Police Refuse Court Order to Return Medical Marijuana

[phill4paul]

Despite a recent court order, Pasadena police have flat-out refused to hand over a significant amount of medical marijuana seized from a local resident, out of erroneous concerns that they might suffer the wrath of prosecution under federal law. A motion against the department has since been filed, which could result in officers being held in contempt of court as well as serving some jail time.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court recently set forth a motion ordering the Pasadena Police Department to return over $8,000 worth of medical marijuana belonging to Charles Pollard, which was confiscated at his home during a recent police search. However, the police department has retaliated against the judge’s demands by filing a motion to challenge the order.

“There were rumors in LA County for some time the cops are going to start ignoring judges orders, and I thought they would never have the guts to do that,” Pollard’s attorney David Diamond recently told HIGH TIMES. “All of us, law enforcement included, are obligated to follow a judge’s orders. Without any doubt or uncertainty, the judge’s order was: return this medical marijuana.”

The incident, which led to this shrouded debacle chomped down by the overbite of the law, stems from what Diamond said is referred to as a “probation compliance search,” in which authorities randomly beat down the doors of people on probation in an attempt to catch them in a violation. “If people are on probation they’ve given up certain constitutional rights, meaning if you are on probation you can be searched, basically, at any time,” said Diamond. “Sometimes what they do is go to parts of the city or parts of the town where, because of socioeconomic factors there might be more people on probation.”


Pollard’s arrest poses an interesting question: does medical marijuana constitute a probation violation? Diamond says California judges are ruling both ways. “There are judges who, as a term and condition of probation, they’ll prohibit people from using medical marijuana, and there are judges who, I think, more appropriately say, “You know what, voters passed the law, and even though you’re on probation I’m going to let you use your medicine as you see fit,” he said. "It’s really up to each particular judge.”

In Pollard’s case, the judge found his possession of nearly twenty-five ounces of medical marijuana in compliance with his probation agreement and with state law, which led to a dismissal of the charges. “He had a lawful recommendation and there was no conviction for drugs,” said Diamond. “That’s the reason the judge decided to return the marijuana.”


“Every law enforcement officer takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the state of California, and they’re violating their oath,” he continued. “They’re also forcing the City Attorney to litigate this at extreme cost, so it’s a waste of money in a time when municipalities and government agencies are claiming to be broke. It’s an enormous waste of resources, an enormous waste of time, an enormous waste of money and an enormous waste of common sense.”

Diamond says the word on the street is regardless of the judge’s decision next Thursday, the city attorney does not intend to comply with the order, which “will open up a new can of worms” in the form of a lawsuit. “At some point the marijuana is going to have no value anymore, and if the police sit on it or destroy it, he’s out quite a bit of money,” he said. “And that’s something the police should be responsible for.”

http://www.hightimes.com/read/pasadena-police-refuse-court-order-return-medical-marijuana

[tod evans]

And this is where courts of justice would come into play were there such a thing.

Agents of the "Just-Us" system must be held accountable! :mad:

[phill4paul]

And this is where courts of justice would come into play where there such a thing.

Agents of the "Just-Us" system must be held accountable! :mad:

Well, it will be pretty easy to see just how serious this judge is. If they refuse then all he has to do is instruct the bailiff to arrest these scofflaws for contempt of court right then and there. Lead them out in handcuffs. I'm not holding out any hope for that though.

[tod evans]

Well, it will be pretty easy to see just how serious this judge is. If they refuse then all he has to do is instruct the bailiff to arrest these scofflaws for contempt of court right then and there. Lead them out in handcuffs. I'm not holding out any hope for that though.

We need a breath holding smiley.....:o

[specsaregood]

./

[DGambler]

We need a breath holding smiley.....:o

http://images.clipartof.com/thumbnails/433685-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Boy-Turning-Blue-While-Holding-His-Breath.jpg

[otherone]

http://images.clipartof.com/thumbnails/433685-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Boy-Turning-Blue-While-Holding-His-Breath.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hXwMKiq11iw/TMEjcBWNsGI/AAAAAAAAClQ/T67qhFI76kk/s1600/Calvin_Holding_Breath%5B1%5D.gif

[69360]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

[JK/SEA]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?


thanks for your opinion. And i'll just file it away over here..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..O..<<..

thanks. again.

[Cleaner44]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

How about we don't pretend that you are a doctor.

[satchelmcqueen]

i wonder if the maryjane has been smoked away or sold since it has been seized? maybe it doesnt exist anymore.

[SeanTX]

i wonder if the maryjane has been smoked away or sold since it has been seized? maybe it doesnt exist anymore.

This reminds me of a case I read about two or three years ago, where police were given a court order to return a valuable confiscated pistol to its owner, yet they were refusing to do so. I believe it was in Milwaukee. That pistol probably went into some high-ranking officer's private collection -- I don't know the outcome, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it still hasn't been returned.

Even on the rare occasions when the JustUs system tries to impose some accountability on its enforcers , the police often seem to find some way around it (like when fired officers are "forced" to be rehired by arbitrators).

[Christian Liberty]

I say lock them all up for life. Show them they should fear whoring for the Feds more than they should fear the Feds.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL @ "work within the system to change the laws".

[Occam's Banana]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

:confused: You just asked us to stop pretending that "that much weed is not medically necessary" - did you mean "is medically necessary" ... ?

In any case, "recreational" ... "retail" ... "medical" ... whatever ... why should it make any difference?

[Occam's Banana]

This story evokes memories of Peter McWilliams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams) - may he rest in peace.

There but for the "grace" of the State we go.

Perhaps we should consider Mr. Pollard fortunate ...

The Life and Death of Peter McWilliams
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n948/a03.html
R. W. Bradford (August 2000)

Another Casualty Of The War On Drugs

On June 14, Natalie Fisher went to Peter McWilliams' home, where she worked as housekeeper to the wheelchair-bound victim of AIDS and cancer. In the bathroom on the second floor, she found his life-less body. He had choked to death on his own vomit.

As regular readers of Liberty know, Peter, a world famous author and a regular contributor to these pages, was diagnosed with AIDS and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in early 1996. Like many people stricken with AIDS or cancer, he had great difficulty keeping down the drugs that controlled or mitigated those afflictions. He began to smoke marijuana to control the drug-induced nausea. It saved his life: by early 1998, both his cancer and his AIDS were under control.

In 1996, California voters enacted a law legalizing the use of marijuana by people, like Peter, who needed it for medical reasons. Peter was an enthusiastic supporter of the new law, both because he believed in maximizing human liberty and because marijuana had saved his life and was, indeed, keeping him alive.

But Peter was more than an advocate. After the Clinton administration announced it would ignore the state law and continue to prosecute marijuana users who needed the drug to stay alive, it remained very difficult for others who needed medical marijuana to get the drug. So Peter helped finance the efforts of Todd McCormick to cultivate marijuana for distribution to those who needed it for medical reasons.

His articulate advocacy of legalizing medical marijuana brought him to the attention of federal authorities, who got wind of Todd McCormick's attempt to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes and of Peter's involvement with it. And it came to pass that in the early morning of December 17, 1997, federal agents invaded his home and business, and confiscated a wide array of his property ( including his computers, one of whose hard disks contained the book he was writing ). In July 1998 they arrested him on charges of conspiring to grow marijuana.

His mother and brother put up their homes as bond and he was released from jail to await his trial. One of the conditions of his bail was that he smoke no marijuana. Unwilling to risk the homes of his mother and brother, he obeyed the order. His viral load, which had fallen to undetectable levels, now soared to dangerous levels:

"Unable to keep down the life-saving prescription medications, by November 1998, four months after my arrest, my viral load soared to more than 256,000. In 1996 when my viral load was only 12,500, I had already developed an AIDS-related cancer .... Even so, the government would not yield. It continued to urine test me. If marijuana were found in my system, my mother and brother would lose their homes and I would be returned to prison" said Peter.

Peter's health wasn't all that was ruined. Unable to work because of the disease and facing mounting legal bills, he was forced into bankruptcy. But he didn't give up: he experimented with various regimens and eventually managed to keep his medication down for as long as an hour and a quarter, long enough for some of the medication to work its way into his system. But the process had weakened him to the point where he was wheelchair-bound.

His publishing venture destroyed and his assets gone, Peter focused on his upcoming trial. He relished the chance to defend himself in court: medical marijuana was legal under state law and he believed a spirited defense could both exonerate him and help establish a legal fight to grow marijuana for medical purposes.

Last November, news came that would have crushed a lesser man: the judge in the case ruled that Peter could not present to the jury any information about his illness, the fact that the government's own research concludes that marijuana is virtually the only way to treat the illness, or that using marijuana for medical purposes was legal in California.

Unable to defend himself against the government's charges, Peter concluded that he had no choice but to plea bargain. He agreed to plead guilty, in hopes that any incarceration could be served under house arrest, since sending him to prison, where he would not be able to follow his lifesaving regimen, would be tantamount to sentencing him to death.

On June 11, there was a fire in his home, which destroyed the letters to the judge that he had acquired and the computer containing the book he was writing on his ordeal. Three days later, he died, apparently as a result of his inability to keep his medication down.

[ ... continued at link: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n948/a03.html]

[AFPVet]

Regardless of the reasoning, the court system outranks the cops. They must return it or face jail for contempt of court. Some judges don't mess around!

[Anti Federalist]

Last November, news came that would have crushed a lesser man: the judge in the case ruled that Peter could not present to the jury any information about his illness, the fact that the government's own research concludes that marijuana is virtually the only way to treat the illness, or that using marijuana for medical purposes was legal in California.

Unable to defend himself against the government's charges, Peter concluded that he had no choice but to plea bargain. He agreed to plead guilty, in hopes that any incarceration could be served under house arrest, since sending him to prison, where he would not be able to follow his lifesaving regimen, would be tantamount to sentencing him to death.

LOL @ "You will get your fair say in court".

[Anti Federalist]

This reminds me of a case I read about two or three years ago, where police were given a court order to return a valuable confiscated pistol to its owner, yet they were refusing to do so. I believe it was in Milwaukee. That pistol probably went into some high-ranking officer's private collection -- I don't know the outcome, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it still hasn't been returned.

Even on the rare occasions when the JustUs system tries to impose some accountability on its enforcers , the police often seem to find some way around it (like when fired officers are "forced" to be rehired by arbitrators).

It took a while...I think this is the case...in Ohio.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/03/20/police-seize-innocent-mans-gun-and-refuse-to-give-it-back/

[bunklocoempire]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

So get FDA ATF big pharma/big alcohol lobbyist approval? Oh, wait.

None of mine or anybody's business. We don't have to pretend about that. Come on 69360, let's dare to be a tad bit more free shall we?:)

[69360]

:confused: You just asked us to stop pretending that "that much weed is not medically necessary" - did you mean "is medically necessary" ... ?

In any case, "recreational" ... "retail" ... "medical" ... whatever ... why should it make any difference?

It really makes no difference to me why the guy wants it. It's fine with me that he has it for whatever reason. I just think it's kind of silly to call possession of that much medical. That's all.

I'm not your enemy here guys. I think all weed should be legal for whatever you want to do with it. I just kind of chuckle a bit at somebody with a pound and a half for "personal medical use"

[Christian Liberty]

LOL @ "You will get your fair say in court".

Yeah, that downright sickened me. How could anybody support marijuana criminalization after reading that? Its downright horrifying.

[mrsat_98]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?


How about we don't pretend that you are a doctor.

How about we all quite pretending that reducing us to animals is not genocide.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

Really ?

Although I cant say about this particular case, plenty of people use that much, especially large amounts are common with topical applications.

I have witnessed how cannabis can help save someone's life from cancer

[PaulConventionWV]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

Who says? Maybe he was stockpiling? Who gives a shit? It's just some fucking weed.

[coastie]

It really makes no difference to me why the guy wants it. It's fine with me that he has it for whatever reason. I just think it's kind of silly to call possession of that much medical. That's all.

I'm not your enemy here guys. I think all weed should be legal for whatever you want to do with it. I just kind of chuckle a bit at somebody with a pound and a half for "personal medical use"

You still have failed to mention why you think this is funny. That much weed really isn't a lot, especially when using it for making oils, salves, butter, whatever.

Your comment pulls away the facade that covers your deep disdain for marijuana users, maybe that's what's funny to you?

Because that's what I'm laughing at.

Sometimes it's just best to keep your fingers still.

[pcosmar]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

Doesn't fucking matter. Theft is theft.

[Origanalist]

Doesn't fucking matter. Theft is theft.

/ thread.

[specsaregood]

./

[GunnyFreedom]

It really makes no difference to me why the guy wants it. It's fine with me that he has it for whatever reason. I just think it's kind of silly to call possession of that much medical. That's all.

You do understand that the process of reducing them to edibles often drops extraordinary volume and mass, right? Does that knee need 200 mg of ibuprofen or 1200? What dosage is medicinal for whom, and for what issues? I don't think blanket statements can be made of any kind.


I'm not your enemy here guys. I think all weed should be legal for whatever you want to do with it. I just kind of chuckle a bit at somebody with a pound and a half for "personal medical use"

Cook it into tiny edibles at extremely high doses for something like multiple sclerosis I can totally see it. Maybe he and three good friends are all licensed and prescribed medicinal users and it was his turn to run to the shop. Who knows? What is it about the amount that has dropped a hitch into your getalong? Remember also, that medicinal use may imply a target dosage of some cannabinoid other than the one that makes the user 'stoned.' Therefore whatever dosage amounts you are accustomed to may not apply. Some medicinal cannabis has been cultivated for cannabinoids other than those which make you high, and so it takes a very large amount to 'feel' that effect. Some medicinal cannabis, particularly the ones tailored towards specific conditions, you can eat a half pound of the stuff green and feel nothing at all.

I think the point people are trying to make is that unless the dude is backing up the truck, you really cannot infer anything from the amount he had. If they are cooking with it, that's a pretty normal amount. What I have seen when I looked at this for the bill I helped introduce, is 5 patients throw in and pool for a buy where one guy then cooks it all up into edibles for everyone else.

[fr33]

If the police are afraid of the feds, then they are living in the world the rest of us live in. They have more resources than the average joe to stand up in the courts and fight the feds if it comes to that. They supposedly are officials representative of us average joes; the same constituency that nullified the federal law. Either respect states' rights or put an alphabet soup patch on your uniform.

[kcchiefs6465]

I disagree and nobody in this thread has addressed the actual issue at hand. Are the local police prosecutable by the feds if they essentially distribute marijuana (ie: return the seized pot to the owner). It has nothing to do with how much or whether it was medicine or if it should have even been seized in the first place.

The author of the piece says they are "erroneous concerns"; but offers no legal explanation as to why they are erroneous. I think its a valid concern.
Lol.

May their consciences not act a once.

Of all of the crimes they should be imprisoned for, returning a man's property is what has them "afraid."

To be clear, they aren't afraid. They are fascists who value their job security.

[GunnyFreedom]

Lol.

May their consciences not act a once.

Of all of the crimes they should be imprisoned for, returning a man's property is what has them "afraid."

To be clear, they aren't afraid. They are fascists who value their job security.

They've probably already smoked it. It's probably nothing more than theft of 'evidence' for personal use. The hemming and hawing is probably a blind panic. They will probably 'lose' the box eventually. Or replace it with the proceeds of the next bust.

[dannno]

I think the guy should get his weed back. But 25 ounces is probably more recreational or retail than medical, can we at least not pretend that that much weed is not medically necessary?

Actually medical users are sometimes the very heaviest of users. That could be as little as a 4-8 month supply.

Other medical users require very little, it just depends on the person and their condition.

Some recreational users only smoke one joint a month, so the amount isn't indicative of the type of use.

[69360]

You still have failed to mention why you think this is funny. That much weed really isn't a lot, especially when using it for making oils, salves, butter, whatever.

Your comment pulls away the facade that covers your deep disdain for marijuana users, maybe that's what's funny to you?

Because that's what I'm laughing at.

Sometimes it's just best to keep your fingers still.

What facade? I think smoking dope is stupid but relatively harmless. I'm open about that. I think a lot of things people do for fun are stupid. Doesn't mean I think the government should tell them what they can and can't do.

[coastie]

What facade? I think smoking dope is stupid but relatively harmless. I'm open about that. I think a lot of things people do for fun are stupid. Doesn't mean I think the government should tell them what they can and can't do.


You still have failed to mention why you think this is funny.

Still waiting.

[Occam's Banana]

[N]obody in this thread has addressed the actual issue at hand. Are the local police prosecutable by the feds if they essentially distribute marijuana (ie: return the seized pot to the owner). It has nothing to do with how much or whether it was medicine or if it should have even been seized in the first place.

The answer seems fairly obvious: the local police are "prosecutable" by the Feds because the Feds can arbitrarily decide whether or not to prosecute them.

I say "arbitrarily" because under the law as it operates and is applied today, there is no objective (i.e., non-arbitrary) basis for making such a decision, one way or the other. It is pretty much up to the whims of prosecutors and judges (local, state or federal, each in their own venues) whether to do this thing, that thing or the other thing. Especially in cases like this.

As just one example of what I'm talking about, recall the following from the OP article (emphasis added):

Pollard’s arrest poses an interesting question: does medical marijuana constitute a probation violation? Diamond says California judges are ruling both ways. “There are judges who, as a term and condition of probation, they’ll prohibit people from using medical marijuana, and there are judges who, I think, more appropriately say, “You know what, voters passed the law, and even though you’re on probation I’m going to let you use your medicine as you see fit,” he said. "It’s really up to each particular judge.”

(Of course, in the above example it is "mundanes" rather than the police who are on the receiving end of the system's inconsistent abitrariness.)

But while the local police may indeed be (theoretically) "prosecutable" by the Feds in this instance, the question of whether they actually would be prosecuted is an entirely different matter. I very seriously doubt the Feds would do so, for a variety of (arbitrary) reasons - and I doubt every bit as much that the police involved in this case actually have any real fear of that happening. I think it exceedingly more likely that they are merely concocting "legalistic" excuses in an attempt to exempt themselves from a judicial decision they just don't like (for whatever reasons).

But suppose that they aren't. Suppose that their fear of the Feds "comin' to get 'em" is genuine - and even that there is a significant possibility that that might actually happen. So what? That would just be "sauce for the goose ..." as far as I can tell. Would it be a demonstration of the arbitrarily self-contradictory fuck-upedness of "the system?" It would. Would it be any different from the self-contradictorily arbitrary fuck-upedness that all us "mundanes" are routinely subject to? It would not.

Police never seem to have any problems with enforcing the diktats of judges when it is someone else on the receiving end of their stormtrooperings, rape-cagings, etc. Indeed, they seem quite eager and enthusiastic about asserting and achieving compliance with judicial decrees - at least when they are the ones in the catbird seat. The phrase "hoisted on their own petard" springs to mind. It would serve them right if they were. It just goes to show how utterly screwed up things are when a perversion of a perversion of justice might actually end up producing something remotely like justice ...


The author of the piece says they are "erroneous concerns"; but offers no legal explanation as to why they are erroneous. I think its a valid concern.

The author may have assessed the "concerns" as "erroneous" because he thinks the Feds would (arbitrarily) choose not to prosecute - rather than because he thinks the Feds could not prosecute due to some legalistic rationale(s). The fact that he "offers no legal explanation" seems to support this interpretation. IOW: He may be saying, "These 'concerns' are 'erroneous' 'coz the Feds ain't gonna prosecute - even though they theoretically could."

On the other hand, maybe he does think there is some legalistic basis for dismissing the "concerns" and just didn't bother to explain what it is. He never explicity identifies what he meant, one way or the other. He ought to have done so.

[specsaregood]

But while the local police may indeed be (theoretically) "prosecutable" by the Feds in this instance, the question of whether they actually would be prosecuted is an entirely different matter. I very seriously doubt the Feds would do so, for a variety of (arbitrary) reasons - and I doubt every bit as much that the police involved in this case actually have any real fear of that happening. I think it exceedingly more likely that they are merely concocting "legalistic" excuses in an attempt to exempt themselves from a judicial decision they just don't like (for whatever reasons).

While I think the guy should get his pot back and most likely the police and perhaps prosecutor are just playing hard-ass on the subject; I do at the same time think they bring up an important issue. And I don't blame them one bit for doing a little CYA here. They have filed a motion challenging the order, so they are going through the proper legal channels here. If they lose the motion, I suspect they will return the pot and at the same time have sufficiently covered their ass from any fed involvement.




But suppose that they aren't. Suppose that their fear of the Feds "comin' to get 'em" is genuine - and even that there is a significant possibility that that might actually happen. So what? That would just be "sauce for the goose ..." as far as I can tell. Would it be a demonstration of the arbitrarily self-contradictory fuck-upedness of "the system?" It would. Would it be any different from the self-contradictorily arbitrary fuck-upedness that all us "mundanes" are routinely subject to? It would not.
So what? Like I said, I can hardly blame a person for doing their best to protect their own interests against an arbitrary monster like the federal government. In reality, the cops here are stuck in the tough spot against two masters with different laws/rules. We should actually be thanking them for doing this; so it gets adjudicated and on the record.

I predict the cops will lose the motion and the guy will get his pot returned.

[Occam's Banana]

So what? Like I said, I can hardly blame a person for doing their best to protect their own interests against an arbitrary monster like the federal government. In reality, the cops here are stuck in the tough spot against two masters with different laws/rules. We should actually be thanking them for doing this; so it gets adjudicated and on the record.

:confused: What I said before is "so what."

The persons "doing their best to protect their own interests against an arbitrary monster" in this case are themselves willing (indeed, eager and enthusiastic) participants in enforcing arbitrary monstrosities on other people.

If two gangs of bank-robbers try to rob the same bank at the same time and start shooting at one another, I suppose that I can "hardly blame" either gang for "shooting back" at the other - but thieves do not get to defend what they do in the course of their thieveries on the basis that it was in their own best interests to do so.

The cops in this case are not "stuck in a tough spot between two masters" - they simply don't want to do what one "master" has clearly told them to do, and as an excuse for their defiance they are trying to use what another "master" might theoretically do (but has not actually done and all but certainly will not do).

Any "adjudication" that goes "on the record" in the matter of this particular motion will have to do only with cops and no one else. If they lose the motion, thing are right back where they started. If they win the motion, they will have done a favor for no one but themselves - and will deserve absolutely no thanks whatsoever from the rest of us.