Five Dana Point pot dispensaries have begun the process of appealing an Orange County Superior Court judge ruling that they must turn over records to the city — including client names — as part of a city investigation into the facilities' operations.
"I think everyone kind of had the same idea about appealing the order for the reason of protecting third-party names and some of the privileged items that we believe shouldn't be disclosed," said attorney Lee Petros for the Point Alternative Care dispensary in an interview this morning.
Judge Glenda Sanders ruled Nov. 2 that the medical marijuana dispensaries in Dana Point must hand over records to the city by Dec. 7.
Sanders also ordered the disclosure of member names to be limited to the city's attorneys, a financial consultant retained for advice in connection with the investigation, and the city's assistant city manager, who will oversee and assist the consultant in his analysis.
Attorneys for the pot dispensaries have objected to release of any member names on grounds that the city's request for records violates medical and financial privacy rights of its members, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the First Amendment protection of freedom of association.
While the dispensaries are appealing Sanders' decision to the 4th District Court of Appeal, they are also asking the judge to stay her order pending the outcome.
Attorneys for the dispensaries and the city will be in Sanders' Santa Ana courtroom Monday, when she is expected to decide whether to set a hearing date before Dec. 7 to consider arguments on the merits of staying her order.
City Attorney Patrick Muñoz said he was not surprised that the dispensaries appealed.
"They have made a lot of noise," he said. "There was a lot of discussion."
Attorneys interviewed have said there's no legal precedent for what's transpiring in the Dana Point case, and that both the city and the dispensaries are in uncharted legal territory, with the case likely to be decided by an appeals court, which is where it is now headed.
The release of names of members of the dispensaries became a central point of contention in the city's suit against the dispensaries to force them to comply with a city subpoena, with the city saying that it needs the information to verify whether the dispensaries are operating within the law.
But there's little guidance in law on release of names of patients of pot dispensaries, attorneys say.
"I think that everyone's confused as to the applicable law we're dealing with," Petros has said. "Once those names are turned over, they're turned over."
Petros is concerned that even the limited release of the names does not preclude the city from returning to court to ask to broaden the use of the patient names and records it obtains.
The city in July served the subpoenas for records to those operating marijuana dispensaries after a request to amend zoning laws to permit dispensaries.
Among other information, the city sought financial data and documents that show that the collectives selling marijuana have proper state tax papers and licenses.
Because legal battles surrounding medical marijuana dispensaries — or pharmacies as some advocates prefer to call them — are covering new areas of the law as it relates to such establishments, opinions among legal scholars and attorneys vary as to how far reaching the impact of the Dana Point case will be.
Nor is it clear — in part because of lack of case law — what impact Dana Point's efforts to seek contact information of members of a cooperative will have on cities around the county and the state attempting to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries.
The city does not have a specific ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries. But that does not mean the operations are permitted, like many other uses not specifically addressed in municipal codes, Muñoz said.
Before making any decision, the council wanted to determine if existing dispensaries are complying with state laws or if they are operating illegally, he said.
"The city is not that interested in the names," Muñoz has said. "From our perspective that's just part of our due diligence. We're not looking to embarrass anyone (using the names)."
In her Nov. 2 ruling, Sanders pointed out that "the city has specifically not sought copies of marijuana recommendations, patient medical files, and information related to the medical condition for which the marijuana was recommended."
Garfield Langmuir-Logan, attorney for Beach Collective in Dana Point, said in a previous interview that he had hoped to ensure that dispensary records would not be used for any enforcement purposes.
Langmuir-Logan said that his client favors a city ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana dispensaries so that there's no improper dispensation of the drug.
"I am just concerned about revealing confidential patient records," he said adding that he believes that the whole matter began with a straightforward attempt by the city to gather information and data with which to be able to craft an ordinance.
"Through the process, we have stumbled upon some issues here that I think are problematic from a confidential and disclosure point of view," Langmuir-Logan said.
California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, making it legal for patients and their caregivers to possess and grow marijuana for medical use with a doctor's recommendation.
Ailments that qualify under that law are as specific as cancer and AIDS and as general as "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."
Also, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or MMP, which became law in 2004, among other things, requires the California Department of Public Health to establish and maintain a program for the voluntary registration of qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers through a statewide identification card system, according to the state Attorney General's Office.
The U.S. Department of Justice said last month that it would stop pursuing federal drug cases against defendants who comply with state medical marijuana laws. But local governments across the state are struggling to find fair ways to regulate and police dispensaries — or outlaw them all together.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Orange County Register Communications
Author: VIK JOLLY
Contact: Orange County Register Communications
Copyright: 2009 Orange County Register Communications
Website: Dana Point Pot Dispensaries Ruling On Revealing Records Appealed
"I think everyone kind of had the same idea about appealing the order for the reason of protecting third-party names and some of the privileged items that we believe shouldn't be disclosed," said attorney Lee Petros for the Point Alternative Care dispensary in an interview this morning.
Judge Glenda Sanders ruled Nov. 2 that the medical marijuana dispensaries in Dana Point must hand over records to the city by Dec. 7.
Sanders also ordered the disclosure of member names to be limited to the city's attorneys, a financial consultant retained for advice in connection with the investigation, and the city's assistant city manager, who will oversee and assist the consultant in his analysis.
Attorneys for the pot dispensaries have objected to release of any member names on grounds that the city's request for records violates medical and financial privacy rights of its members, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the First Amendment protection of freedom of association.
While the dispensaries are appealing Sanders' decision to the 4th District Court of Appeal, they are also asking the judge to stay her order pending the outcome.
Attorneys for the dispensaries and the city will be in Sanders' Santa Ana courtroom Monday, when she is expected to decide whether to set a hearing date before Dec. 7 to consider arguments on the merits of staying her order.
City Attorney Patrick Muñoz said he was not surprised that the dispensaries appealed.
"They have made a lot of noise," he said. "There was a lot of discussion."
Attorneys interviewed have said there's no legal precedent for what's transpiring in the Dana Point case, and that both the city and the dispensaries are in uncharted legal territory, with the case likely to be decided by an appeals court, which is where it is now headed.
The release of names of members of the dispensaries became a central point of contention in the city's suit against the dispensaries to force them to comply with a city subpoena, with the city saying that it needs the information to verify whether the dispensaries are operating within the law.
But there's little guidance in law on release of names of patients of pot dispensaries, attorneys say.
"I think that everyone's confused as to the applicable law we're dealing with," Petros has said. "Once those names are turned over, they're turned over."
Petros is concerned that even the limited release of the names does not preclude the city from returning to court to ask to broaden the use of the patient names and records it obtains.
The city in July served the subpoenas for records to those operating marijuana dispensaries after a request to amend zoning laws to permit dispensaries.
Among other information, the city sought financial data and documents that show that the collectives selling marijuana have proper state tax papers and licenses.
Because legal battles surrounding medical marijuana dispensaries — or pharmacies as some advocates prefer to call them — are covering new areas of the law as it relates to such establishments, opinions among legal scholars and attorneys vary as to how far reaching the impact of the Dana Point case will be.
Nor is it clear — in part because of lack of case law — what impact Dana Point's efforts to seek contact information of members of a cooperative will have on cities around the county and the state attempting to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries.
The city does not have a specific ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries. But that does not mean the operations are permitted, like many other uses not specifically addressed in municipal codes, Muñoz said.
Before making any decision, the council wanted to determine if existing dispensaries are complying with state laws or if they are operating illegally, he said.
"The city is not that interested in the names," Muñoz has said. "From our perspective that's just part of our due diligence. We're not looking to embarrass anyone (using the names)."
In her Nov. 2 ruling, Sanders pointed out that "the city has specifically not sought copies of marijuana recommendations, patient medical files, and information related to the medical condition for which the marijuana was recommended."
Garfield Langmuir-Logan, attorney for Beach Collective in Dana Point, said in a previous interview that he had hoped to ensure that dispensary records would not be used for any enforcement purposes.
Langmuir-Logan said that his client favors a city ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana dispensaries so that there's no improper dispensation of the drug.
"I am just concerned about revealing confidential patient records," he said adding that he believes that the whole matter began with a straightforward attempt by the city to gather information and data with which to be able to craft an ordinance.
"Through the process, we have stumbled upon some issues here that I think are problematic from a confidential and disclosure point of view," Langmuir-Logan said.
California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, making it legal for patients and their caregivers to possess and grow marijuana for medical use with a doctor's recommendation.
Ailments that qualify under that law are as specific as cancer and AIDS and as general as "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."
Also, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or MMP, which became law in 2004, among other things, requires the California Department of Public Health to establish and maintain a program for the voluntary registration of qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers through a statewide identification card system, according to the state Attorney General's Office.
The U.S. Department of Justice said last month that it would stop pursuing federal drug cases against defendants who comply with state medical marijuana laws. But local governments across the state are struggling to find fair ways to regulate and police dispensaries — or outlaw them all together.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Orange County Register Communications
Author: VIK JOLLY
Contact: Orange County Register Communications
Copyright: 2009 Orange County Register Communications
Website: Dana Point Pot Dispensaries Ruling On Revealing Records Appealed
