KTLA Channel 5 News Story June 18, 2010: Lake Forest Medical Marijuana Dispensary Appealing Injunction Order
KTTV Channel 11 News Story June 4, 2010: Los Angeles Medical Marijuana Dispensary Challenges LA's Ordinance
Cannabis Law Group's Attorney Damian Nassiri Sues the City of Los Angeles To Block It's Ban on Medical Marijuana as Featured on PBS's So Cal Insider - Part 1 
Sadly, the feds have shut down the firstCalifornia Medical Marijuana dispensary to operate under Proposition 215.
Our marijuana lawyers in Los Angeles know the club had been in existence since 1996 until it was first shut down by the United States Attorney’s Office in 2011.
The U.S. attorney with the help of the Internal Revenue Service have taken more than a landmark business from its owners, however.
Continue reading
As the marijuana industry develops standards for its product, new opportunity has arisen for business.
Our medical marijuana lawyers know that the recent legalization of marijuana has created entire markets that did not exist just a few short years ago.
Continue reading
The California Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that absent a warrant, the smell of marijuana alone is not sufficient evidence for police to conduct a search of personal property, such as a mailed package.
Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers had carefully watched the developments of the case, Robey v. S.C., pleased that the court ultimately struck down the prosecution’s assertion that the “plain sight test” extended to a “plain smell test.”
The ruling came just months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in Florida v. Jardines that use of a drug-sniffing dog in front of a person’s residence without a warrant was unconstitutional, violating the suspect’s Fourth Amendment protections.
In the case of Robey, the case stemmed from an arrest of a man in Santa Barbara County. He was charged with sale or transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale, after police seized a package from a private shipping company and subsequently discovered marijuana inside. An employee of the shipping company had contacted police after smelling the substance. Investigating officers reported detecting a strong odor of marijuana and, on that basis, conducted a search of the package, ultimately uncovering the contents.
Initially, the superior court had denied the defense’s motion to suppress the evidence found inside the package, relying on the theories of exigent or urgent circumstances and inevitable discovery. However, that decision was later appealed to the Court of Appeal, which granted the defense petition and ordered the evidence suppressed. This would have effectively killed the case because without the evidence discovered in the search, the prosecution had no case.
As such, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office sought review from the California Supreme Court with two basic questions:
On the first issue, the court found that yes, it’s possible that the exigent circumstances of the package’s mobility might be enough to justify a warrantless seizure of a package, but not a search. With regard to the search on the basis of the plain smell test, the court ruled that technically, the prosecutor couldn’t use this as a justification because it had never been raised in court as a specific opposition to the defense motion to suppress. As such, the high court directed the defense’s motion to suppress should be granted, which means the case will in all likelihood be dropped.
The court went on to say that while the sense of smell in drug cases has resulted mixed court rulings on the issue of whether that is justification for probable cause. But that’s not really the issue here because probable cause would be justification for a warrant, not necessarily for a search.
The defendant had never argued that the police didn’t have a right to seize the package, but the bigger issue was whether law enforcement had the right to search it without a warrant. The court noted that other courts in the country had come to mixed conclusions about this as well. It’s complicated by the fact that the “plain sight test” has been well-established. If the officer’s view illegal objects in plain sight, they have the right to conduct a search and seizure.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to take on this issue of a “plain smell test.” As such, the California Supreme Court justices reached their own conclusion, which is that the smell of the drug alone is not enough to justify a search of a package. Police must have a warrant.
Continue reading
Now that Measure D has been passed by the Los Angeles electorate, what will this mean for the hundreds of dispensaries that are currently operational in the city?
The answer, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know, is not cut and dried.
While the language of the law limits the number of dispensaries to those that were operational in the city prior to September of 2007 (which is about 135), the question has become how the city intends to enforce these measures to shut the other dispensaries down – especially because no one is exactly sure how many of these facilities even exist.
City officials say it’s somewhere around 700, but others estimate it could potentially be double that number.
The Los Angeles Times characterized the task of bringing dispensaries into compliance with the law “monumental.” It will start with the city first identifying each and every dispensary within the municipality, and then taking individual action against each of those that had not opened doors prior to that 2007 failed moratorium.
City lawyers have said that they will wait for the results of the election to become certified, at which point they will begin updating the dispensary database and sending out letters notifying each of the new law.
We expect to file numerous challenges to this measure, as more dispensaries announce their intent to fight back.
City leaders said they fully expect that many of those dispensaries that are now in violation of the local ordinance may continue operating for some time, with many trying to fly under the radar.
Flying under the radar is one strategy. But it isn’t likely to last forever, and could end in serious fines and potentially criminal action, particularly if the federal government becomes involved again – as it has been prone to do. The better approach is to consult with an experienced marijuana dispensary attorney to determine what your most effective course of action might be. In some cases, it could be as simple as redefining your operation from a dispensary into a collective, as the latter weren’t regulated under the new ordinance. In other instances, we may fight back on the grounds that the ordinance violates the state’s Compassionate Use Act, which guaranteed medical marijuana patients a safe and accessible method of obtaining their medicine. Reducing the number of dispensaries so drastically is going to significantly diminish both of those aspects. You’re asking people who are ill to travel great distances to wait in exceedingly long lines for something that the law intended to be a quick and simple process.
There are already efforts underway to sue the city on the basis that the 2007 cut-off date was arbitrary and unfair.
Requirements under the new law include a mandate that all facilities should remain at least 600 feet away from parks, child care centers or schools. They must also pay a 6 percent tax on their gross income.
Dispensary operators with questions should contact our firm as soon as possible.
Continue reading
A woman working for a non-profit charity arm of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office was fired for her husband’s connection to a medical marijuana dispensary in Marina del Rey. 
Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that despite the sheriff’s office claim that the termination had to do with the fact that she concealed this connection from her employers, it ultimately comes down to a matter of discrimination.
Employers would never dream of firing a worker with a connection to a farmer or pharmacist. And yet, despite the fact that marijuana dispensaries are legal in California, it is somehow acceptable to fire a person on the basis of their connection to it – be they a patient, an employee, an owner or, apparently, the spouse of an owner.
The dismissal of this worker, who was employed by the Sheriff’s Youth Foundation, happened less than a month after reporters with the Los Angeles Times began asking questions about the woman’s connection to the sheriff’s office, considering her husband’s business. He had reportedly been arrested back in 2009 by federal authorities for felony charges of transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale. In the end, however, the charges against him were dropped.
The non-profit worker had been employed in her position as development director for more than 10 years, logging more than 60 hours each week in 2011 and earning more than $100,000 annually. However, a spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office downplayed her involvement, characterizing her instead as, “an assistant to a sergeant.”
An official with the Drug Enforcement Administration revealed it search warrants at several dispensaries in the Marina del Rey area, with at least one listed as being run by the husband of the sheriff’s office worker. Among the items seized were two firearms at the actual dispensaries and weapon magazines and ammunition at a residence belonging to the sheriff’s office worker and her husband. The federal agents have said the woman’s husband, the dispensary owner, is the main focus of their investigation, but they have refused to indicate whether the wife, too, is a suspect.
At this point, neither has been arrested.
A spokesman at the agency characterized her as an “outstanding” employee,” which would call into question the sheriff’s legal grounds for firing this worker, given the fact that her work performance was stellar and she hadn’t been accused of any crime. Still, it’s not clear whether the worker had any obligation to reveal her spouse’s occupation tot he sheriff’s office or whether she was ever even asked. It appears the only basis for the termination was that her husband was involved in an occupation that the sheriff did not personally like or agree with.
To us, it seems highly probable that the non-profit worker may have grounds for an employment discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuit.
Barring any contractual obligation to reveal such a connection, it’s understandable that the non-profit worker would have been reticent to reveal her husband’s job. Sheriff Lee Baca has been a fierce and vocal criticism of marijuana dispensaries. He has previously described them as attractors of crime (despite ample evidence to the contrary). He also has said that dispensary owners see it as easy money and most patients don’t have any legitimate medical need for the drug, and instead are abusing it.
Continue reading
In 420 Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles California’s 2nd District Court of Appeals overturned a lower court injunction barring the City of Los Angeles from enforcing its 2010 ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries.
Our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers note a different three-judge panel of the same court just ruled Los Angeles County’s ban is illegal because it runs afoul of the voter-passed state law that legalized medical marijuana and permits the establishment of dispensaries for its distribution. That case is County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medical Cannabis Collective (AMCC). 
The Los Angeles city ordinance had sought to regulate the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, primarily by closing down those that had opened since 2007 as well as those that failed to properly register. The city had been considering a ban after a federal court ruled municipalities cannot regulate an industry illegal under federal law. However, the County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medical Cannabis Collective (AMCC) decision, which struck down the ban at the county level, now has plans of a ban in limbo.
In a victory for the dispensaries, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr prevented enforcement of parts of the ordinance in December 2010, citing equal protection violations. In truth, the city’s ordinance was an utter disaster — which would have forced the closure of hundreds of dispensaries, including some of the city’s best and most well-run facilities. He also said the city could not provide for criminal penalties for violating the ordinance. He also said shutting down collectives in the manner backed by the city was a violation of their due process rights and that recordkeeping and disclosure rules also violated the privacy clause of the state’s Constitution.
The city responded with what it called its “temporary urgency ordiance.”
The court rejected all four of Mohr’s arguments. It found the city did not violate equal protection because it made a rational attempt to seperate those businesses that have been operating longer and were making an honest attempt to comply with the law. The court also found state law does not expressly forbid regulation. The court noted that while the case was pending lawmakers amended the law to permit civil and criminal enforcement.
As far as due process, the court found dispensaries and collectives that are shut down can seek protection through normal legal channels.
Los Angeles City Council will no doubt take both decisions into account in an effort to maximize the waste of tax dollars fighting this useless fight with its next move. A meeting is set for July 24. Consider:
-A court ruling forbidding cities from regulating dispensaries because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
-A ruling that found cities cannot forbid dispensaries because they are legal under federal law.
-And a ruling that once again could pave the way for a return to a plan of licensing and regulation.
It won’t be until the California Supreme Court weighs in that any amount of clarity will be provided. We don’t think that will stop L.A. City Council from charging ahead rashly without all the facts. But we can still hope common sense will prevail.
And, of course, a ruling in favor of the industry by the state’s high court will likely only set up a showdown with the federal government, which continues to pour tax dollars into enforcement efforts aimed at California’s legal medical marijuana industry.
Continue reading
In a landmark ruling that rejects bans being placed on medical marijuana dispensaries by municipalities, California’s Second District Court of Appeals re-affirmed the legality of dispensaries.
In County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (AMCC), the court ruled a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries by Los Angeles County is void because it runs afoul of state law. Voters passed a measure legalizing medical marijuana 16 years ago. 
Marijuana dispensary attorneys in Los Angeles applaud the ruling. It comes as the City of Los Angeles and other municipalities have considered bans. Many of the bans are under consideration because a separate court ruling found municipalities don’t have the right to license and regulate businesses that dispense medical marijuana because marijuana is illegal under federal law. Thus cities should not be in the business of licensing or regulating an illegal activity.
The court ruled California law makes it “abundantly clear that the medical marijuana collectives … are permitted by state law to perform a dispensary function.” By creating a total per-se nuisance ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, the county contradicts the intent of state law.
A number of appellate rulings impacting dispensaries have been granted review by the California Supreme Court. City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness is another case dealing with whether cities can ban medical marijuana dispensaries. In that case, the court allowed a ban on dispensaries. That case is also before the state’s high court for review. In a case before the 4th District Court of Appeals, the court found municipalities could not ban marijuana dispensaries as a nuisance. But in an odd twist, that court ruled the marijuana the dispensaries did distribute must be grown on site.
On July 24, the City of Los Angeles had been set to vote on whether to implement a ban patterned after the county’s. Patient advocates and others have been pushing the city to adopt “limited immunity” for some existing dispensaries, a move that would more closely follow the initial plan to regulate the industry.
How many millions have been spent in the 16 years since California voters legalized medical marijuana through Proposition 215? And voters in the state last year came very close to legalizing recreational marijuana use.
Section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, says “that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician. The law goes on to encourage “the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.”
Instead they continue to resist simply implementing the law passed by the people. Are there people abusing the law? Of course. Are there people abusing marijuana and other drugs? Of course. Are there people abusing all sorts of other prescription medication? You betcha.
Still, too many are trying to turn back time. Medical marijuana is safe. It’s legal. And it’s highly beneficial to the patients who use it. Those in opposition who hold positions of power need to get back to carrying out the will of the people.
Continue reading
Municipalities all over California are wrestling with many of the same issues concerning their level of involvement in marijuana cultivation and sale. 
Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that many local governments have benefited tremendously when they worked in cooperation with the dispensaries to establish reasonable guidelines that ensured safe operation and reasonable sales taxes.
But with the federal government issuing threats to take legal action against municipalities that regulate marijuana dispensaries, many local officials have opted out altogether.
In the City of Los Angeles, anti-marijuana activists are pushing local leaders to repeal the current ordinance on dispensaries.
From there, one option is to outlaw all storefront marijuana shops in L.A., though it would grant small groups of patients and their primary caregivers to cultivate it on their own. This idea is favored by Councilmen Mitch Englander and Jose Huizar, who say the city shouldn’t be acting to regulate marijuana sales until there is a clear court ruling that establishes the city’s responsibility.
Another option is to grandfather in about 100 existing dispensaries. This measure is backed by Councilmen Herb Wesson and Paul Koretz. These would be dispensaries that had registered with the city several years ago and have complied with a litany of conditions that include certain security mandates and hours of operation.
Medical marijuana patients gave a compelling case to city council members in a recent meeting. In one case, a 28-year-old man with muscular dystrophy said he is 6 feet, 1 inch tall and weighs 84 pounds. He said he nearly died seven years ago due to the powerful cocktail of prescription drugs he was on. The one plant that helps keep him alive, he says, is medical marijuana.
Five years ago, the city issued a moratorium on dispensaries. But there was a loophole. Hundreds of new marijuana shops opened. In response, city officials in 2010 established a lottery that limited the number that would be allowed to stay open.
However, the city attorney is pushing for the city to repeal that ordinance, based on the belief that the city may be violating federal law by in a sense sanctioning marijuana sales.
As of right now, there are approximately 70 lawsuits that are pending against the city by marijuana dispensaries that are fighting to stay open.
One issue that the city may not have considered is that if they immediately shutter all of the dispensaries, local law enforcement is going to be contending with vandalism and other crimes related to a scourge of vacant storefront properties.
Federal prosecutors contend that the state’s compassionate use laws that govern medical marijuana don’t allow dispensaries to operate for-profit. That’s been the reasoning behind at least a dozen forfeiture filings over the last year, including three just last week against property owners who house marijuana dispensaries in Santa Fe Springs.
Last year, voters in L.A. passed Measure M that would serve as a tax for medical marijuana receipts.
Still, city officials continue to grapple with the details.
Continue reading
In yet another attack on marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles and across the state, federal authorities have filed property forfeiture lawsuits to three dispensaries and have sent warning letters to nearly 35 property owners and store operators. 
Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know this is just the latest in a multi-pronged approach by the federal government to effectively shut down lawful medical marijuana sales.
In the seven-county Central District of California, federal prosecutors and law enforcement have set their sights on some 220 marijuana dispensaries that they have dubbed “marijuana stores.”
Many of those have been forced to close. Some are facing eviction while others have been subjected to raids or other harassment.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office was quoted as saying that because of the high numbers of these operations, “we could not go after them all at once,” so they formed a strategy to target dispensaries based on geographical location. They are marching through each of these districts one-by-one.
What that means for growers and dispensaries is that if you haven’t yet been a target, you will be.
In the warning letters that were issued, federal prosecutors told dozens of store owners and operators in Los Angeles that they had two weeks to comply with federal law (i.e., shut down) or face civil and possibly criminal action.
The forfeiture lawsuits were filed just last week in the federal U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The targets were the property owners of two structures in Santa Fe Springs that house marijuana dispensaries. One of them has two inside.
This is not the first time they’ve taken this tack. Back in January, the same office filed four forfeiture lawsuits in Costa Mesa against marijuana dispensaries there. They also simultaneously sent about 24 warning letters to other property owners.
The Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program was designed to allow the federal government to seize assets that were used to carry out federal crimes or that were purchased with the proceeds of federal crimes.
Of course, as we all know, marijuana sales are illegal under federal law, with no exemption for medicinal use. This is a direct affront to the decision made by California voters in 1996.
Unfortunately, these back-door tactics to circumvent the will of the people show no signs of slowing, despite the recent statement by the state’s Attorney General Kamala Harris, who said the federal action has only served to up the uncertainty about how residents and dispensaries can comply with the state law.
Harris was also quoted as saying that federal authorities aren’t equipped to be the deciders of which operations were actually in violation of state law.
Federal prosecutors say dispensaries violate not only federal law but state law as well because they are not primary caregivers.
But the truth of the matter is, the vast majority of these dispensaries are operating well within their rights. A consultation with an experienced medical marijuana lawyer in Los Angeles can help ensure your rights are protected.
Continue reading
Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are closely following the developments regarding the proposed marijuana dispensary ban in Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the City Council’s committee has pressed forward with a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries. The ban would make storefront marijuana stores in Los Angeles illegal, but would still allow a select group of ill patients and caregivers to cultivate marijuana themselves.
The proposed ban is the culmination of years of legal infighting over the how the city should regulate the marijuana industry within city limits. While state law legalized medicinal marijuana within California, the legislature has left it largely up to local governments to determine exactly what that means and how to regulate it. Other states that have legalized the drug have also simultaneously established a statewide regulatory system, which has drawn less ire from federal enforcers and has seemed to work fairly well.
In Los Angeles, city council members set a moratorium on marijuana dispensaries back in 2007, prior to the massive federal crackdown that was kick-started in the fall of last year.
Back when the debate first started in 2005, there were just four storefront dispensaries in L.A. Then the city imposed the moratorium. By 2007, there were 186 operating. By 2009, there were 600 storefront marijuana shops – likely more, but the city didn’t have any real way of knowing.
So what happened?
First off, the city allowed for exemptions for those 186 dispensaries that were already open. Then, there was a provision that allowed new dispensaries to appeal to the council for a hardship exemption to be allowed to operate. Those who went ahead and filed for that hardship exemption weren’t prosecuted by the city attorney’s office, which said that the council needed to make a ruling before they would go after them. But by 2009, the city hadn’t made rulings on any of the more than 500 hardship exemption applications.
The next incarnation of regulation was an utter disaster, which triggered a lottery that would have determined which dispensaries would have been allowed to operate and which would have had to close up shop.
Now, however, the city attorney is now saying the whole thing has to be scrapped because it could put the city at odds with federal law. Recently, a court ruled a city had violated federal law by sanctioning illegal drug sales.
If the ban is approved in Los Angeles, it would remain in effect at least until the state Supreme Court reaches a decision.
City council members say they are more concerned about city liability than anything.
However, advocates of medical marijuana rightly argue that this ban is going to limit access to the drug for patients who need it, and would create an undue hardship for people who either don’t have the time or the knowledge necessary to grow the drug.
Still, there are some who, even though they believe the number of marijuana storefronts are out of control, know that to ban them outright is only going to push the entire industry underground.
The issue is likely to be heard before the entire council sometime in the next week or two.
Continue reading
Cannabis Law Group's Medical Marijuana Legal Blog