Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

A new report released by the New York Civil Liberties Union indicates that the city police department’s now-infamous “stop-and-frisk” program, which led to a huge spike in marijuana-related arrests, was fraught with stark racial disparities.

Not only that, our Los Angeles marijuana criminal defense lawyers understand it was vastly ineffective in its ultimate goal of recovering illegal guns from city streets.

Analysis like this is important because even though L.A. and NYC isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of marijuana laws, policing policies often borrow heavily from one another. A glimpse into the law enforcement policies of one large police agency can offer valuable insight into the operations of our own – and how we might best defend against marijuana-related arrests in Los Angeles.

The New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program, heavily criticized by civil rights advocates, is the policy by which officers who “reasonably suspect” a crime was committed, is being committed or is about to be committed, may stop a person to question him or her and, if the officer fears danger of physical injury, may frisk the suspect for weapons.

The policy appears to toss probable cause out the window. The agency conducted 4.4 million stop-and-frisk stops since 2004.

It is now the subject of a class action lawsuit in Floyd v. New York.

Although the department has significantly curbed the program, slashing stop rates by 22 percent just last year, there were still hundreds of thousands of people who were stopped in encounters that the NYCL called humiliating, unjustified and intimidating. Activists say that not only is there a 90 percent failure rate with the program – meaning it turns up virtually nothing – it serves to sow mistrust between the police and minority communities, violating fundamental rights in the process.

In 2012, the NYPD reportedly stopped and interrogated some 533,000 people. This was a 22 percent decrease from a year earlier, but a nearly 450 percent increase from when the program first started back in 2002. Nine out 10 of those people were neither arrested nor ticketed, meaning they were innocent. Nearly that many, about 87 percent, were either Latino or black. Only about 9 percent were white, even though they constitute 35 percent of the city’s population.

In precincts with low black and Latino populations, the number of black and Latino stops were still in the 70 percent range. These individuals, though more likely to be frisked, were less likely to be found with weapons.

Some 26,000 people were arrested for alleged marijuana possession in the city just through this program last year. Although the city maintains the program’s value in tracking down illegal guns, it nets far more marijuana-related arrests. More people were arrested for marijuana than any other offense.

Unlike those in the nearby states of Colorado and Washington, possession of marijuana without a prescription is still illegal in California. Per California Health & Safety Code 11357, possession of less than 28.5 grams of the drug is guilty of an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Anyone caught with more than 28.5 grams will face up to six months in jail. Anyone arrested for possession of concentrated cannabis is subject to a possible year in jail and a $500 fine.

Racial bias can be difficult to prove. We are committed to ensuring that your rights following your Los Angeles marijuana arrest are fully protected.
Continue reading

At the eleventh hour, the state legislature in Colorado passed the first-of-its-kind bill to regulate the recreational use of marijuana for adults.

Our Colorado marijuana lawyers know that this move wasn’t entirely surprising, given that it was mandated with the passage of Amendment 64 during the election last fall. Alongside Washington state, Colorado was among the first to approve the drug for recreational use.

The two most recent bills passed – House Bill 1317 and House Bill 1318 – have both been sent to the governor for his signature to enact final passage.

The measures will create the first ever tax collected on commercial sales of marijuana for recreational use in the country.

While the bills don’t include every fine detail, they do establish a significant framework for the governance of recreational marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing and retail sales. The state’s Department of Revenue will have until the beginning of July to fully flesh out the details of those regulations, which will be critical for implementation.

Among the guidelines that are established in these bills:

• A 10 percent special sales tax on retail sales of recreational marijuana. This is on top of the standard local and state sales taxes.
• A 15 percent excise tax on wholesale sales of recreational marijuana.
• The marijuana enforcement division is given the authority to regulate both medical marijuana as well as recreational marijuana.
• Offers existing medical marijuana licensees or applicants to apply for a retail marijuana license with the option of totally converting to retail sales or simply adding retail sales to the existing operation.
• Outlines who may not obtain a retail marijuana sales license and limits the areas where an operation can be located.
• Requires that all retail sales operation owners must be Colorado residents for at least two years prior to submission of the application.
• Limits the amount of retail marijuana that can be sold to an out-of-state resident to one-fourth of an ounce in a single transaction.
• Forbids retail marijuana products from containing alcohol or nicotine.
• Requires that stores must sell their products in sealed, opaque containers.

Even with the approval of the governor, House Bill 1318 will have to be approved by taxpayers this fall, as it deals specifically with taxes. Per the state’s Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights law, that means voters have to give the final green light.

It’s not expected to be a major problem, at least according to a recent survey of 900 registered voters in the state. Researchers found that nearly 80 percent supported the taxes as proposed.

Supporters of the recreational marijuana movement have said that the state is leading the charge on leaving behind failed prohibition policy in favor of a more logical system of regulation.

The terms of Amendment 64 make it legal for anyone to possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal possession if they are over the age of 21. An individual may also cultivate up to six plants each, so long as those plants are for personal use.
Continue reading

It appears that Measure D has gained enough voter support to pass in Los Angeles.

That means that while the city will have more than 100 dispensaries grandfathered in per a set of strict guidelines, the vast majority face immediate closure.

Our Los Angeles marijuana dispensary lawyers know that any marijuana distribution operation in the city that opened after September 2007 can expect to receive a cease and desist letter from the city within the next two weeks.

If your dispensary is among those facing closure in Los Angeles, retaining the Cannabis Law Group is among your best hopes for remaining open. We intend to take these cases to a judge, requesting that the court allow the dispensary in question to remain open.

There are two primary arguments on which we intend to base our request. Neither is definitively guaranteed to be effective, but we firmly believe that this will be the last best chance for those who are willing to fight.

The first of these arguments involves the position that Measure D is in violation of the intent of both the Compassionate Use Act and the California Medical Marijuana Program. The reason is that it prevents patients from having safe access to affordable medication. Consider that if Measure D is enacted without issue, that would amount to an 80 percent reduction in the number of marijuana dispensaries in the city, leaving 135 dispensaries – or fewer – to service Los Angeles. The city currently has a total population of 3.8 million, with an estimated 350,000 of those medical marijuana patients. That’s more than 2,500 patients or more per dispensary. The figure will inevitably grow as the population does. This is going to not only create monopolies, it will result in so few collectives servicing so many patients that lines will snake around the block.

The second argument centers on a claim of discrimination against persons with disabilities. When you have a numerical cap of 135 dispensaries, there will be no fair competition. That means prices will skyrocket. That means safe access is going to be limited. This argument would be made under the California Disabled Persons Act, which is the state version of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Alternatively, if neither of these options are effective, our next option would be to help dispensaries keep their doors open by operating as collectives, rather than as dispensaries. It’s true that the recent California Supreme Court Ruling allows that cities are legally free and clear to ban or limit dispensaries. That ruling does NOT give local authorities the right to ban collectives.

So rather than dispense the medicine directly from your current location, as a collective, you would use your storefront as an showroom for the medicine and any information pertaining to it. The medicine could be purchased at the collective, but it would have to be delivered elsewhere.

At the very least, your Los Angeles dispensary should invest in an initial consultation, regardless of when you first opened or what your ultimate plans. We can help balance your legal footing.
Continue reading

Nevada’s marijuana laws are surrounded by a fair amount of ambiguity, as are those of a number of other states (we’re looking at you, California).

In an effort to clear some of this confusion, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that legislators in the silver state have introduced two measures – one in the assembly and another in the senate – to address two of the primary issues of contention: the purchase of marijuana and the threshold for a criminal charge of marijuana DUI.

All of this starts back in 2000, when 65 percent of voters green-lighted Question 9, which allowed qualifying patients with conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and glaucoma to carry up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to seven plants.

Nevada was progressive in that it was among the earlier states to pass medical marijuana legislation (California, of course, being the first back in 1997). However, like California, there was a lot that legislators failed to fully think through in passing this law. Perhaps the biggest oversight was that while the law allowed for medical marijuana patients to possess the drug, it did not specifically address the allowance of marijuana dispensaries or the sale of the drug. As such, it’s always been a concern for patients that when it came to purchase, they were committing a crime – despite having a legitimate prescription. Seeds are also illegal to buy and the drug is tough to grow in Nevada’s arid desert soil. Most patients are between the ages of 55 and 64, and cultivating the fickle plant has proven difficult for many.

So in March, legislators introduced SB 374. This measure, which lawmakers said should have been enacted 13 years ago, would establish a provision to the law authorizing the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries to serve the more than 3,600 prescription-holding marijuana patients in Nevada.

SB 374 would require dispensaries to be strictly regulated by the state’s Department of Health & Human Services, with marijuana grown in locked, enclosed facilities that would be monitored 24-7 with video surveillance.

Additionally, the bill would make forgery of a medical marijuana prescription card a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.

So far, the measure has passed the Senate and is currently being mulled in an Assembly committee.

The second measure, AB 351, which would exempt marijuana patients from subjection to arbitrary marijuana DUI laws, is in the opposite boat, awaiting Senate committee vote after having passed in the Assembly. This measure holds that prosecutors would have to rely on means other than a blood test revealing the presence of marijuana to prove intoxication. That is, if a person was driving recklessly or was speaking incoherently or had other signs of intoxication, those would be bigger factors in the prosecutor’s case than simply whether or not a patient had marijuana in his system. Obviously, if he is a marijuana patient, he will have marijuana in his system, and it might remain there for some time even after consumption. The presence alone doesn’t automatically indicate intoxication, and that’s the whole point of this bill.

We often argue the same stance in marijuana DUI cases here in California. Thankfully, we have no arbitrary legal threshold (yet), but many other states do or soon will, so it’s certainly not something about which we can become passive.
Continue reading

We have all heard the calls to regulate marijuana the same way we regulate alcohol.

But regulating it like pornography?

As our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand it, that’s precisely what a bill in Colorado would do if signed into law by the governor.

The move is interesting because Colorado, more so than California in recent memory, has been careful not to limit marijuana freedoms – becoming the first of two states to enact legislation that allows marijuana use for recreational purposes.

And yet, it is on the verge of likely passing not only a nonsensical marijuana DUI law, setting the legal threshold at an arbitrary 5 THC ng/ml, but it’s looking to put literature regarding marijuana behind gas station and convenience store counters – alongside the pornography.

If the measure is signed into law, establishments that allow entry to shoppers under the age of 21 would have to hide marijuana magazines from plain site of general age shoppers.

One of the most popular marijuana literature magazines, High Times, has voiced fierce opposition to the measure, with an attorney for the publication calling the measures patently unconstitutional. There is no legal precedent, he said, for treating images of a drug – particularly a legal one – as obscene.

This is where threats of First Amendment lawsuits have been cropping up.

If Time magazine published an issue with images of oxycodone on the front cover, would we consider forcing those editions behind the counter? Why not? After all, it’s a prescription drug that is abused – often by teens – and with arguably more severe consequences than what we might expect with marijuana use.

This provision of the bill was wedged into a longer list of regulatory actions regarding recreational marijuana use in the state. The provision was a late addition to the earlier version, and even the bill’s original sponsor said she wasn’t quite sure what the addition entailed.

As it was originally penned, the measure mandates certain packaging and labeling requirements of marijuana for recreational purposes and also limits retail sales of the drug to out-of-state adult customers to no more than 0.25 ounce for a singular transaction. However, all adults would legally be allowed to possess a maximum of one ounce without facing criminal penalties.

While legislators said that legalization comes with a responsibility to also regulate advertising, lawyers for marijuana publications contend that it would be one thing if alcohol and tobacco publications were treated the same way. But they aren’t, and no one is suggesting that they should be.

High Times has been published and sold since the mid-1970s throughout the country, and has never before faced a requirement that it be sold behind the counter.

Meanwhile in Washington, the other state last fall to legalize recreational use of the drug, authorities say they too are close to releasing the first draft of regulatory provisions for general public sales. Those provisions are expected to cover cultivation, labeling, quality assurance testing and security mandates, among other aspects.
Continue reading

Just days ahead of an election that will determine the future of marijuana rights in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times editorial board issued a ringing endorsement of one of three competing regulatory measures that will ultimately be decided by voters.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the board is backing Measure D, the council-backed measure that would slash the number of dispensaries in the city from between 850 and 1,600 (no one knows for sure how many there are at this point) to about 135. Those that remain would be those that were open prior to the city’s 2007 law that banned dispensaries. These sites would also have been expected to have re-registered in 2011.

These operations would also have to abide by a number of statutory provisions, including maintaining a certain distance from schools, parks and other dispensaries, paying higher taxes ($60 on each $1,000 of gross receipts) and hours of operation would be limited to between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. Additionally, marijuana consumption on the premises would be prohibited, and those employed by the dispensaries must undergo background checks and not have felony criminal records.

This is perhaps the most restrictive of all three measures. Proposal E is quite similar, but even supporters have abandoned it in favor of Measure D. As such, Proposal E isn’t likely to get the 50 percent-plus-one support required for the measure to pass. By the time supporters switched gears, it was too late to pull Proposal E off the ballot, so it still remains.

Measure F, meanwhile, would allow far broader guidelines. The Times says it “sets no limits.” That’s actually not the case because it does set some strong protections and rules, which in some instances are more stringent than those set by Measure D. However, unlike D, Measure F would basically allow for an unlimited number of marijuana dispensaries in the city. Granted, that’s not something that appeals to the small, but vocal, group who wanted dispensaries ousted altogether.

Still, given that Los Angeles has a population of 3.82 million, allowing for only 135 dispensaries would mean just one facility for every 29,000 people.

Plus, once all the restrictions are in place, the boundary limitations and other requirements are in place, the actual number of dispensaries would be further reduced. However, it’s worth considering that there is nothing in Measure D that would allow for expansion as necessary, per population growth.

The one thing we do tend to agree with the Times editorial board on is this: The implementation of Proposition 215 has been largely unsuccessful. Both state lawmakers, the state attorney general’s office came far too late in offering critical guidance on the legal issues, and the federal government has sent conflicted messages about what it would and would not allow.

Even the state supreme court only within the last month issued a decision affirming cities’ rights to ban dispensaries within their jurisdictions.
Continue reading

The issue of marijuana DUI in California has been gaining steam, as proposed legislative measures in other states, such as Colorado, seek to quantify marijuana intoxication of motorists – a tough thing to do fairly, considering the length of time the drug remains present in one’s blood stream.

However, a recent case out of Orange County involving a college student reveals that marijuana DUI cases are often very winnable. In fact, these cases may actually be easier to win than alcohol DUI charges, where the standards are much more clear-cut.

It’s worth noting that between 1997 and 2006, state data shows that about 25 percent of all DUI cases are either dismissed or the defendant is found not guilty. It’s believed that the dismissal/not guilty rate for marijuana DUI defendants is much higher.

In this case, People v. Gibson, the defendant was psychology major at the University of Southern California. She was reportedly pulled over in December by an officer in Orange County for a minor traffic infraction.

The officer proceeded to initiate several field sobriety tests on the young woman. He reported her performance on these tests were poor.

He then had a blood test ordered, which revealed she had 8 nanograms per mililiter of THC in her blood.

In California, there is no legal standard that defines marijuana intoxication, though there have been numerous efforts to try. Right now in Colorado, a measure establishing a 5 ng//ml standard has passed both the state House and Senate, and is awaiting approval from the governor. It appears poised to pass, despite very clear and convincing evidence that such a standard does not accurately reflect intoxication of a driver.

As we’ve mentioned before in this Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog, marijuana, unlike alcohol, remains in a person’s systems for weeks and possibly even more than a month. For someone that uses the drug for medicinal purposes (or even someone who uses it heavily for recreational purposes), the level of THC in a person’s blood could easily be higher than 5 ng/ml or 8 ng/ml – without that person actually being intoxicated. That’s why having a set standard is such a bad idea in the first place.

In this case, the defense attorneys argued the case on two fronts: One, the subjective nature of the field sobriety tests and two, the standard of intoxication based on the 8 ng/ml reading.

With regard to the sobriety tests, we place a huge amount of credence in an officer’s observations. It is true that they deal with these matters on a daily basis, but unlike alcohol intoxication, drug intoxication is much more difficult to accurately “diagnose.” This is evidenced by the fact that many agencies pay good money to specially train officers to recognize certain types of drug intoxication. If an officer doesn’t have this training – and most don’t – there is a good chance the case could be dismissed, if it relies heavily on the officer’s observations.

With regard to the standard of intoxication, as we mentioned earlier, California has no statute at this point that quantifies that at any level. So it’s not an automatic win for a prosecutor to say that someone had a certain amount of THC in his or her system and therefore was intoxicated. It’s simply not an accurate measurement.

Ultimately in this case, the jury hung 9-to-3, and the prosecutor has declined to try the case again.
Continue reading

If you thought the federal assault on medical marijuana dispensaries in California had subsided, think again.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned the aggressive barrage of action against law-abiding facilities is marching on, with the latest actions targeting dispensaries in northern California.

Recent reports indicate that U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag recently served the Berkeley Patients Group with paperwork indicating it will attempt to seize the property and ultimately close down the shop.

We’re talking about one of the oldest and most respected dispensaries in the U.S. The federal government’s action has angered not only advocacy groups such as Americans for Safe Access, which calls the action “mean and vindictive,” but also local officials in Berkeley.

One city council member was quoted as saying that the facility provides substantial benefits to the community. Specifically, it has:

• Assisted the end-of-life transitions for thousands of patients;
• Improved the lives and reduced pain for many, many people;
• Been a positive contributor to the community, donating dozens of local charitable organizations;
• Provided tax revenue for the city;
• Helped to alter attitudes regarding medical cannabis not only locally, but across the state and throughout the country.

Last year, Haag’s office sent a warning letter to the facility, indicating it was within 1,000 feet of a school and had therefore broken state law. So, the facility picked up and moved without a fuss. Now, this current letter of intent makes no mention of its proximity to to any school or church or park or any violation of a specific law.

Simply, they are on notice that they have been targeted.

As dozens of protestors voiced their opposition to the action in downtown Berkley recently, news outlets noted that several other dispensaries throughout the region are facing a similar fate, with the U.S. attorney’s office issuing similar letters to a number of other locations over the last several weeks. The letters indicate the threat of property seizure and federal prison if they do not immediately close.

Additionally, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has revealed it is investigating numerous dispensaries in the San Francisco area.

These measures once again are contrary to the repeated pledges made by President Barack Obama to respect state laws pertaining to medical marijuana.

Although California became the first state in the country to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, the drug remains illegal under federal law. Since 1996, the drug has generated some $100 million in annual tax revenue for the state.

Obviously, bureaucrats in the U.S. Department of Justice are feeling increasingly uneasy with the growing amount of acceptance in this country when it comes to medical marijuana – including the measures legalizing recreational use in both Colorado and Washington state.

But this fear does not constitute a proper basis upon which to pursue action which is detrimental not only to patients, caregivers and dispensary operators, but also to entire communities who benefit so greatly from the presence of these operations.
Continue reading

As pro-marijuana advocates have continued to absorb the disappointing decision handed down recently by the California Supreme Court, affirming the right of local government to ban dispensaries, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers want to share this silver lining: The decision shouldn’t have an immediate or adverse affect medical marijuana distribution centers in L.A.

Here in Los Angeles, the city council had originally attempted to pass legislation that would all but ban dispensaries in the city limits. However, that ban was later repealed amid fierce opposition as well as a credible threat to have the measure reversed with a ballot initiative.

That initiative was scrapped and followed by three competing proposals for medical marijuana regulation within the city. those measures – Proposition D, Proposition E and Proposition F are slated for a vote later this month on May 21.

Early proponents of Proposition E have abandoned their efforts in favor of the city-backed Proposition D. Both of those measures would result in slashing the number of the city’s dispensaries from roughly 800 down to about 135.

Proposition F would allow for substantially more dispensaries, provided they abide by a strict criteria. That criteria includes adherence to local land use ordinances and limits on proximity to schools, playgrounds, parks and religious centers.

Even if the earlier proposed ban had been passed after the state supreme court’s ruling, pro-marijuana advocates in Los Angeles could have taken the same measures to circumvent it.

However, proponents of Proposition F say that Proposition D, the more restrictive measure, is the first step in ensuring the permanent shut-down of dispensaries in Los Angeles. They say the passage of this measure will make it easier for federal authorities to target and shutter any existing facilities. Now, with the state Supreme Court decision, they say it could mean the eventual elimination of safe access to medical marijuana in Los Angeles.

In response to the court ruling, the mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner, wrote to Gov. Jerry Brown and members of the state Legislature, requesting the implementation of common sense medical marijuana guidelines that would serve to provide uniform clarity to local governments and reflect the overwhelming will of the people in California to provide safe access for compassionate use.

There is growing concern that the state Supreme Court decision will ultimately push legitimate marijuana patients into obtaining the drug through illicit means. That would mean three steps back from where we had progressed on this issue. It would make the sale process riskier for patients, less profitable for local governments, better for illegal dealers and an increase of danger in neighborhoods.

If there is any effect that the ruling will have directly on the city in the short-term, it is simply that it raises the stakes of this ballot measure. One of these three measures has to have the majority – 50 percent-plus-one – in order to pass. Otherwise, none of them do and it’s back to the drawing board. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision and the city’s history on this issue, that is a concerning prospect.
Continue reading

Bad news breaking out of Riverside: The California Supreme Court has issued a 7-0 unanimous ruling, affirming the right of local governments to ban medical marijuana dispensaries within their districts.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are deeply troubled by this position, primarily as it appears to run directly counter to Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which granted all medically-cleared Californians the right to safe and reasonable access to the drug.

What this ruling means is that the approximately 200 bans pending throughout the state will be allowed to remain in effect. This ruling further emboldens other cities, counties or jurisdictions who had been considering a ban, but wanted to wait to find out the state Supreme Court’s take before pressing forward.

The case stems from a ban initiated by the city council in Riverside, where the city attorney said constituent complaints about crime, blight, drug abuse by minors and traffic congestion surrounding marijuana clinics had spurred council to initiate the process of a ban.

The city attorney has said the extent of these dangers could vary from community to community, and that each district should be allowed to consider what works best for them.

The problem however is multifaceted. First, it discounts the fact that chronically and terminally ill patients are going to be denied their right to safe and reasonable access to the drug. Unless they grow it themselves or have a primary caregiver do it for them (a process that is tougher than it sounds), patients won’t be able to obtain the drug at all unless they travel long distances.

Secondly, we believe that problems surrounding these facilities were either exaggerated or unfairly pinned on the dispensaries, which were scapegoated as part of a concerted effort to drive them out.

Riverside’s attorney has said this case is the be-all-end-all on the issue of medical marijuana dispensary bans enacted by local governments in California. And it’s true that this case will certainly pose even more serious challenges for dispensaries.

However, even the state Supreme Court justices conceded this may not be the end of the story. There is nothing, they said, that would block a ballot initiative or the state Legislature from amending the current law to explicitly deny local governments the ability to infringe upon some of its citizens’ rights.

And in fact, an effort to do so is already underway.

However, that could take some time, and the Supreme Court’s decision will begin affecting dispensaries immediately. Legal action is now expected to proceed in Riverside on 10 storefront clinics that are still operating in that city, including the Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, which is the facility named in the lawsuit. Nearly five dozen other dispensaries in the city have already been shut down as a result of the ordinance.

In addition to shuttering these locations, the city said it also intends to go after the remaining dispensaries for the cost of their legal expenses over the last four years.

Other areas that also have bans:

• San Bernadino;
• Murrieta;
• Moreno Valey;
• San Jacinto;
• Norco;
• Redlands;
• Corona;
• Temecula.

The City of Los Angeles had also enacted a ban, but that was later overturned amid fierce opposition. Now, voters await a chance to vote on new regulations later this month.
Continue reading