CPCA White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries

Home

packaging and labeling were also located in the car, along with a gallon bottle of tequila (1/4 full), a bong with burned residue, and rolling papers. The young men admitted to having consumed an unknown amount of tequila at the park next to the school and that they both pointed the gun at passing cars “as a joke.” They fired several BBs at a wooden fence in the park when there were people in the area. The owner of the vehicle admitted that the marijuana was his and that he was not a medicinal marijuana user. He was able to buy marijuana from his friend “Brandon,” who used a Proposition 215 card to purchase from a cannabis club in Hayward. • In February of 2006, Concord police officers responded to a report of a possible drug sale in progress. They arrested a high school senior for two outstanding warrants as he came to buy marijuana from the cannabis club located on Contra Costa Boulevard. The young man explained that he had a cannabis club card that allowed him to purchase marijuana, and admitted that he planned to re-sell some of the marijuana to friends. He also admitted to possession of nearly 7 grams of cocaine which was recovered. A 21-year-old man was also arrested on an outstanding warrant. In his car was a marijuana grinder, a baggie of marijuana, rolling papers, cigars, and a “blunt” (hollowed out cigar filled with marijuana for smoking) with one end burned. The 21-year-old admitted that he did not have a physician’s recommendation for marijuana. • Also in February of 2006, a 17-year-old Monte Vista High School senior was charged with felony furnishing of marijuana to a child, after giving a 4-year-old boy a marijuanalaced cookie. The furnishing occurred on campus, during a child development class. • In March of 2006, police and fire responded to an explosion at a San Ramon townhouse and found three young men engaged in cultivating and manufacturing ““honey oil” for local pot clubs. Marijuana was also being sold from the residence. Honey oil is a concentrated form of cannabis chemically extracted from ground up marijuana with extremely volatile butane and a special “honey oil” extractor tube. The butane extraction operation exploded with such force that it blew the garage door partially off its hinges. Sprinklers in the residence kept the fire from spreading to the other homes in the densely packed residential neighborhood. At least one of the men was employed by Ken Estes, owner of the Dragonfly Holistic Solutions pot clubs in Richmond, San Francisco, and Lake County. They were making the “honey oil” with marijuana and butane that they brought up from one of Estes’ San Diego pot clubs after it was shut down by federal agents. • Also in March of 2006, a 16-year-old El Cerrito High School student was arrested after selling pot cookies to fellow students on campus, many of whom became ill. At least four required hospitalization. The investigation revealed revealed that the cookies were made with a butter obtained outside a marijuana dispensary (a secondary sale). Between March of 2004 and May of 2006, the El Cerrito Police Department conducted seven investigations at the high school and junior high school, resulting in the arrest of eight juveniles for selling or possessing with intent to sell marijuana on or around the school campuses. • In June of 2006, Moraga police officers made a traffic stop for suspected driving under the influence of alcohol. The car was seen drifting over the double yellow line separating north and southbound traffic lanes and driving in the bike lane. The 20-year-old driver denied having consumed any alcohol, as he was the “designated driver.” When asked about his bloodshot, watery, and droopy eyes, the college junior explained that he had © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 29 All Rights Reserved smoked marijuana earlier (confirmed by blood tests). The young man had difficulty performing field sobriety tests, slurred his speech, and was ultimately arrested for driving under the influence. He was in possession of a falsified California Driver’s License, marijuana, hash, a marijuana pipe, a scale, and $12,288. The marijuana was in packaging from the Compassionate Collective of Alameda County, a Hayward dispensary. He explained that he buys the marijuana at “Pot Clubs,” sells some, and keeps the rest. He only sells to close friends. About $3,000 to $4,000 of the cash was from playing highstakes poker, but the rest was earned selling marijuana while a freshman at Arizona State University. The 18-year-old passenger had half an ounce of marijuana in her purse and produced a doctor’s recommendation to a marijuana club in Oakland, the authenticity of which could not be confirmed. Another significant concern is the proliferation of marijuana usage at community schools. In February of 2007, the Healthy Kids Survey for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties found that youthful substance abuse is more common in the East Bay’s more affluent areas. These areas had higher rates of high school juniors who admitted having been high from drugs. The regional manager of the study found that the affluent areas had higher alcohol and marijuana use rates. USA Today recently reported that the percentage of 12th Grade students who said they had used marijuana has increased since 2002 (from 33.6% to 36.2% in 2005), and that marijuana was the most-used illicit drug among that age group in 2006. KSDK News Channel 5 reported that high school students are finding easy access to medical marijuana cards and presenting them to school authorities as a legitimate excuse for getting high. School Resource Officers for Monte Vista and San Ramon Valley High Schools in Danville have reported finding marijuana in prescription bottles and other packaging from Alameda County dispensaries. Marijuana has also been linked to psychotic illnesses.101 A risk factor was found to be starting marijuana use in adolescence. For all of the above reasons, it is advocated by District Attorney Kochly that a ban on land uses which violate state or federal law is the most appropriate solution for the County of Contra Costa. 4. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY According to Santa Barbara County Deputy District Attorney Brian Cota, ten marijuana dispensaries are currently operating within Santa Barbara County. The mayor of the City of Santa Barbara, who is an outspoken medical marijuana supporter, has stated that the police must place marijuana behind every other police priority. This has made it difficult for the local District Attorney’s Office. Not many marijuana cases come to it for filing. The District Attorney’s Office would like more regulations placed on the dispensaries. However, the majority of Santa Barbara County political leaders and residents are very liberal and do not want anyone to be denied access to medical marijuana if they say they need it. Partly as a result, no dispensaries have been prosecuted to date. 5. SONOMA COUNTY Stephan R. Passalocqua, District Attorney for the County of Sonoma, has recently reported the following information related to distribution of medical marijuana in Sonoma County. In 1997, the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association enacted the following medical marijuana guidelines: a qualified patient is permitted to possess three pounds of marijuana and grow 99 plants in a 100-square-foot canopy. A qualified caregiver could possess or grow the above-mentioned amounts for each qualified patient. These guidelines were enacted after Proposition 215 was overwhelmingly passed by the voters of California, and after two separate unsuccessful prosecutions in Sonoma County. Two Sonoma County juries returned “not guilty” verdicts for three defendants © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 30 All Rights Reserved who possessed substantially large quantities of marijuana (60 plants in one case and over 900 plants in the other) where they asserted a medical marijuana defense. These verdicts, and the attendant publicity, demonstrated that the community standards are vastly different in Sonoma County compared to other jurisdictions. On November 6, 2006, and authorized by Senate Bill 420, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors specifically enacted regulations that allow a qualified person holding a valid identification card to possess up to three pounds of dried cannabis a year and cultivate 30 plants per qualified patient. No individual from any law enforcement agency in Sonoma County appeared at the hearing, nor did any representative publicly oppose this resolution. With respect to the People v. Sashon Jenkins case, the defendant provided verified medical recommendations for five qualified patients prior to trial. At the time of arrest, Jenkins said that he had a medical marijuana card and was a care provider for multiple people, but was unable to provide specific documentation. Mr. Jenkins had approximately 10 pounds of dried marijuana and was growing 14 plants, which number of plants is consistent with the 2006 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ resolution. At a preliminary hearing held In January of 2007, the defense called five witnesses who were proffered as Jenkins’ “patients” and who came to court with medical recommendations. Jenkins also testified that he was their caregiver. After the preliminary hearing, the assigned prosecutor conducted a thorough review of the facts and the law, and concluded that a Sonoma County jury would not return a “guilty” verdict in this case. Hence, no felony information was filed. With respect to the return of property issue, the prosecuting deputy district attorney never agreed to release the marijuana despite dismissing the case. Other trial dates are pending in cases where medical marijuana defenses are being alleged. District Attorney Passalacqua has noted that, given the overwhelming passage of proposition 215, coupled with at least one United States Supreme Court decision that has not struck it down to date, these factors present current challenges for law enforcement, but that he and other prosecutors will continue to vigorously prosecute drug dealers within the boundaries of the law. 6. ORANGE COUNTY . There are 15 marijuana dispensaries in Orange County, and several delivery services. Many of the delivery services operate out of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County. Orange County served a search warrant on one dispensary, and closed it down. A decision is being made whether or not to file criminal charges in that case. It is possible that the United States Attorney will file on that dispensary since it is a branch of a dispensary that the federal authorities raided in San Diego County. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has ordered a study by the county’s Health Care Department on how to comply with the Medical Marijuana Program Act. The District Attorney’s Office’s position is that any activity under the Medical Marijuana Program Act beyond the mere issuance of identification cards violates federal law. The District Attorney’s Office has made it clear to County Counsel that if any medical marijuana provider does not meet a strict definition of “primary caregiver” that person will be prosecuted. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 31 All Rights Reserved PENDING LEGAL QUESTIONS Law enforcement agencies throughout the state, as well as their legislative bodies, have been struggling with how to reconcile the Compassionate Use Act ("CUA"), Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 11362.5, et seq., with the federal Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. sec. 801, et seq., for some time. Pertinent questions follow. QUESTION 1. Is it possible for a storefront marijuana dispensary to be legally operated under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. Code sec. 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (Health & Saf. Code secs. 11362.7-11362.83? ANSWER 1. Storefront marijuana dispensaries may be legally operated under the CUA and the Medical Marijuana Program Act ("MMPA"), Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 11362.7-11362.83, as long as they are "cooperatives" under the MMPA. ANALYSIS The question posed does not specify what services or products are available at a "storefront" marijuana dispensary. The question also does not specify the business structure of a "dispensary." A "dispensary" is often commonly used nowadays as a generic term for a facility that distributes medical marijuana. The term "dispensary" is also used specifically to refer to marijuana facilities that are operated more like a retail establishment, that are open to the public and often "sell" medical marijuana to qualified patients or caregivers. By use of the term "store front dispensary," the question may be presuming that this type of facility is being operated. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume that a "dispensary" is a generic term that does not contemplate any particular business structure.1 Based on that assumption, a "dispensary" might provide "assistance to a qualified patient or a person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to the qualified patient or person or acquiring the skills necessary to cultivate or administer marijuana for medical purposes to the qualified patient or person" and be within the permissible limits of the CUA and the MMPA. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.765 (b)(3).) 1 As the term "dispensary" is commonly used and understood, marijuana dispensaries would not be permitted under the CUA or the MMPA, since they "sell" medical marijuana and are not operated as true "cooperatives." © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 32 All Rights Reserved The CUA permits a "patient" or a "patient's primary caregiver" to possess or cultivate marijuana for personal medical purposes with the recommendation of a physician. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (d).) Similarly, the MMPA provides that "patients" or designated "primary caregivers" who have voluntarily obtained a valid medical marijuana identification card shall not be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in specified quantities. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.71 (d) & (e).) A "storefront dispensary" would not fit within either of these categories. However, the MMPA also provides that "[q]ualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under section 11357 [possession], 11358 [planting, harvesting or processing], 11359 [possession for sale], 11360 [unlawful transportation, importation, sale or gift], 11366 [opening or maintaining place for trafficking in controlled substances], 11366.5 [providing place for manufacture or distribution of controlled substance; Fortifying building to suppress law enforcement entry], or 11570 [Buildings or places deemed nuisances subject to abatement]." (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.775.) (Emphasis added).) Since medical marijuana cooperatives are permitted pursuant to the MMPA, a "storefront dispensary" that would qualify as a cooperative would be permissible under the MMPA. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.775. See also People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 747 (finding criminal defendant was entitled to present defense relating to operation of medical marijuana cooperative).) In granting a re-trial, the appellate court in Urziceanu found that the defendant could present evidence which might entitle him to a defense under the MMPA as to the operation of a medical marijuana cooperative, including the fact that the "cooperative" verified physician recommendations and identities of individuals seeking medical marijuana and individuals obtaining medical marijuana paid membership fees, reimbursed defendant for his costs in cultivating the medical marijuana by way of donations, and volunteered at the "cooperative." (Id. at p. 785.) Whether or not "sales" are permitted under Urziceanu and the MMPA is unclear. The Urziceanu Court did note that the incorporation of section 11359, relating to marijuana "sales," in section 11362.775, allowing the operation of cooperatives, "contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana." Whether "reimbursement" may be in the form only of of donations, as were the facts presented in Urziceanu, or whether "purchases" could be made for medical marijuana, it does seem clear that a medical marijuana "cooperative" may not make a "profit," but may be restricted to being reimbursed for actual costs in providing the marijuana to its members and, if there are any "profits," these may have to be reinvested in the "cooperative" or shared by its members in order for a dispensary to © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 33 All Rights Reserved be truly considered to be operating as a "cooperative."2 If these requirements are satisfied as to a "storefront" dispensary, then it will be permissible under the MMPA. Otherwise, it will be a violation of both the CUA and the MMPA. QUESTION 2. If the governing body of a city, county, or city and county approves an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, can an individual board or council member be found to be acting illegally and be subject to federal criminal charges, including aiding and abetting, or state criminal charges? ANSWER 2. If a city, county, or city and county authorizes and regulates marijuana dispensaries, individual members of the legislative bodies may be held criminally liable under state or federal law.3 ANALYSIS A. Federal Law Generally, legislators of federal, state, and local legislative bodies are absolutely immune from liability for legislative acts. (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 6 (Speech and Debate Clause, applicable to members of Congress); Fed. Rules Evid., Rule 501 (evidentiary privilege against admission of legislative acts); Tenney v. Brandhove (1951) 341 U.S. 367 (legislative immunity applicable to state legislators); Bogan v. Scott-Harris (1998) 523 U.S. 44 (legislative immunity applicable to local legislators).) However, while federal legislators are absolutely immune from both criminal and civil liability for purely legislative acts, local legislators are only immune from civil liability under federal law. (United States v. Gillock (1980) 445 U.S. 360.) Where the United States Supreme Court has held that federal regulation of marijuana by way of the CSA, including any "medical" use of marijuana, is within Congress' Commerce Clause power, federal law stands as a bar to local action in direct violation of the CSA. (Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1.) In fact, the CSA itself provides that federal regulations do not 2 A "cooperative" is defined as follows: An enterprise or organization that is owned or managed jointly by those who use its facilities or services. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, by Houghton Mifflin Company (4th Ed. 2000). 3 Indeed, the same conclusion would seem to result from the adoption by state legislators of the MMPA itself, in authorizing the issuance of medical marijuana identification cards. (Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 11362.71, et seq.) © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 34 All Rights Reserved exclusively occupy the field of drug regulation "unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this title [the CSA] and that state law so that the two cannot consistently stand together." (21 U.S.C. sec. 903.) Based on the above provisions, then, legislative action by local legislators could subject the individual legislators to federal criminal liability. Most likely, the only violation of the CSA that could occur as a result of an ordinance approved by local legislators authorizing and regulating medical marijuana would be aiding and abetting a violation of the CSA. The elements of the offense of aiding and abetting a criminal offense are: (1) specific intent to facilitate commission of a crime by another; (2) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused; (3) that an offense was being committed by someone; and (4) that the accused assisted or participated in the commission of an offense. (United States v. Raper (1982) 676 F.2d 841; United States v. Staten (1978) 581 F.2d 878.) Criminal aiding and abetting liability, under 18 U.S.C. section 2, requires proof that the defendants in some way associated themselves with the illegal venture; that they participated in the venture as something that they wished to bring about; and that they sought by their actions to make the venture succeed. (Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A. (1994) 511 U.S. 164.) Mere furnishing of company to a person engaged in a crime does not render a companion an aider or abettor. (United States v. Garguilo (2d Cir. 1962) 310 F.2d 249.) In order for a defendant to be an aider and abettor he must know that the activity condemned by law is actually occurring and must intend to help the perpetrator. (United States v. McDaniel (9th Cir. 1976) 545 F.2d 642.) To be guilty of aiding and abetting, the defendant must willfully seek, by some action of his own, to make a criminal venture succeed. (United States v. Ehrenberg (E.D. Pa. 1973) 354 F. Supp. 460 cert. denied (1974) 94 S. Ct. 1612.) The question, as posed, may presume that the local legislative body has acted in a manner that affirmatively supports marijuana dispensaries. As phrased by Senator Kuehl, the question to be answered by the Attorney General's Office assumes that a local legislative body has adopted an ordinance that "authorizes" medical marijuana facilities. What if a local public entity adopts an ordinance that explicitly indicates that it does not authorize, legalize, or permit any dispensary that is in violation of federal law regarding controlled substances? If the local public entity grants a permit, regulates, or imposes locational requirements on marijuana dispensaries with the announced understanding that it does not thereby allow any illegal activity and that dispensaries are required to comply with all applicable laws, including federal laws, then the public entity should be entitled to expect that all laws will be obeyed. It would seem that a public entity is not intentionally acting to to encourage or aid acts in violation of the CSA merely because it has adopted an ordinance which regulates dispensaries; even the issuance of a "permit," if it is expressly not allowing violations of federal law, cannot necessarily support a charge or conviction of aiding and abetting violation of the CSA. A public entity should be entitled to presume that dispensaries will obey all applicable laws and that lawful business will be conducted at dispensaries. For instance, dispensaries could very well not engage in actual medical marijuana distribution, but instead engage in education and awareness activities as to the medical effects of marijuana; the sale of other, legal products that aid in the suffering of © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 35 All Rights Reserved ailing patients; or even activities directed at effecting a change in the federal laws relating to regulation of marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the CSA. These are examples of legitimate business activities, and First Amendment protected activities at that, in which dispensaries could engage relating to medical marijuana, but not apparently in violation of the CSA. Public entities should be entitled to presume that legitimate activities can and will be engaged in by dispensaries that are permitted and/or regulated by local regulations. In fact, it seems counterintuitive that local public entities within the state should be expected to be the watchdogs of federal law; in the area of controlled substances, at least, local public entities do not have an affirmative obligation to discern whether businesses are violating federal law. The California Attorney General's Office will note that the State Board of Equalization ("BOE") has already done precisely what has been suggested in the preceding paragraph. In a special notice issued by the BOE this year, it has indicated that sellers of medical marijuana must obtain a seller's permit. (See http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf (Special Notice: Important Information for Sellers of Medical Marijuana).) As the Special Notice explicitly indicates to medical marijuana facilities, "[h]aving a seller’s permit does not mean you have authority to make unlawful sales. The permit only provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. The permit states, 'NOTICE TO PERMITTEE: You are required to obey all federal and state laws that regulate or control your business. This permit does not allow you to do otherwise.'" The above being said, however, there is no guarantee that criminal charges would not actually be brought by the federal government or that persons so charged could not be successfully prosecuted. It does seem that arguments contrary to the above conclusions could be persuasive in convicting local legislators. By permitting and/or regulating marijuana dispensaries by local ordinance, some legitimacy and credibility may be granted by governmental issuance of permits or authorizing and allowing dispensaries to exist or locate within a jurisdiction.4 All of this discussion, then, simply demonstrates that individual board or council members can, indeed, be found criminally liable under federal law for the adoption of an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries that promote the use of marijuana as medicine. The actual likelihood of prosecution, and its potential success, may depend on the particular facts of the regulation that is adopted. 4 Of course, the question arises as to how far any such liability be taken. Where can the line be drawn between any permit or regulation adopted specifically with respect to marijuana dispensaries and other permits or approvals routinely, and often ministerially, granted by local public entities, such as building permits or business licenses, which are discussed infra? If local public entities are held responsible for adopting an ordinance authorizing and/or regulating marijuana dispensaries, cannot local public entities also be subject to liability for providing general public services for the illegal distribution of "medical" marijuana? Could a local public entity that knew a dispensary was distributing "medical" marijuana in compliance with state law be criminally liable if it provided electricity, water, and trash services to that dispensary? How can such actions really be distinguished from the adoption of an ordinance that authorizes and/or regulates marijuana dispensaries? © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 36 All Rights Reserved B. State Law Similarly, under California law, aside from the person who directly commits a criminal offense, no other person is guilty as a principal unless he aids and abets. (People v. Dole (1898) 122 Cal. 486; People v. Stein (1942) 55 Cal. App. 2d 417.) A person who innocently aids in the commission of the crime cannot be found guilty. (People v. Fredoni (1910) 12 Cal. App. 685.) To authorize a conviction as an aider and abettor of crime, it must be shown not only that the person so charged aided and assisted in the commission of the offense, but also that he abetted the act— that is, that he criminally or with guilty knowledge and intent aided the actual perpetrator in the commission of the act. (People v. Terman (1935) 4 Cal. App. 2d 345.) To "abet" another in commission of a crime implies a consciousness of guilt in instigating, encouraging, promoting, or aiding the commission of the offense. (People v. Best (1941) 43 Cal. App. 2d 100.) "Abet" implies knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator of the crime. (People v. Stein, supra.) To be guilty of an offense committed by another person, the accused must not only aid such perpetrator by assisting or supplementing his efforts, but must, with knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator, abet by inciting or encouraging him. (People v. Le Grant (1946) 76 Cal. App. 2d 148, 172; People v. Carlson (1960) 177 Cal. App. 2d 201.) The conclusion under state law aiding and abetting would be similar to the analysis above under federal law. Similar to federal