1. ASA Gives Strong Argument Before Appeals Court in Collective Case

This week ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford presented oral arguments before the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District in Sacramento.  The case in question, Williams v. Butte County, involves a small patient collective which was harassed by the Butte County Sheriff’s Office. Williams and six other patients had pooled their labor and resources to maintain a 41-plant garden on Williams’ property.  But during one of the notorious Butte County sweeps several years ago, Deputy Sheriff Jacob Hancock came to Williams’ property without a warrant and required him to tear down all but twelve of the plants upon threat of arrest.  The Deputy allowed Williams to keep six plants for himself and six plants for his wife.

This illegal seizure of the collective’s medicine was based on a Butte county policy that forbids patient collectives, unless every member of the collective lives on the property or physically tills the soil.  This is a restriction not found anywhere in California law, so ASA sued.  And won.  The trial court agreed that the Butte County policy conflicts with state law, which does not contain such restrictions on collectives.  Further, the court agreed with ASA that a patient could state a claim for unreasonable search and seizure under California law in such a circumstance.

So Butte County took the matter up with the Court of Appeal, and was was later joined by the California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs’ Association, and California Sherriffs’ Association, who seem to be filing amicus briefs against us in nearly every ASA case.

At the hearing, the Court asked a series of tough questions to Butte County.  Early on, one Justice asked whether any law enforcement can seize any medical cannabis at any time, since it remains illegal under federal law.  After the Butte attorney answered that that was probably so, another Justice of the three-Judge panel remarked that this might violate the spirit of Proposition 215 and asked whether the electorate wouldn’t be “mystified” by a decision that would allow law enforcement to seize cannabis from patients without any restriction whatsoever.  This was a very welcome start.

In the argument, Elford quoted from the California Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. Mower that “probable cause depends on all of the circumstances, including one’s status as a qualified medical marijuana patient.”  Which puts a restriction on the ability of law enforcement to seize medicine from qualified patients — there must be probable cause under state law.  And there was none here.  Furthermore, the officer acted in this case without a warrant, and without any exigent circumstance to justify a warrantless seizure — he knew that Williams wanted to keep the marijuana and was not going to destroy it on his own.  He had no good excuse for failing to get a warrant.

The case is an important one, and ASA expects a ruling within 90 days.

2. Galt, Vacaville Extend Moratorium

The Galt City Council last week voted 4-1 to extend a moratorium on allowing medical cannabis dispensing collectives to provide for patient needs in the city. In the process, they began movement on creating a permanent ban to be implemented once the 10 and a half month ordinance expires.

After an inquiry was made into Galt’s current city codes and zoning ordinances about the possibility of creating a safe access site for patients, city staff discovered there was no policy, and Galt Community Planning Director Curt Campion then requested that City Council adopt an urgency ordinance to provide staff direction should they receive an application for a dispensing collective. Galt Mayor Randy Shelton, Vice Mayor Barbara Payne and Councilmen Darryl Clare and Don Haines all voted to extend the moratorium.

Galt City Councilman Andrew Meredith was the lone voice in support of a dispensing collective.  He said he recognized that cannabis has a therapeutic value for patients suffering from diseases like AIDS and cancer, and that those patients are entitled to receive the best possible care for their illness. The city will revisit the issue when the first draft of the permanent ban is ready for the council agenda.

Additionally, the City Council in Vacaville also passed a 45 days moratorium by a vote of 4-0 on Tuesday, claiming to want to wait for the outcome of an Appeals Court decision in Qualified Patients’ Association vs. the City of Anaheim, which looks at whether a ban on medical cannabis dispensing collectives is even legal under state law.  Currently there are no dispensing collectives established in Vacaville, but the Council will review the issue as the moratorium expires.

3. LAPD Resists California Medical Cannabis Laws

LAPD Detective Supervisor Holcomb from the Devonshire precinct in the San Fernando Valley claimed that his department closed four Los Angeles medical cannabis dispensing collectives in recent days. Speaking with defense attorney Bill Kroger, who represents one of the collectives, Holcomb said the LA City Council’s ongoing effort to regulate these facilities is irrelevant because the associations violate state law. The extent of the police activity is still unconfirmed, but if Holcomb’s claims are true, this may be an early sign of an LAPD offensive against collectives in the San Fernando Valley.

Holcomb told the attorney that the collectives were illegal under People v. Mentch, a California Supreme Court case which limited the ability of cannabis growers to act as primary caregivers – but has no impact on collective and cooperative associations. The Detective also misrepresented California law when he told the attorney that selling cannabis was illegal under all circumstances. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775 specifically allows sales within the membership of a patients’ collective or cooperative. In People v. Urziceanu, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a decision affirming the legality of patients’ associations, and held that state law provides for a defense to cannabis distribution for collectives and cooperatives.

Detective Holcomb’s comments are not surprising or new. A culture of resistance to medical cannabis permeates the LAPD, as it does most law enforcement agencies. Officers often grasp at straws trying to explain away Proposition 215, Senate Bill 420, and the mountain of case law upholding our state law and patients’ rights. Holcomb’s arguments are remarkably similar to those offered by outgoing Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo when he offered a draft ordinance designed to close all storefront patients’ associations in Los Angeles earlier this year. The LAPD is apparently reading from the lame duck City Attorney’s talking points.

Law enforcement resistance to medical cannabis can not be explained by ignorance. Last year, California Attorney General Jerry Brown published guidelines saying that “a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law,” provided the facility substantially complies with the guidelines. This is not wishful thinking from medical cannabis advocates. This is direction from the state’s top law enforcement official.

There may be times when local law enforcement must intervene in a patients association to protect members and the welfare of the community at large, or to police bona fide violations of state law. However, blanket judgments and untenable legal explanations are evidence continued resistance and bad faith – not effective police work. Elected officials, voters, and finally the courts, must hold this kind of enforcement in check if we are to realize the opportunity for full implementation of state law offered by the new evolving federal policy.

Yesterday, in an interview with National Journal, the Obama Administration’s Director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (a.k.a., our nation’s “Drug Czar”) indicated that the therapeutic use of cannabis is not a particularly high priority on his agenda.

When asked directly about whether he plans to review and consider changes to the nation’s medical cannabis policies, Dir. Kerlikowske indicated that he had not yet spoken with the Attorney General, but planned on “following up with that pretty closely.”   When pressed about whether ONDCP would consider conducting a study on the topic, Dir. Kerlikowske indicated that considering such a review “is a little premature” and further indicated that that increase of prescription drug use and related overdose deaths was “a little higher on my priorities right now than the medical marijuana issue…”

Thank goodness!  In contrast to the fervor for misinformation campaigns lead by our previous drug czars, I welcome this commitment to re-prioritizing ONDCP’s focus.  In particular, the limited use of cannabis for  appropriate therapeutic purposes should never have been among ONDCPs priorities in the first place.  And, while I respect the call for better direction by some of our allies, the reality is that until the drug czar is no longer required by law to lie, the best we can hope for at the moment is Dir. Kerlikowske’s silence.

You can bet that ASA will be monitoring this development closely.

LAPD Detective Supervisor Holcomb from the Devonshire precinct in the San Fernando Valley claims the department closed four Los Angeles medical cannabis collectives in recent days. Speaking with defense attorney Bill Kroger, who represents one of the collectives, Holcomb said the City Council’s ongoing effort to regulate these facilities is irrelevant because the associations violate state law. The extent of the police activity is still unconfirmed, but if Holcomb’s claims are true, this may be an early sign of an LAPD offensive against collectives in the San Fernando Valley.

Holcomb told the attorney that the collectives were illegal under People v. Mentch, a California Supreme Court case which limited the ability of cannabis growers to act as Primary Caregivers – but has no impact on collective and cooperative associations. The Detective also misrepresented California law when he told the attorney that selling cannabis was illegal under all circumstances. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775 specifically allows sales within the membership of a patients’ collective or cooperative. In People v. Urziceanu, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a decision affirming the legality of patients’ associations, and held that state law provides for a defense to cannabis distribution for collectives and cooperatives.

Detective Holcomb’s comments are not surprising or new. A culture of resistance to medical cannabis permeates the LAPD, as it does most law enforcement agencies. Officers often grasp at straws trying to explain away Proposition 215, Senate Bill 420, and the mountain of case law upholding our state law and patients’ rights. Holcomb’s arguments are remarkably similar to those offered by outgoing Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo when he offered a draft ordinance designed to close all storefront patients’ associations in Los Angeles earlier this year. The LAPD is apparently reading from the lame duck City Attorney’s talking points.

Law enforcement resistance to medical cannabis can not be explained by ignorance. Last year, California Attorney General Jerry Brown published guidelines saying that “a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law,” provided the facility substantially complies with the guidelines. This is not wishful thinking from medical cannabis advocates. This is direction from the state’s top law enforcement official.

There may be times when local law enforcement must intervene in a patients association to protect members and the welfare of the community at large, or to police bona fide violations of state law. However, blanket judgments and untenable legal explanations are evidence continued resistance and bad faith – not effective police work. Elected officials, voters, and finally the courts, must hold this kind of enforcement in check if we are to realize the opportunity for full implementation of state law offered by the new evolving federal policy.

Today, I had an oral argument before the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, which is a state court in Sacramento.  The case is Williams v. Butte County , which involves a small patient collective, which was harassed by the Butte County Sheriff’s Office.  Specifically, Williams and six other patients pooled their labor and resources to maintain a 41-plant garden on Williams’ property.  During one of the notorious Butte County sweeps several years ago, Deputy Sheriff Jacob Hancock came to Williams’ property without a warrant and required him to tear down all but twelve of the plants upon threat of arrest.  The Deputy allowed Williams to keep six plants for himself and six plants for his wife.

By all apearances, this illegal constructive seizure of the collective’s medicine was based on a Butte county policy that forbids patient collectives, unless every member of the collective lives on the property or physicially tills the soil.  This is a restriction not found anywhere in California law (picture REI, for instance), so ASA sued.  And won .  The trial court agreed that the Butte County policy conflicts with and is preempted by state law, which does not contain such restrictions on collectives.  Further, the court agreed with ASA that a patient could state a claim for unreasonable search and seziure under California law in such a circumstance.

Dissatisfied, the County of Butte took the matter up with the Court of Appeal for the Third District by filing a writ.  Later, it was joined by the police associations (California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs’ Association, and California Sherriffs’ Association), who seem to be filing amicus briefs against us in nearly every ASA case.  Over a year later, the case was heard by the Third District.

The Court asked a series of tough questions to Butte County.  Early on, one Justice asked whether there is no restriction on seizures of marijuana by state officials, since it remains illegal under federal law.  After County Counsel answered that that was probably so, another Justice of the three-Justice panel remarked that this would seemed to violate the spirit of Proposition 215 and asked whether the electorate would be "mystified" by a decision that would allow law enforcement to seize marijuana from patients without any restriction whatsoever.  This was a very welcome start.

When it was my turn, I started by quoting from the California Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. Mower to the effect that "probable cause depends on all of the circumstances, including one’s status as a qualified medical marijuana patient."  This would mean that there is a restriction on the ability of law enforcement to seize medicine from qualified patients — there must be probable cause under state law.  And there was none here.  Furthermore, the officer acted in this case without a warrant, and without any exigent circumstance to justify a warrantless seizure — he knew that Williams wanted to keep the marijuana and was not going to destroy it on his own.  He had no good excuse for failing to get a warrant.

The court certainly appreciates that this is a very interesting case and will give it thoughtful consideration.  I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome, but will not hazard a guess.  I will say, though, that I did not expect as a child to spend Memorial Day reading medical marijuana cases in preparation for oral argument.

The tiny state of Rhode Island took a big step last week when the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing nonprofit associations to “acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana” to legal patients. The Senate has already adopted a similar bill, and the 63 to 5 margin in the House makes the bill veto-proof. Patients and caregivers in Rhode Island may be the first to acquire medicine from 100% legal dispensing associations.

The significance of this should not be lost on lawmakers in Washington, DC – or in cities and counties in California. More than twelve years have passed since California voters approved the nation’s first statewide compassionate use law. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has raided hundreds of patients’ associations in California since then. Providers have been arrested, prosecuted, and even jailed. Despite a brief respite from DEA raids and indications of reform from the new Administration, there is still along way to go in defining the new “American policy” announced by Attorney General Eric Holder in February.

State and local representatives also have work to do. Too few of California’s cities and counties have adopted ordinances like the provisions that will soon become law in Rhode Island, despite the fact that research by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) indicates sensible regulations reduce crime and complaints around patients’ associations. Far too many jurisdictions have banned safe access altogether by prohibiting dispensing collectives and cooperatives outright. That flies in the faces of common sense and leaves legal patients at the mercy of a dangerous and unregulated illicit market. The example of Rhode Island should make it clear that regulating safe access is the path forward.

Patients and their loved ones can hope that Congress, other states, and local government follow in the trail blazed by our smallest state. Most Americans believe that cannabis is medicine. It is past time for their elected representatives to catch up and adopt the guidelines that make the voters’ will a reality for patients all over the country.

I am blogging with good news from Washington, DC.  Today, ASA helped to kill an amendment aimed at obstructing the effective implementation of duly enacted state medical cannabis laws!

Earlier this week, ASA’s National Office was notified that Sen. Coburn (R-OK) intended to add a medical marijuana amendment to S. 982, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Frustrated by the Obama Administration’s continued pledge to not interfere with state medical marijuana laws, Sen. Coburn (R-OK) attempted to slip in legislation designed to undermine these programs.

The text of Sen. Coburn’s amendment is as follows:

SEC._. MEDICAL MARIJUANA. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall- (1) require that State-legalized medical marijuana shall be subject to the full regulatory requirements of the Food and Drug Administration, including a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy and all other requirements and penalties of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.) regarding safe and effective reviews, approval, sale, marketing, and use of pharmaceuticals; and (2) require that any State-legalized marijuana likely to be offered to, or purchase by, consumers as marijuana intended to be consumed as a cigarette or through the oral cavity will be subject to section 900 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as amended by section 101).”

At present, the ONLY way for medical marijuana to be properly evaluated by the FDA is for privately-funded sponsors to conduct FDA-approved clinical trials (like any other drug evaluation).   If Senator Coburn’s intentions with regard to the medical efficacy of marijuana were genuine, he would consider first removing the monopoly imposed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on licenses for the cultivation of medical-grade cannabis for research purposes. Currently, the DEA exclusively licenses the cultivation of medical-grade cannabis to the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), which primarily investigates only the negative effects of cannabis. This monopoly obstructs any investigation and research in the U.S. into the medical properties of cannabis and thwarts the normal drug approval process.

This isn’t the first time Sen. Coburn has attempted to add this amendment to unrelated legislation. Recall, he made a similar attempt in 2007 when he tried to append the amendment to an unrelated FDA prescription drug bill.  In fact, then-Senators Obama and Clinton voted against the measure. While Sen Coburn managed to slip it in at committee level, ASA managed to get it removed during conference committee.

Today, in a 10-13 party-line vote, we managed to kill the amendment in Committee!  Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Reed (D-RI) were key opponents to the amendment.

SEND YOUR THANKS and PRAISE to the each of the following offices:

Senator Bingaman (D, NM)
Phone: (202) 224-5521
Email: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Senator Brown (D, OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Email: http://brown.senate.gov/contact/

Senator Casey (D, PA)
Phone: (202) 224-6324
Email: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/

Senator Dodd (D, CT)
Phone: (202) 224-2823
Email: http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3128

Senator Hagan (D, NC)
Phone: (202) 224-6342
Email: http://hagan.senate.gov/?p=contact

Senator Harkin (D, IA)
Phone: (202) 224-3254
Email: http://harkin.senate.gov/c/

Senator Kennedy (D, MA)
Phone: (202) 224-4543
Email: http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm

Senator Merkley (D, OR)
Phone: (202) 224-3753
Email: http://merkley.senate.gov/contact/

Senator Mikulski (D, MD)
Phone: (202) 224-4654
Email: http://mikulski.senate.gov/Contact/contact.cfm

Senator Murray (D, WA)
Phone: (202) 224-2621
Email: http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Senator Reed (D, RI)
Phone: (202) 224-4642
Email: http://reed.senate.gov/contact/contact-share.cfm

Senator Sanders (I, VT)
Phone: (202) 224-5141
Email: http://sanders.senate.gov/comments/

Senator Whitehouse (D, RI)
Phone: (202) 224-2921
Email: http://whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/

The US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in San Diego v. San Diego NORML, solidifying an important victory for medical cannabis patients in California. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) intervened on behalf of legal patients when the County of San Diego sued to overturn provisions of the state’s medical cannabis laws in 2006. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the position of the California Appellate Court – cities and counties can not use federal law as an excuse to ignore state law.

The Supreme Court’s decision forces cities and counties to finally confront the voter’s mandate in Proposition 215 “to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.” Jurisdictions like San Diego County and co-plaintiff San Bernardino County can no longer use federal law as an excuse for failing to implement state law.  This means, at minimum, they must issue the medical cannabis ID cards mandated by SB 420, the requirement that triggered the county’s 2006 lawsuit.

The ruling also indicates that cities and counties must begin the sometimes-controversial work of writing regulations for medical cannabis patients’ associations, developing law enforcement policies, and preventing discrimination against legal patients. Elected representatives do a disservice to their constituents when they ignore their obligation to implement state law. Research and experience show that sensible regulations for local access reduce crime and complaints; and ASA court victories against the California Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the City of Garden Grove prove that inappropriate law enforcement policies can be costly.

The County of San Diego and other reluctant jurisdictions stand at a crossroads right now. They must choose between the benefits of regulation or the hazards of litigation.  Now is the time for patients and advocates to make their voices heard at City Council and Board of Supervisors meetings anywhere implementation is wanting.

1. Zip-Tie Program Approved for Mendocino Plants

A Mendocino Health committee approved a proposal that would allow individuals qualified to use medical cannabis to purchase “zip-ties” from the county to help avoid law enforcement confiscation of legal plants. The program is voluntary and will be recommended by the Health and Human Services Committee to the full Board of Supervisors at a later meeting, to be determined.  The zip-ties, to be distributed by the County Department of Public Health, would be secured at the base of the plant and would contain an identification number to allow for easy verification by law enforcement in unincorporated parts of Mendocino County.    The zip-ties would cost $25 each, but Medi-Cal recipients, Medicare patients, and veterans would be eligible for a reduced rate of 50% off.   The proposal has been championed by Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman.

2. Lake County Community Responds to Calls to Ban Dispensing Collectives

A Lake County Supervisors meeting was packed with residents who came to speak out against a ban on medical cannabis dispensing collectives last week.   The issue rose out of six controversial violation notices thatCommunity Development Director Rick Coel issued to the dispensing collectives on the same day that he suggested to Supervisors zoning changes to the City Code that would mention the collectives for the first time.  Coel took it upon himself to tell the collectives to cease operation, which prompted such backlash that County Supervisors instructed Coel to rescind the violations until the county could address the issue.  The supervisor meeting was filled with impassioned calls to ensure safe access to medical cannabis from community members who talked about how they use the plant to confront serious illnesses.  Supervisors made it clear that they were not interested in “coming between the patient and the physician”, and in the end, after some Supervisors cited their own experience with medical cannabis, the board asked county staff to begin looking into the issue and to bring recommendations that would ensure patients had safe access when they need it.  Specifically, supervisors noted that there was no need to “re-invent the wheel”, and asked staff to come back with a report on how Sonoma County created their regulations.

3. Oceanside, Nevada City Pass Moratorium, Cathedral City Bans Safe Access

City Councils in Nevada City and Oceanside last week both passed 45 day moratoriums on medical cannabis dispensing collectives in their city limits. Nevada City Police Chief Lou Trovato encouraged the Councilors to establish regulations for the businesses, and Oceanside passed their “urgency ordinance” because, after 13 years of medical cannabis in California, and 5 years after California SB 420 asserted the legality of dispensing collectives with none opening in the area, council members were afraid there would be a “proliferation” if they did not act immediately.  A Nevada City resident requested information from the city to open a dispensing collective, saying his goal is to provide a location for patients to access their medicine.

In addition, Cathedral City Council voted to ban medical cannabis dispensing collectives last week. One City Council member voiced a concern that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the public discourse, though there is little evidence to support it as a “growing problem”. The Council member claimed that doctors are providing recommendations in instances that they shouldn’t.  But, again, there was no evidence or explanation presented that this is a problem or that it is increasing.  And they provided no explanation as to how restricting safe access to medical cannabis through a ban on dispensing collectives may solve that perceived problem, if it does exist.

Councilmember Paul Marchand was incensed over a threat made by federal law enforcement to arrest elected officials who vote to allow medical cannabis facilities in their jurisdiction.

A new study entitled Marijuana Effectiveness as an HIV Self-Care Strategy, which was released this past weekend in Clinical Nursing Research, indicates that persons living with HIV/AIDS rate cannabis as more effective in treating the symptoms of anxiety, depression, fatigue, diarrhea, and neuropathy than other prescription and over the counter medications.

The study, which was conducted over a two year period and included 775 patients from the USA, Africa, and Puerto Rico, assessed the use of cannabis as a symptom management approach for anxiety, depression, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and peripheral neuropathy. 27% of survey participants reported using cannabis for medicinal purposes. Researchers wrote that cannabis use “was rated slightly more effective than antidepressants for anxiety and depression, Imodium for diarrhea, [over the counter] (OTC) medications for fatigue, and anti-epileptics and OTC medications for neuropathy” while cannabis was rated “slightly less effective for nausea than either prescribed or OTC medications.” Authors concluded that cannabis “is perceived by users as at least as effective as prescribed medications in symptom management.”

This survey supports the findings of previous clinical trials regarding medical cannabis’s efficacy in treating HIV/AIDS related symptoms. The first such trial, a double blind placebo controlled clinical trial, was conducted in February 2007 and demonstrated that smoked cannabis can relieve HIV related peripheral neuropathy. Two subsequent studies have further confirmed this finding, including a trial at UC Davis that found that even low doses of smoked cannabis can be effective in managing hard to treat neuropathic pain and in a separate trial at UCSF, which reported efficacy in short term treatment of HIV neuropathy.

1. Bryan Epis Conviction Upheld by Appeals Court

The ten year mandatory minimum sentence handed down to California’s first federal medical cannabis defendant, Bryan Epis, was upheld by a three judge Appeals Court panel this week, bringing continued concern for an unclear and uncertain policy being handed down by the White House on whether medical cannabis cases will be tried in state court, where defendants are allowed to present evidence that they were compliant with California law, and federal court, where they are not.  Epis, who was originally convicted in 2002 on conspiracy to grow over 1000 cannabis plants (though less than 500 were actually found), was growing for himself and four other patients, and has asserted that he was providing the remainder of the medical cannabis to patients who were complaint with and protected by California’s Proposition 215.

Epis was denied the right to raise a medical cannabis defense at his trial, setting the standard for years of federal defendants who were raided and prosecuted under the George W. Bush Administration, even though they were qualified to use medical cannabis under California law.  These individuals where framed to jurors as large scale drug enterprises, and were not allowed to mention the fact that they used and dispensed medical cannabis in a manor very often consistent with state law, sending many to federal prison. The panel upholding Epis’s conviction included highly controversial Judge Jay Bybee,  recently indicted as an international war criminal by the Government of Spain for having authored the Bush Administration’s notorious torture memos.  A petition to impeach Judge Bybee is being circulated.

Epis’s attorney will appeal for a complete re-hearing of the trial before the full Ninth Circuit.

2. Pomona Raid by Local Cops Causes Furor, Outrage

Officers from the Pomona Police Department conducted a malicious raid on a medical cannabis dispensing collective that left community members and patients in awe at the accounts of abuse at the hands of law enforcement.   The patients of the dispensing collective, which was open for 7 days, had received continuous harassment from the Pomona Police officers leading up to the raid.  Much of the following information is according to the accounts of witnesses.

According to volunteers, the officers kicked down the doors a little after 6:00 pm last Saturday evening without a warrant for the second time in 2 days, claiming they needed to sweep the office to make sure there was nobody in the building with a weapon.  They were unwilling to state any reasons for breaking in other than they were “investigating for crimes”.   They held everyone in the collective for over 4 hours while they attempted to obtain a search warrant.

During this time, Pomona Police officers threatened numerous patients at the collective, including the driver of a terminally ill cancer patient who had been filling out the proper paper work in the waiting room.  The cancer patient, who appeared gravely ill, asked the police officers if he could get the help of the volunteers to pick up his medicine and go home. The officers responded by telling him to go to a real pharmacy and get a prescription from a real doctor.  They then forced the cancer patient’s driver to leave the parking lot and drive off or he would be arrested.  The ill man, who is currently undergoing chemotherapy and required assistance of collective volunteers just to walk to the door, was left in the waiting room with no medicine and no ride home.  When he asked the officers to provide him with a ride home they refused.

The volunteers repeatedly asked officers to leave the premises until they could obtain a warrant.  When asked to see a copy of a warrant, the officers claimed they didn’t need one. Sergeant Leonard of Pomona PD said to a volunteer who had asked for a warrant, “You better be careful what you say to me son, because I am old school,” which the volunteer took this as a threat of physical violence.  Witnesses also claimed that officers stated they did not care about Proposition 215 or SB 420, repeating over and over that this was their turf, and that they were “old school.”

Leading up to the raid, Pomona officers had continuously harassed patients who attended the collective, pulling patients over and telling them never to return to the dispensing collective or they would be arrested.  They turned away one woman, who had lost her eyesight due to severe bloodloss during the birth of her 4th child, telling her to go to a hospital instead. One 20 year old patient suffering from brain cancer showed an officer the scars from his last surgery, where they attempted to remove a tumor.  The officer told him there were other medications to help him and if he returned he would be arrested.

According to witnesses, one officer even attacked a volunteer.  He threw him on the ground and assaulted him before putting him in cuffs and in a squad car. After being released from jail, the volunteer was sent to an emergency room to be checked out.  When the officer attacked him he hit his head and shoulder on the ground and suffered a shoulder injury.

Currently, 4 volunteers have been arrested and charged with multiple felonies with a court date set for May 18th.  Members of the collective are doing all they can to bring public and media attention to this egregious case of police abuse, to prompt action by the department and local city council members.    If you are interested in helping, please contatct Kara at kreyes_hill@yahoo.com, or you can contat Pomona City Officials.

Contact Pomona Mayor Elliot Rothman at Elliott_Rothman@ci.pomona.ca.us and by calling (909) 620-2042.

Emails can be sent to the following Pomona City Council members: Danielle_Soto@ci.pomona.ca.us, freddie_rodriguez@ci.pomona.ca.us, Cristina_Carrizosa@ci.pomona.ca.us, paula_lantz@ci.pomona.ca.us, Tim_Saunders@ci.pomona.ca.us, Stephen_Atchley@ci.pomona.ca.us, Erica_Ambriz@ci.pomona.ca.us

City Manager: Linda Lowry (909) 620-2051
City Attorney (909) 620-2311