cannabisnews.com: Case Puts Law Enforcement in Bind





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
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-DemocratPublished: Tuesday, March 5, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Appeal-DemocratWebsite: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/Contact: laura_nicholson link.freedom.comMedical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://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 Brussels1.Europe: Conference on cannabis research in BrusselsAbout 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 CALIFORNIASEC. 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.PeaceBC
California Constitution Article 3
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment