Spliff Twister
New Member
Cal NORML attorney Bill Panzer reports an important victory for
Prop 215 patients in a Contra Coast MMJ cultivation case. Superior
Court Judge Charles "Steve" Treat ruled that defendant Joshua Strock
was entitled to seek a Prop. 215 defense despite the fact that he had
exceeded the SB 420 cultivation limits and did not have a doctor's
okay to do so. In a written decision, Treat ruled that the SB 420
cultivation limits are an unconstitutional limitation of Prop. 215,
affirming the view of Prop. 215 proponents that the SB 420 quantity
limits in H&SC 11362.77 are not determinative of patients' guilt,
although they may be used as guidelines for law enforcement in making
arrests:
"I hold that insofar as section 11362.77 operates to limit or
bar the compassionate use defense that may be presented under
Proposition 215, it constitutes a legislative amendment of an
initiative statute. It is therefore unconstitutional to that extent
(but only that extent) under Cal. Const. Art. 2, sec. 10(c).
However, this holding does not affect the applicability or validity
of section 11362.77 for any other purpose (such a limitation on
operation of the MMPA's ID-card program."
Because it is not an appellate ruling, Treat's decision is
not binding on other courts, but it can be cited by attorneys as an
argument when presenting a case. Copies are available in hard copy
form (only) from Cal NORML or Bill Panzer wgpanzer@earthlink.net
- D . Gieringer
Prop 215 patients in a Contra Coast MMJ cultivation case. Superior
Court Judge Charles "Steve" Treat ruled that defendant Joshua Strock
was entitled to seek a Prop. 215 defense despite the fact that he had
exceeded the SB 420 cultivation limits and did not have a doctor's
okay to do so. In a written decision, Treat ruled that the SB 420
cultivation limits are an unconstitutional limitation of Prop. 215,
affirming the view of Prop. 215 proponents that the SB 420 quantity
limits in H&SC 11362.77 are not determinative of patients' guilt,
although they may be used as guidelines for law enforcement in making
arrests:
"I hold that insofar as section 11362.77 operates to limit or
bar the compassionate use defense that may be presented under
Proposition 215, it constitutes a legislative amendment of an
initiative statute. It is therefore unconstitutional to that extent
(but only that extent) under Cal. Const. Art. 2, sec. 10(c).
However, this holding does not affect the applicability or validity
of section 11362.77 for any other purpose (such a limitation on
operation of the MMPA's ID-card program."
Because it is not an appellate ruling, Treat's decision is
not binding on other courts, but it can be cited by attorneys as an
argument when presenting a case. Copies are available in hard copy
form (only) from Cal NORML or Bill Panzer wgpanzer@earthlink.net
- D . Gieringer
