DIEGO STORY After the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, law enforcement agency representatives in San Diego, California met many times to formulate a comprehensive strategy of how
<br />to deal with cases that may arise out of the new law. In the end it was decided to handle the matters on a case-by-case basis. In addition, questionnaires were developed for patient,
<br />caregiver, and physician interviews. At times patients without sales indicia but large grows were interviewed and their medical records reviewed reviewed in making issuing decisions.
<br />In other cases where sales indicia and amounts supported a finding of sales the cases were pursued. At most, two cases a month were brought for felony prosecution. In 2003, San Diego
<br />County’s newly elected District Attorney publicly supported Prop. 215 and wanted her newly created Narcotics Division to design procedures to ensure patients were not caught up in case
<br />prosecutions. As many already know, law enforcement officers rarely arrest or seek prosecution of a patient who merely possesses personal use amounts. Rather, it is those who have sales
<br />amounts in product or cultivation who are prosecuted. For the next two years the District Attorney’s Office proceeded as it had before. But, on the cases where the patient had too many
<br />plants or product but not much else to show sales—the DDAs assigned to review the case would interview and listen to input to respect the patient’s and the DA’s position. Some cases
<br />were rejected and others issued but the case disposition was often generous and reflected a “sin no more” view. All of this changed after the passage of SB 420. The activists and pro-marijuana
<br />folks started to push the envelope. Dispensaries began to open for business and physicians started to advertise their availability to issue recommendations for the purchase of medical
<br />marijuana. By spring of 2005 the first couple of dispensaries opened up—but they were discrete. This would soon change. By that summer, 7 to 10 dispensaries were open for business, and
<br />they were selling marijuana openly. In fact, the local police department was doing a small buy/walk project and one of its target dealers said he was out of pot but would go get some
<br />from the dispensary to sell to the undercover officer (UC); he did. It was the proliferation of dispensaries and ancillary crimes that prompted the San Diego Police Chief (the Chief
<br />was a Prop. 215 supporter who sparred with the Fresno DEA in his prior job over this issue) to authorize his officers to assist DEA.
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 20 All Rights Reserved The Investigation San Diego DEA and its local task force (NTF) sought assistance from the DA’s Office as well as the U.S.
<br />Attorney’s Office. Though empathetic about being willing to assist, the DA’s Office was not sure how prosecutions would fare under the provisions of SB 420. The U.S. Attorney had the
<br />easier road but was noncommittal. After several meetings it was decided that law enforcement would work on using undercover operatives (UCs) to buy, so law enforcement could see exactly
<br />what was happening in the dispensaries. The investigation was initiated in December of 2005, after NTF received numerous citizen complaints regarding the crime and traffic associated
<br />with “medical marijuana dispensaries.” The City of San Diego also saw an increase in crime related to the marijuana dispensaries. By then approximately 20 marijuana dispensaries had
<br />opened and were operating in San Diego County, and investigations on 15 of these dispensaries were initiated. During the investigation, NTF learned that all of the business owners were
<br />involved in the transportation and distribution of large quantities of marijuana, marijuana derivatives, and marijuana food products. In addition, several owners were involved in the
<br />cultivation of high grade marijuana. The business owners were making significant profits from the sale of these products and not properly reporting this income. Undercover Task Force
<br />Officers (TFO’s) and SDPD Detectives were utilized to purchase marijuana and marijuana food products from these businesses. In December of 2005, thirteen state search warrants were executed
<br />at businesses and residences of several owners. Two additional follow-up search warrants and a consent search were executed the same day. Approximately 977 marijuana plants from seven
<br />indoor marijuana grows, 564.88 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana food products, one gun, and over $58,000 U.S. currency were seized. There were six arrests made during the execution
<br />of these search warrants for various violations, including outstanding warrants, possession of marijuana for sale, possession of psilocybin mushrooms, obstructing a police officer, and
<br />weapons violations. However, the owners and clerks were not arrested or prosecuted at this time—just those who showed up with weapons or product to sell. Given the fact most owners could
<br />claim mistake of law as to selling (though not a legitimate defense, it could be a jury nullification defense) the DA’s Office decided not to file cases at that time. It was hoped that
<br />the dispensaries would feel San Diego was hostile ground and they would do business elsewhere. Unfortunately this was not the case. Over the next few months seven of the previously targeted
<br />dispensaries opened, as well as a slew of others. Clearly prosecutions would be necessary. To gear up for the re-opened and new dispensaries prosecutors reviewed the evidence and sought
<br />a second round of UC buys wherein the UC would be buying for themselves and they would have a second UC present at the time acting as UC1’s caregiver who also would buy. This was designed
<br />to show the dispensary was not the caregiver. There is no authority in the law for organizations to act as primary caregivers. Caregivers must be individuals who care for a marijuana
<br />patient. A primary caregiver is defined by Proposition 215, as codified in H&S Code section 11362.5(e), as, “For the purposes of this section, 'primary caregiver' means the individual
<br />designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.” The goal was to show that the stores
<br />were only selling marijuana, and not providing care for the hundreds who bought from them.
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 21 All Rights Reserved In addition to the caregiver-controlled buys, another aim was to put the whole matter in perspective for the media and the
<br />public by going over the data that was found in the raided dispensary records, as well as the crime statistics. An analysis of the December 2005 dispensary records showed a breakdown
<br />of the purported illness and youthful nature of the patients. The charts and other PR aspects played out after the second take down in July of 2006. The final attack was to reveal the
<br />doctors (the gatekeepers for medical marijuana) for the fraud they were committing. UCs from the local PD went in and taped the encounters to show that the pot docs did not examine the
<br />patients and did not render care at all; rather they merely sold a medical MJ recommendation whose duration depended upon the amount of money paid. In April of 2006, two state and two
<br />federal search warrants were executed at a residence and storage warehouse utilized to cultivate marijuana. Approximately 347 marijuana plants, over 21 kilograms of marijuana, and $2,855
<br />U.S. currency were seized. Due to the pressure from the public, the United States Attorney’s Office agreed to prosecute the owners of the businesses with large indoor marijuana grows
<br />and believed to be involved in money laundering activities. The District Attorney’s Office agreed to prosecute the owners in the other investigations. In June of 2006, a Federal Grand
<br />Jury indicted six owners for violations of Title 21 USC, sections 846 and 841(a)(1), Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana; sections 846 and 841(a), Conspiracy to Manufacture Marijuana;
<br />and Title 18 USC, Section 2, Aiding and Abetting. In July of 2006, 11 state and 11 federal search warrants were executed at businesses and residences associated with members of these
<br />businesses. The execution of these search warrants resulted in the arrest of 19 people, seizure of over $190,000 in U.S. currency and other assets, four handguns, one rifle, 405 marijuana
<br />plants from seven seven grows, and over 329 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana food products. Following the search warrants, two businesses reopened. An additional search warrant and
<br />consent search were executed at these respective locations. Approximately 20 kilograms of marijuana and 32 marijuana plants were seized. As a result, all but two of the individuals arrested
<br />on state charges have pled guilty. Several have already been sentenced and a few are still awaiting sentencing. All of the individuals indicted federally have also pled guilty and are
<br />awaiting sentencing. After the July 2006 search warrants a joint press conference was held with the U.S. Attorney and District Attorney, during which copies of a complaint to the medical
<br />board, photos of the food products which were marketed to children, and the charts shown below were provided to the media. Directly after these several combined actions, there were no
<br />marijuana distribution businesses operating in San Diego County. Law enforcement agencies in the San Diego region have been able to successfully dismantle these businesses and prosecute
<br />the owners. As a result, medical marijuana advocates have staged a number of protests demanding DEA allow the distribution of marijuana. The closure of these businesses has reduced crime
<br />in the surrounding areas.
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 22 All Rights Reserved The execution of search warrants at these businesses sent a powerful message to other individuals operating marijuana distribution
<br />businesses that they are in violation of both federal law and California law. Press Materials: Information showing the dispensaries attracted crime: The marijuana dispensaries were targets
<br />of violent crimes because of the amount of marijuana, currency, and other contraband stored inside the businesses. From January 1, 2005 through June 23, 2006, 24 violent crimes were
<br />reported at marijuana dispensaries. An analysis of financial records seized from the marijuana dispensaries showed several dispensaries were grossing over $300,000 per month from selling
<br />marijuana and marijuana food products. The majority of customers purchased marijuana with cash. Crime statistics inadequately reflect the actual number of crimes committed at the marijuana
<br />dispensaries. These businesses were often victims of robberies and burglaries, but did not report the crimes to law enforcement on account of fear of being arrested for possession of
<br />marijuana in excess of Prop. 215 guidelines. NTF and the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) received numerous citizen complaints regarding every dispensary operating in San Diego County.
<br />Because the complaints were received by various individuals, the exact number of complaints was not recorded. The following were typical complaints received: • high levels of traffic
<br />going to and from the dispensaries • people loitering in the parking lot of the dispensaries • people smoking marijuana in the parking lot of the dispensaries Reported Crime at Marijuana
<br />Dispensaries From January 1, 2005 through June 23, 2006 16 2 1 1 3 1 02468 10 12 14 16 18 Burglary Attempted Burglary Criminal Threat Attempted Robbery Armed Robbery Battery
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 23 All Rights Reserved • vandalism near dispensaries • threats made by dispensary employees to employees of other businesses • citizens worried
<br />they may become a victim of crime because of their proximity to dispensaries In addition, the following observations (from citizen activists assisting in data gathering) were made about
<br />the marijuana dispensaries: • Identification was not requested for individuals who looked under age 18 • Entrance to business was not refused because of lack of identification • Individuals
<br />were observed loitering in the parking lots • Child-oriented businesses and recreational areas were situated nearby • Some businesses made no attempt to verify a submitted physician’s
<br />recommendation An analysis of patient records seized during search warrants at several dispensaries show that 52% of the customers purchasing marijuana were between the ages of 17 to
<br />30. 63% of primary caregivers purchasing marijuana were between the ages of 18 through 30. Only 2.05% of customers submitted a physician’s recommendation for AIDS, glaucoma, or cancer.
<br />Why these businesses were deemed to be criminal--not compassionate: The medical marijuana businesses were deemed to be criminal enterprises for the following reasons: • Many of the business
<br />owners had histories of drug and violence-related arrests. • The business owners were street-level marijuana dealers who took advantage of Prop. 215 in an attempt to legitimize marijuana
<br />sales for profit. • Records, or lack of records, seized during the search warrants showed that all the owners were not properly reporting income generated from the sales of marijuana.
<br />Many owners were involved in money laundering and tax evasion. • The businesses were selling to individuals without serious medical conditions. • There are no guidelines on the amount
<br />of marijuana which can be sold to an individual. For Dispensary Patients By Age No Age listed, 118, 4% Ages 17-20, 364, 12% Ages 21-25, 719, 23% Ages 26-30, 504, 17% Ages 31-35, 302,
<br />10% Ages 36-40, 270, 9% Ages 41-45, 175, 6% Ages 46-50, 210, 7% Ages 51-55, 173, 6% Ages 56-60, 89, 3% Ages 61-65, 47, 2% Ages 66-70, 19, 1% Ages 71-75, 4, 0% Ages 76-80, 0, 0% Ages
<br />81-85, 0, 0%
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 24 All Rights Reserved example, an individual with a physician’s recommendation can go to as many marijuana distribution businesses and purchase
<br />as much marijuana as he/she wants. • California law allows an individual to possess 6 mature or 12 immature plants per qualified person. However, the San Diego Municipal Code states
<br />a "caregiver" can only provide care to 4 people, including themselves; this translates to 24 mature or 48 immature plants total. Many of these dispensaries are operating large marijuana
<br />grows with far more plants than allowed under law. Several of the dispensaries had indoor marijuana grows inside the businesses, with mature and/or immature marijuana plants over the
<br />limits. • State law allows a qualified patient or primary caregiver to possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. However, the San Diego Municipal Code
<br />allows primary caregivers to possess no more than two pounds of processed marijuana. Under either law, almost every marijuana dispensary had over two pounds of processed marijuana during
<br />the execution of the search warrants. • Some marijuana dispensaries force customers to sign forms designating the business as their primary caregiver, in an attempt to circumvent the
<br />law. 2. EXPERIENCES WITH MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY There were some marijuana dispensaries operating in the County of Riverside until the District Attorney’s Office took
<br />a very aggressive stance in closing them. In Riverside, anyone that is not a “qualified patient” or “primary caregiver” under the Medical Marijuana Program Act who possesses, sells,
<br />or transports marijuana is being prosecuted. Several dispensary closures illustrate the impact this position has had on marijuana dispensaries. For instance, the Palm Springs Caregivers
<br />dispensary (also known as Palm Springs Safe Access Collective) was searched after a warrant was issued. All materials inside were seized, and it was closed down and remains closed. The
<br />California Caregivers Association was located in downtown Riverside. Very shortly after it opened, it was also searched pursuant to a warrant and shut down. The CannaHelp dispensary
<br />was located in Palm Desert. It was searched and closed down early in 2007. The owner and two managers were then prosecuted for marijuana sales and possession of marijuana for the purpose
<br />of sale. However, a judge granted their motion to quash the search warrant and dismissed the charges. The District Attorney’s Office then appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
<br />Presently, the Office is waiting for oral arguments to be scheduled. Dispensaries in the county have also been closed by court order. The Healing Nations Collective was located in Corona.
<br />The owner lied about the nature of the business in his application for a license. The city pursued and obtained an injunction that required the business to close. The owner appealed
<br />to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which ruled against him. (City of Corona v. Ronald Naulls et al., Case No. No. E042772.) 3. MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY ISSUES IN CONTRA COSTA
<br />COUNTY CITIES AND IN OTHER BAY AREA COUNTIES Several cities in Contra Costa County, California have addressed this issue by either banning dispensaries, enacting moratoria against them,
<br />regulating them, or taking a position that they are simply not a permitted land use because they violate federal law. Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Hercules, and Concord have adopted
<br />permanent ordinances banning the establishment of marijuana dispensaries. Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pinole, and Pleasant Hill have imposed moratoria against dispensaries. Clayton,
<br />San Ramon, and Walnut Creek have not taken any formal action regarding the establishment of marijuana dispensaries but have indicated that marijuana dispensaries
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 25 All Rights Reserved are not a permitted use in any of their zoning districts as a violation of federal law. Martinez has adopted a permanent
<br />ordinance regulating the establishment of marijuana dispensaries. The Counties of Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Francisco have enacted permanent ordinances regulating the establishment
<br />of marijuana dispensaries. The Counties of Solano, Napa, and Marin have enacted neither regulations nor bans. A brief overview of the regulations enacted in neighboring counties follows.
<br />A. Alameda County Alameda County has a nineteen-page regulatory scheme which allows the operation of three permitted dispensaries in unincorporated portions of the county. Dispensaries
<br />can only be located in commercial or industrial zones, or their equivalent, and may not be located within 1,000 feet of other dispensaries, schools, parks, playgrounds, drug recovery
<br />facilities, or recreation centers. Permit issuance is controlled by the Sheriff, who is required to work with the Community Development Agency and the Health Care Services agency to
<br />establish operating conditions for each applicant prior to final selection. Adverse decisions can be appealed to the Sheriff and are ruled upon by the same panel responsible for setting
<br />operating conditions. That panel’s decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, whose decision is final (subject to writ review in the Superior Court per CCP sec. 1094.5). Persons
<br />violating provisions of the ordinance are guilty of a misdemeanor. B. Santa Clara County In November of 1998, Santa Clara County passed an ordinance permitting dispensaries to exist
<br />in unincorporated portions of the county with permits first sought and obtained from the Department of Public Health. In spite of this regulation, neither the County Counsel nor the
<br />District Attorney’s Drug Unit Supervisor believes that Santa Clara County has had any marijuana dispensaries in operation at least through 2006. The only permitted activities are the
<br />on-site cultivation cultivation of medical marijuana and the distribution of medical marijuana/medical marijuana food stuffs. No retail sales of any products are permitted at the dispensary.
<br />Smoking, ingestion or consumption is also prohibited on site. All doctor recommendations for medical marijuana must be verified by the County’s Public Health Department. C. San Francisco
<br />County In December of 2001, the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 012006, declaring San Francisco to be a “Sanctuary for Medical Cannabis.” City voters passed Proposition S
<br />in 2002, directing the city to explore the possibility of establishing a medical marijuana cultivation and distribution program run by the city itself. San Francisco dispensaries must
<br />apply for and receive a permit from the Department of Public Health. They may only operate as a collective or cooperative, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7
<br />(see discussion in section 4, under “California Law” above), and may only sell or distribute marijuana to members. Cultivation, smoking, and making and selling food products may be allowed.
<br />Permit applications are referred to the Departments of Planning, Building Inspection, and Police. Criminal background checks are required but exemptions could still allow the operation
<br />of dispensaries by individuals with prior convictions for violent felonies or who have had prior permits suspended or revoked. Adverse decisions can be appealed to the Director of
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 26 All Rights Reserved Public Health and the Board of Appeals. It is unclear how many dispensaries are operating in the city at this time. D. Crime
<br />Rates in the Vicinity of MariCare Sheriff’s data have been compiled for “Calls for Service” within a half-mile radius of 127 Aspen Drive, Pacheco. However, in research conducted by the
<br />El Cerrito Police Department and relied upon by Riverside County in recently enacting its ban on dispensaries, it was recognized that not all crimes related to medical marijuana take
<br />place in or around a dispensary. Some take place at the homes of the owners, employees, or patrons. Therefore, these statistics cannot paint a complete picture of the impact a marijuana
<br />dispensary has had on crime rates. The statistics show that the overall number of calls decreased (3,746 in 2005 versus 3,260 in 2006). However, there have been increases in the numbers
<br />of crimes which appear to be related to a business which is an attraction to a criminal element. element. Reports of commercial burglaries increased (14 in 2005, 24 in 2006), as did
<br />reports of residential burglaries (13 in 2005, 16 in 2006) and miscellaneous burglaries (5 in 2005, 21 in 2006). Tender Holistic Care (THC marijuana dispensary formerly located on N.
<br />Buchanan Circle in Pacheco) was forcibly burglarized on June 11, 2006. $4,800 in cash was stolen, along with marijuana, hash, marijuana food products, marijuana pills, marijuana paraphernalia,
<br />and marijuana plants. The total loss was estimated to be $16,265. MariCare was also burglarized within two weeks of opening in Pacheco. On April 4, 2006, a window was smashed after 11:00
<br />p.m. while an employee was inside the business, working late to get things organized. The female employee called “911” and locked herself in an office while the intruder ransacked the
<br />downstairs dispensary and stole more than $200 worth of marijuana. Demetrio Ramirez indicated that since they were just moving in, there wasn’t much inventory. Reports of vehicle thefts
<br />increased (4 in 2005, 6 in 2006). Disturbance reports increased in nearly all categories (Fights: 5 in 2005, 7 in 2006; Harassment: 4 in 2005, 5 in 2006; Juveniles: 4 in 2005, 21 in
<br />2006; Loitering: 11 in 2005, 19 in 2006; Verbal: 7 in 2005, 17 in 2006). Littering reports increased from 1 in 2005 to 5 in 2006. Public nuisance reports increased from 23 in 2005 to
<br />26 in 2006. These statistics reflect the complaints and concerns raised by nearby residents. Residents have reported to the District Attorney’s Office, as well as to Supervisor Piepho’s
<br />office, that when calls are made to the Sheriff’s Department, the offender has oftentimes left the area before law enforcement can arrive. This has led to less reporting, as it appears
<br />to local residents to be a futile act and residents have been advised that law enforcement is understaffed and cannot always timely respond to all calls for service. As a result, Pacheco
<br />developed a very active, visible Neighborhood Watch program. The program became much more active in 2006, according to Doug Stewart. Volunteers obtained radios and began frequently receiving
<br />calls directly from local businesses and residents who contacted them instead of law enforcement. It is therefore significant that there has still been an increase in many types of calls
<br />for law enforcement service, although the overall number of calls has decreased. Other complaints from residents included noise, odors, smoking/consuming marijuana in the area, littering
<br />and trash from the dispensary, loitering near a school bus stop and in the nearby church parking lot, observations that the primary patrons of MariCare appear to be individuals under
<br />age 25,
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 27 All Rights Reserved and increased traffic. Residents observed that the busiest time for MariCare appeared to be from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. On
<br />a typical Friday, 66 cars were observed entering MariCare’s facility; 49 of these were observed to contain additional passengers. The slowest time appeared to be from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00
<br />p.m. On a typical Saturday, 44 cars were counted during this time, and 29 of these were observed to have additional passengers. MariCare has claimed to serve 4,000 “patients.” E. Impact
<br />of Proposed Ordinance on MedDelivery Dispensary, El Sobrante It is the position of Contra Costa County District Attorney Robert J. Kochly that a proposed ordinance should terminate operation
<br />of the dispensary in El Sobrante because the land use of that business would be inconsistent with both state and federal law. However, the Community Development Department apparently
<br />believes that MedDelivery can remain as a “legal, nonconforming use.” F. Banning Versus Regulating Marijuana Dispensaries in Unincorporated Contra Costa County It is simply bad public
<br />policy to allow the proliferation of any type of business which is illegal and subject to being raided by federal and/or state authorities. In fact, eight locations associated with the
<br />New Remedies dispensary in San Francisco and Alameda Counties were raided in October of 2006, and eleven Southern California marijuana clinics were raided by federal agents on January
<br />18, 2007. The Los Angeles head of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration told CBS News after the January raids that “Today’s enforcement operations show that these establishments
<br />are nothing more than drug-trafficking organizations bringing criminal activities to our neighborhoods and drugs near our children and schools.” A Lafayette, California resident who
<br />owned a business that produced marijuana-laced foods and drinks for marijuana clubs was sentenced in federal court to five years and 10 months behind bars as well as a $250,000 fine.
<br />Several of his his employees were also convicted in that case. As discussed above, there is absolutely no exception to the federal prohibition against marijuana cultivation, possession,
<br />transportation, use, and distribution. Neither California’s voters nor its Legislature authorized the existence or operation of marijuana dispensing businesses when given the opportunity
<br />to do so. These enterprises cannot fit themselves into the few, narrow exceptions that were created by the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program Act. Further, the presence
<br />of marijuana dispensing businesses contributes substantially to the existence of a secondary market for illegal, street-level distribution of marijuana. This fact was even recognized
<br />by the United States Supreme Court: “The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market. The likelihood that
<br />all such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will precisely match the patients’ medical needs during their convalescence seems remote; whereas the danger that
<br />excesses will satisfy some of the admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious.” (Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 125 S.Ct. at p. 2214.) As outlined below, clear evidence
<br />has emerged of such a secondary market in Contra Costa County. • In September of 2004, police responded to reports of two men pointing a gun at cars in the parking lot at Monte Vista
<br />High School during an evening football game/dance. Two 19-year-old Danville residents were located in the parking lot (which was full of vehicles and pedestrians) and in possession of
<br />a silver Airsoft pellet pistol designed to replicate a
<br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 28 All Rights Reserved real Walther semi-automatic handgun. Marijuana, hash, and hash oil with typical dispensary
|