|
|
| Judge Refuses To Return Marijuana |
|
Posted by FoM on July 19, 2001 at 17:51:19 PT By Mike Rappaport, Staff Writer Source: Daily Bulletin 
A Superior Court judge Tuesday denied medicinal marijuana supporter David Fawcett's request to reclaim 40 seized marijuana plants from the Drug Enforcement Agency, ruling that as a state judge, he had no jurisdiction over the federal agency."The federal government has your property, sir," Dennis G. Cole said, citing the recent Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Collective. "The federal government has determined that possession of marijuana is still a crime." Fawcett's complaint was dismissed. The Ontario resident is expected to appeal Cole's ruling. Fawcett was arrested in May, shortly after a story on his medicinal marijuana use appeared in the Daily Bulletin. The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office decided not to file charges, saying he was within California law, which allows for medicinal marijuana use if a doctor approves. An Ontario Police Department spokesman said in June the department had turned Fawcett's plants over to the Drug Enforcement Administration for investigation of a possible federal crime. Fawcett, acting as his own attorney, had argued that the plants had been illegally seized and that the Ontario Police Department had no right to act as an agent for the federal government. "This is a violation of the California Constitution," he said. Fawcett said he did not expect to have his plants returned - he said he believes the Drug Enforcement Agency probably has already destroyed them - but wanted to establish the principle that he had the right to have them and also needed to file the complaint for insurance purposes. The Drug Enforcement Agency's policy is not to comment on its investigations. Medicinal marijuana activist Andrea Nagy, part of a group of activists who appeared in court with Fawcett, said the judge's ruling was incorrect. "There is no consistency in the rulings right now," Nagy said. "Half the judges give it back and half the judges throw their hands in the air and say they have no jurisdiction. Allowing this makes it open season for highway robbery on patients." At issue was whether the raid on Fawcett's home was legal after the article and photos showed him with the plants he was growing for medical purposes. A police spokesman said that since Fawcett was on probation from an earlier marijuana arrest, the department had the right to search. "The problem is the opposing views on Proposition 215," activist Andy Kinnon of Mission Viejo said of the 1996 initiative that legalized medical marijuana use in California. "You have people who were vehemently opposed to this law who are in law enforcement, and they are doing what they can against it." Mike Rappaport can be reached by e-mail at: m_rappaport@dailybulletin.com Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (CA) Related Articles & Web Sites: David Fawcett's Ordeal Medical Marijuana User Avoids Charges California Pot Grower Won't Face Local Prosecution Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #2 posted by Rambler on July 19, 2001 at 22:42:02 PT |
| "The Drug Enforcement Agency's policy is not to comment on its investigations." They answer to no one,except their fellow cronies inside They do not answer to the citizens who have taxes extorted One of our biggest problems,as Americans, are the gaping black "The Drug Enforcement Agency's policy is not to comment on its budget." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by testor on July 19, 2001 at 20:18:38 PT |
| I thought feds werent allowed to have jurisdiction over cases that had less than 99 plants. And to think tax payers money is going to feds to waste it like this. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |