically, the CHP takes a hands-off approach and will not confiscate the drugs if the person qualifies under state law for possession of medical marijuana, Knorr said. However, since Popok did not notify officers during his arrest that the marijuana was for medical use, it was confiscated.

"The defendant made no claim of medical use during the arrest and was driving under the influence at the time," Knorr said Thursday outside the courthouse. "Our policy allows us not to seize medical marijuana, but it does not allow us to dispense it. That would be a violation of federal law."

The problem, Knorr said, is that state law, prompted by the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 - which allows people with certain medical ailments to possess small quantities of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation - directly conflicts with a federal law prohibiting the use or distribution of marijuana for any reason.

"We're caught in the middle of both," Knorr said.
But La Forge believes the law is clear, and said the District Attorney "throws the book" at many of his other clients who violate court orders.

"Why is this any different because a guy has a gun and a badge," he said. "It's clearly a double standard."

District Attorney John Sarsfield did not return phone calls for comment on the matter Thursday.

During the hearing, Sanders suggested the marijuana be returned to La Forge, on behalf of his client. But La Forge would not accept, explaining that only police officers are exempt from prosecution for enforcing the state's drug laws.

Although the subject is a touchy one, La Forge believes he'll be successful and based his optimism on a 2002 case in which he was able to get San Benito County Sheriff Curtis Hill to return 11 grams of medical marijuana to another one of his clients. Hill also was unavailable for comment.


Source: Hollister Free Lance (CA)
Author: Brett Rowland
Published: Friday, December 16, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Hollister Free Lance
Contact: editor@freelancenews.com
Website: http://www.freelancenews.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21391.shtml

 

By Brett Rowland
Source: Hollister Free Lance

Hollister, CA -- After refusing to obey a court order to return a Los Angeles-area man's medical marijuana for months, the Gilroy-Hollister California Highway Patrol decided last week to return the pot it confiscated during a 2004 traffic stop on Highway 156. The decision came just eight days before a contempt of court hearing was scheduled to determine if area CHP Commander Otto Knorr had violated a San Benito County Superior Court order by not returning the marijuana.

In December, local defense attorney Greg LaForge argued before Judge Steven Sanders that Knorr should return the 4 grams of medical marijuana, or face the possibility of being held in contempt of court because a judge had already issued a court order mandating the marijuana be returned.

"It's clearly a victory, a court order is a valuable tool and nobody is above the law, especially law enforcement officers themselves," LaForge said Monday. "I think (Knorr) is out of touch with his own department's guidelines, it should have never been set for a hearing."

Knorr previously told the Free Lance that while California recognizes marijuana as a medicine under certain instances, the federal government does not. He had said that he was stuck in an apparent Catch-22 between the two laws and had no authority to distribute marijuana for any purpose.

But last Thursday, LaForge received a letter from Miguel Neri, a California deputy attorney general, which stated the marijuana taken from 28-year-old Eugene Popok, would be returned. CHP officers had seized the marijuana from Popok during a traffic stop for speeding in October of 2004. LaForge does not know what ailment his client suffers requiring the use of medical marijuana.

"This matter raised a number of novel legal issues that necessarily required further analysis by the California Highway Patrol," Neri wrote in the letter. "After such deliberation, the California Highway Patrol has decided in this instance to return Mr. Popok's claimed medical marijuana."

Knorr declined to comment on the decision or how it was reached.

"A decision was made and that's all I have to say," he said.
LaForge said that instead of refusing to return the marijuana, Knorr should have immediately contact his boss or the attorney general for direction on the matter.

San Benito County District Attorney John Sarsfield was not involved in the legal battle, but said that he could sympathize with Knorr.

"He had to choice between violating a state law and a federal law," Sarsfield said. "What it really comes down to is the medical marijuana law is extremely poorly written and needs to be clarified otherwise this will continue to happen."

Sarsfield suggested the county Health Department look into issuing identification cards for medical marijuana users. If Popok had presented a valid ID card to CHP officers at the time of his arrest, the matter could have been avoided, Sarsfield said.
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, was not surprised by the CHP's decision to return the marijuana.

"It's a situation where law enforcement need not be so pigheaded," he said. "This has happened all throughout California, but in their mind they don't have to follow the law."

St. Pierre sees the decision as a victory for medical marijuana advocacy groups, but said more still needs to be done to protect the rights of prescription marijuana users.

"It's keeping with the precedent," he said. "In the end, the county, town or state has to return the marijuana."

However, St. Pierre did worry about the condition the marijuana. If not stored correctly, the marijuana could breakdown rapidly and lose it's medicinal value, St. Pierre said.

"(Popok) could be getting back medicine that may not be of any use to him. This guy may have more or less been ripped off of $40 to $50 worth of marijuana," St. Pierre said.


"But he could have fought a good legal battle for symbolic purposes rather than being able to enjoy the therapeutic benefits of the medicine."
Popok will have 60 days to claim the 4 grams of marijuana, according to a letter sent to him by Knorr last week.

"He should get back what was taken from him," LaForge said. "Now his concern is that he has to spend another $350 to fly back up here to get it."



Source: Hollister Free Lance (CA)

Author: Brett Rowland
Published: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Hollister Free Lance
Contact: editor@freelancenews.com
Website: http://www.freelancenews.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21491.shtml