Truth Seeker
New Member
The lawyer for the medical marijuana dispensary at the center of the latest court action over Riverside's ordinance banning the clinics said Wednesday, Dec. 5 that local governments are trying to outrun the California Supreme Court on the issue.
"Nobody really wants to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us what the law is, huh? God forbid we should have a country of due process and laws," Redlands lawyer James DeAguilera said in a phone interview.
I put in a call in Monday to DeAguilera when I did a story on an appellate court order that restored Riverside's injunction against Closet Patient Care dispensary on Elizabeth Street. De Aguilera got back to me the morning of Wednesday, Dec. 5.
The Nov. 29 order from the Fourth Appellate District Court, Division Two, gave Riverside a green light to resume procedures to close the remaining 10 to 12 dispensaries in the city. The appellate order reversed a judge who had blocked action to shut down Closet Patient Care in August. That action had put on hold Riverside's cease-and-desist actions against clinics.
Before then, about 45 stores were shut down after Riverside got a favorable ruling one year ago in November from the same Fourth District, Division Two, which said in a published opinion that local governments have the right to ban the clinics.
More appellate court decisions over the local clinic bans followed.
One Orange County panel found the opposite — that local governments cannot ban the clinics. But that same ruling said the clinics must grow their marijuana on site. Then a different appellate panel upheld a Los Angeles clinic that used marijuana brought in from Humboldt County.
Attorneys for dispensaries used the conflicting decisions to argue against the local prohibitions, even in jurisdictions such as Riverside city and county, where the earlier ruling had upheld the bans.
The state high court took the matter on by mid-January of this year. Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos said Monday that all the legal briefs have been filed in the case, and attorneys are waiting for an oral argument date.
The California Supreme Court issue: Can local governments ban something state law has authorized? Voters approved legal medical marijuana through the 1996 Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215), and the legislature set guidelines with the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA).
Attorneys for the cities and counties have argued they can ban the clinics – that the scheme of selling marijuana through storefronts was never in Prop. 215 or the MMPA. The attorneys also say local governments have a right to determine what a nuisance is in their jurisdictions.
DeAguilera, who represents several dispensaries throughout the state, said Wednesday that the real issue for local bans is that counties and cities simply don't like legalized marijuana.
"It's a very concerted effort by local governments to circumvent the proposition (Prop. 215)," he said. "If any of these dispensaries are actually causing a nuisance or attracting a bad element, cities can shut them down with an injunction for a nuisance-in-fact. But that is not what they are doing. They are adapting bans against any dispensaries."
And hovering beyond those state issues is federal law, under which marijuana is classified as an illegal drug in all circumstances. That status has been used by the DEA to close some dispensaries and grow operations, and to prosecute owners and operators.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: pe.com
Author: pe.com
Contact: About Us | PE.com - Press-Enterprise
Website: MEDICAL MARIJUANA: Wait for Cal Supreme Court, clinic attorney says : Crime Blotter
"Nobody really wants to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us what the law is, huh? God forbid we should have a country of due process and laws," Redlands lawyer James DeAguilera said in a phone interview.
I put in a call in Monday to DeAguilera when I did a story on an appellate court order that restored Riverside's injunction against Closet Patient Care dispensary on Elizabeth Street. De Aguilera got back to me the morning of Wednesday, Dec. 5.
The Nov. 29 order from the Fourth Appellate District Court, Division Two, gave Riverside a green light to resume procedures to close the remaining 10 to 12 dispensaries in the city. The appellate order reversed a judge who had blocked action to shut down Closet Patient Care in August. That action had put on hold Riverside's cease-and-desist actions against clinics.
Before then, about 45 stores were shut down after Riverside got a favorable ruling one year ago in November from the same Fourth District, Division Two, which said in a published opinion that local governments have the right to ban the clinics.
More appellate court decisions over the local clinic bans followed.
One Orange County panel found the opposite — that local governments cannot ban the clinics. But that same ruling said the clinics must grow their marijuana on site. Then a different appellate panel upheld a Los Angeles clinic that used marijuana brought in from Humboldt County.
Attorneys for dispensaries used the conflicting decisions to argue against the local prohibitions, even in jurisdictions such as Riverside city and county, where the earlier ruling had upheld the bans.
The state high court took the matter on by mid-January of this year. Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos said Monday that all the legal briefs have been filed in the case, and attorneys are waiting for an oral argument date.
The California Supreme Court issue: Can local governments ban something state law has authorized? Voters approved legal medical marijuana through the 1996 Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215), and the legislature set guidelines with the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA).
Attorneys for the cities and counties have argued they can ban the clinics – that the scheme of selling marijuana through storefronts was never in Prop. 215 or the MMPA. The attorneys also say local governments have a right to determine what a nuisance is in their jurisdictions.
DeAguilera, who represents several dispensaries throughout the state, said Wednesday that the real issue for local bans is that counties and cities simply don't like legalized marijuana.
"It's a very concerted effort by local governments to circumvent the proposition (Prop. 215)," he said. "If any of these dispensaries are actually causing a nuisance or attracting a bad element, cities can shut them down with an injunction for a nuisance-in-fact. But that is not what they are doing. They are adapting bans against any dispensaries."
And hovering beyond those state issues is federal law, under which marijuana is classified as an illegal drug in all circumstances. That status has been used by the DEA to close some dispensaries and grow operations, and to prosecute owners and operators.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: pe.com
Author: pe.com
Contact: About Us | PE.com - Press-Enterprise
Website: MEDICAL MARIJUANA: Wait for Cal Supreme Court, clinic attorney says : Crime Blotter
