Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  Sheriff Gives Marijuana To The Court
Posted by CN Staff on May 04, 2002 at 07:31:47 PT
By Harold Kruger, Appeal-Democrat 
Source: Appeal-Democrat  

medical Yuba County Sheriff Virginia Black turned over medical marijuana to Superior Court officials Friday, ending a week of controversy and drama. Black had defied a judge's order to return the pot to Doyle and Belinda Satterfield, saying she didn't want to violate federal law.

"I have to say I personally am satisfied I was able to maintain my stand," Black said. "I did not compromise my beliefs in the law, whether it be federal or state law. I have acted appropriately in response to a lawfully issued order from a Yuba County Superior Court judge. I'm comfortable in doing that."

Black said Judge Dennis Buckley signed a revised order that instructed her to deliver the marijuana to the court.

District Attorney Pat McGrath said a "reasonable accommodation of the sheriff's legitimate concerns was reached that allows the court to carry out what it feels is the correct disposition of the Satterfields' marijuana under state law," avoiding a "nasty confrontation over any possible conflict between the sheriff's responsibilities under federal law and the court order."

He said a hearing is scheduled Monday in Superior Court for "further proceedings" in the Satterfields' matter.

"It's a step in the right direction," said Jud Waggoman, an attorney for the Satterfields. "We just reached a compromise to get it out of the hands of the sheriff."

The Satterfields were arrested last August and charged with illegally cultivating marijuana. The case was dropped in January after they proved to prosecutors that they needed the drugs for their medical needs under Proposition 215.

Earlier this week, Judge James Curry ordered that the marijuana - 37 plants and 41/2 pounds of dried material - be returned to the Satterfields.

Black refused, saying marijuana is still classified as a narcotic by the federal government and she would not release it to someone outside of law enforcement or the courts.

"It's important from the standpoint of the Sheriff's Department and the county counsel that the kind of immediate problem has now been avoided that focused on how do you fulfill the court's order and still fulfill the good-faith belief you can't follow that order under federal law," McGrath said.

Black said her "role in this is not going to end now. This week it was me. Last week it was some other sheriff. Next week it will be another sheriff. Until federal law can accommodate California law, there will always be this conflict."

Next month, at an annual conference of California sheriffs, Black said she will urge that letters be sent to Attorney General John Ashcroft and other federal officials, asking them "to remedy the situation."

Black said she doesn't want to face "this situation ever again. I have sympathy for sheriffs who will in the future."

Right now, she said, "The feds don't want to prosecute sheriffs, nor do state judges want to find sheriffs in contempt. It's just a point in law that's in total conflict, and it has to be remedied."

The sheriff said she received about 35 phone calls supporting her, plus a few cards and letters.

"I truly appreciate all the phone calls, letters and cards of support that I have received from people in both Yuba and Sutter counties who support my stand," she said.

Black said she doesn't plan to attend Monday's court hearing.

"I have no further interest in it," she said.

McGrath said there's little that local officials can do about the conflict between state and federal law.

"In the great scheme of things, we are just worker bees," he said. "We have very little control of this collision between the Titanic of state law and the iceberg of federal law. We're on the boat. When the boat runs into ice and the boat begins to flood, what do we do?"

As for this week's events, McGrath said, "Everyone concerned, whether the Satterfields' attorneys, the county counsel or the sheriff or myself, I think everybody wished that we'd rather be doing other things."

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

Note: Compromise reached over return of property.

Source: Appeal-Democrat (CA)
Author: Harold Kruger, Appeal-Democrat
Published: Saturday, May 4, 2002
Copyright: 2002 Appeal-Democrat
Website: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/
Contact: laura_nicholson@link.freedom.com

Related Articles & Web Site:

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

SF Judge Fuels Yuba Pot Fight
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12714.shtml

Seized Medicinal Pot Isn't Easy To Get Back
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12705.shtml

Sheriff Won't Return Marijuana
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12684.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #3 posted by lookinside on May 04, 2002 at 13:20:21 PT:

Agreed...
The time has arrived for a blizzard of cases concerning state's rights and other Amendments to hit the legal system.

The lowest court in the land may be forced to actually read the Constitution in the next year or two. When they do, John Walters may find his bureaucracy defunct and illegal. As it should be.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on May 04, 2002 at 09:47:41 PT
Sheriff Black's Insubordination.
California Constitution states that State LAW supercedes FERERAL law until hammered out in court.

There is no shade of grey: she had to give the cannabis back as the Judge ordered, unholding the California Constitution.

Sherriff Black is playing the Sheriff's Game of doing anything possible to Federalize every cannabis bust - especially medical - in California. Everything that she hgas said is irrelavant, except for the bit about writing letters to Ashcroft asking that he "remedy the situation".

(Isnt "Remedy" a Black Crowes song about weed?)

This is what it's all about: getting the Federal Government to take the State's Right Challenge into Court.

The Federal Government - Bush, Ashcroft, Hutchinson, walters, Lott, Helms, Hatch, Hastert - is the Starting Lineup in the "them" side of the Culture war. Its absolutley a Bill of Rights Assignation sqaud. They'll be circulating the story they they were "asked" to press the States Rights issues due to pressure from concerned sheriffs.

Sheriff's in california will be find their elected office contingent upon proper enforcement of Stae Law 215. Sheriff Hill who eventually returned Jack Campo cannabis will fare better than this Sheriff Black. Plain and simple.

(Sheriff's need to be reminded it's no longer a Prop. apparently.)

Prohibition is Corruption

FREEDOM ENDURES

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by lookinside on May 04, 2002 at 09:22:23 PT:

A reasonable solution...
The sheriff's decision is pragmatic. The judge's revised order makes sense, under the circumstances.

In my opinion, law enforcement should never confiscate Cannabis in any form(In California) if the owner shows proof of medicinal use. Taking photos, a sample and a copy of the patient's recommendation should be enough to allow law enforcement to check the person's story.

If the grower is lying about his patient status, then the authorities already have enough evidence to make their case.

[ 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 May 04, 2002 at 07:31:47