Links and Resources for Clients and Colleagues
Notice: These are resources, not recommendations or endorsements.
Caution: Always confirm the accuracy of information with an attorney before relying upon it.
Key Marijuana Court Cases (CA)
People v. Torres (2nd Dist. 2012) holding officers warrantless entry into hotel room based solely on smell of burning marijuana was illegal absent any indicia that a jailable offense had or was occurring (possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana is an infraction punishable by a fine of no more than $100 per H&S 11357(b)). See, also, People v. Hua (1st Dist. 2008).
Robey v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara (2nd Dist. 2011) refusing to apply a "plain smell" doctrine, where a FedEx package was pulled from the shipping line due to a strong odor of marijuana and turned over to police pursuant to FedEx policy. The court held that, in a non-automobile case, although the odor of marijuana gave police probable cause to obtain a search warrant, there was no "exigent circumstance" (compelling necessity) excusing the warrant requirement since the package was in custody, and without other evidence corroborating the contents of the package, when the officers chose not to seek a warrant, the search resulting from opening the package was illegal and the evidence of the marijuana was suppressed.
People v. Doolaege (unpublished, not to be cited; 1st Dist. 2011) originating in Sonoma County, reversing conviction for unlawful cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358), finding sheriff's deputies illegally entered defendants' property: "A person who surrounds his back yard with a fence, and limits entry with a gate, locked or unlocked, has shown a reasonable expectation of privacy for that area. The area is protected from unreasonable government intrusion, or a warrantless search, unless the circumstances excuse the warrant."
People v. Wayman (4th Dist. 2010) examining transportation of medical marijuana
People v. Beaty (5th Dist. 2010) reversing denial of Prop. 36 diversion with medical marijuana recommendation
People v. Kelly (Cal Supreme Court 2010) invalidating H&S 11362.77 limiting quantity for non-card holders rather than permitting an amount reasonably related to current medical needs
People v. Moret (1st Dist. 2009) questioning the validity of Tilehkooh (below) in light of the subsequently enacted H&S 11362.795(a), and finding that a defendant can choose to waive his MMP rights in favor of a lighter sentence on probation, where a probation condition is to refrain from use or possession of marijuana regardless of a valid physician's recommendation, in a case where the probation condition is related to the conviction (illegal marijuana possession, cultivation). See also, People v. Hughes, People v. Bianco, and People v. Brooks
County of Butte v. Superior Court (Williams) (3rd Dist. 2009) allowing civil action for damages in illegal police seizure of marijuana
Ross v. RagingWire (Cal Supreme Court 2008) holding an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions; the Compassionate Use Act is not applicable to employment law
County of San Diego v. NORML (4th Dist. 2008) rejecting challenges by San Diego and San Bernardino Counties to the Medical Marijuana Program Act (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11362.7-11362.9 (MMP)), which requires counties to implement a program permitting persons—those who qualify for exemption from California's statutes criminalizing certain conduct with respect to marijuana—to apply for and obtain an identification card verifying their exemption, holding that the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904 (CSA)) does not preempt or invalidate the MMP.
People v. Bergen (2nd Dist. 2008) examining hash processing
City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (4th Dist. 2007) requiring return of illegally confiscated marijuana, reaffirming state courts cannot enforce federal criminal statutes
People v. Mentch (6th Dist. 2006) examining primary caregivers
Gonzales v. Raich (US Supreme Court 2005) holding that the federal government has the authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana pursuant to the CSA regardless of a person's compliance with California law
People v. Urziceanu (3rd Dist. 2005) examining & upholding collectives
People v. Spark (5th Dist. 2004) holding the court cannot second-guess a doctor recommendation for medical marijuana use
People v. Tilehkooh (3rd Dist. 2003) rejecting prohibition of medical marijuana use while on probation, and holding state courts cannot enforce federal criminal statutes (but see the 2009 Moret case, above)
People v. Mower (Cal Supreme Court 2002) holding H&S 11362.5(d) grants a defendant limited immunity from prosecution, which not only allows a defense at trial, but also permits a motion to set aside an indictment or information prior to trial
People v. Rigo (1st Dist. 1999) requires physician approval prior to cultivation/use/arrest, not subsequent to arrest
People v. Trippet (1st Dist. 1997) allowing medical marijuana defense to possession and transportation charges, with showing of oral or written physician recommendation or approval
Resources
"Name Something That Gets Passed Around"
