Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  Case Puts Law Enforcement in Bind
Posted by FoM on March 05, 2002 at 08:50:23 PT
By Harold Kruger, Appeal-Democrat 
Source: Appeal-Democrat 

medical A Linda couple will have to wait another week to find out if they'll get their medical marijuana back. Doyle and Belinda Satterfield have filed a motion in Yuba County Superior Court seeking the return of the marijuana, which they use as medicine to treat their ailments.

The Satterfields were arrested last August and charged with illegal marijuana cultivation. The charges were dropped in January.

"They were complying with the medical marijuana law at the time it was seized," said Jud Waggoman, attorney for Belinda Satterfield.

"We were able to show to the DA's Office to prove it was being possessed and used for medicinal purposes in compliance with the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215). As a result of it being dismissed, then the law requires that it be returned," Waggoman said.

The Satterfields were in court Monday for their hearing. Judge James Curry rescheduled the matter to next Monday to allow District Attorney Pat McGrath more time to respond in writing to their motion.

McGrath said requests like the Satterfields' are becoming more and more common throughout the state.

This is the first time such a matter will be heard by a judge in Yuba County, he said.

These types of cases demonstrate the bind Proposition 215 puts law enforcement agencies in, McGrath said.

If a judge orders them to return the marijuana and they refuse they are in contempt, McGrath said. If they comply, they are in violation of federal law, he said.

Similar cases throughout the state have met with different results. In some cases the judge has ruled the marijuana is contraband and has refused to order its return, McGrath said.

In others, the judge has ordered the marijuana returned and the seizing agency has gone to federal court to obtain a seizure order, which supercedes rulings by the local judge, or the agency has returned the marijuana to the judge rather than the party it was seized from, he said.

However, there may be little left for the Satterfields to collect should the ruling go their way.

When a marijuana garden is seized, the law allows the seizing agency to take five representative samples from different plants and to destroy the rest, McGrath said.

"It's typically done in every type of case that involves marijuana cultivation," he said. "I would be surprised if NET (Yuba-Sutter Narcotic Enforcement Team) had not done that."

Doyle Satterfield needs the marijuana for his insomnia and arthritis, Waggoman said. His wife uses it because she has chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer.

"All we're doing is asking the court to order law enforcement, the person holding it, we're asking that law enforcement return to them what's rightfully theirs," Waggoman said.

Harold Kruger reports on people and events happening in Yuba and Sutter counties and courts.

Note: Judge delays making decision until next week.

Source: Appeal-Democrat (CA)
Author: Harold Kruger, Appeal-Democrat
Published: Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Copyright: 2002 Appeal-Democrat
Website: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/
Contact: laura_nicholson@link.freedom.com

Medical Marijuana Information Links
http://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm

CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #3 posted by ekim on March 05, 2002 at 14:19:45 PT:

web site for former post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/drugnews/message/5641

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by ekim on March 05, 2002 at 14:14:28 PT:

IACM-Bulletin of 3 March 2002
From: Peter Webster Date: Mon Mar 4, 2002 1:17 pm Subject: Conference On Cannabis Research In Brussels

[excerpt]

From: "Int. Association for Cannabis as Medicine" * Europe: Conference on cannabis research in Brussels

1.

Europe: Conference on cannabis research in Brussels

About 100 invited scientists and governmental representatives met for a scientific conference on cannabis in Brussels on 25 February initiated by the health ministers of Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, and Germany, among them four health ministers of the inviting countries and one drugs commissioner (Germany).

The conference gave an overview on the actual state of cannabis research, including epidemiological, psychological, sociological, and neurobiological topics on recreational use. The medical use of cannabis was only a minor topic with a talk by a representative of the Dutch Office for Medicinal Cannabis. Most of the participants agreed in the medical potential of the drug with little opposition, among them from a representative of the Swedish Health ministry.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by Ben Cohn on March 05, 2002 at 12:15:31 PT:

D.A. McGrath should read the CA Constitution
As the late (and so often lamented) Peter McWilliams repeatedly pointed out, there is no conflict involved if the California cops properly enforce the Compassionate Use Act (a.k.a. Prop 215) under the Constitution of the state of California.

The evidence:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or TO REFUSE TO ENFORCE A STATUTE ON THE BASIS THAT FEDERAL LAW OR FEDERAL REGULATIONS PROHIBIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH STATUTE [emphasis mine] unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

There has been NO appellate decision made on this subject, so California law still trumps federal law in the situation. California police are SWORN to uphold their state laws against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC. Encroaching federal officers, such as DEA and FBI should have been considered domestic enemies and should have been arrested when they went after California citizens who were abiding by state law.

Shouldn't a District Attorney know his own state's Constitutional law? He is either ignorant, corrupt, or both, and should be removed from his office.

Peace

BC

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 05, 2002 at 08:50:23