Marijuana Laws - Bruce M. Margolin, Attorney

TH
20
ANNIVERSARY EDITION
THE MARGOLIN GUIDE™
State Of California & United States Federal
Marijuana Laws
Know The Laws And Your Rights!!
THE LAWS IN ALL 50 STATES
Possession, Cultivation, Sales, Transportation,
Medical Marijuana and Licensing Laws,
Dispensaries & Collectives, Marijuana DUI, etc.
DOWNLOAD
MY FREE APP
“No One Belongs In Jail For Marijuana”
SM
BRUCE M. MARGOLIN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Criminal Defense Attorney Of The Year*
Named Criminal Defense Super Lawyer**
BRUCE M. MARGOLIN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Since 1967, Bruce Margolin has represented his clients
in all types of criminal matters. He has also successfully
defended more marijuana cases than any other attorney
in the country.
Mr. Margolin has served as Chairman For The Ethics
Committee for the N.A.C.D.L (National Association For
Criminal Defense Lawyers).
He was awarded the certificate of appreciation from
the A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union) as well
as received honors for his work on behalf of the
Constitution Rights Foundation.
Since 1973, he has been Director of Los Angeles
National Organization for the Reform Of Marijuana
Laws (NORML), and was also an advisor for
Proposition 215 (Californians For Compassionate Use)
and served as legal council for The California Hemp
Initiative.
As a candidate for Governor of California in 2003,
and US Congress in 2012 he has helped establish the
credibility of marijuana legalization policies.
Busted? Legal Questions? Concerns?
1-800-420-LAWS (5297)
420Laws.com
Guide FREE TO DOWNLOAD Online
(Call Office To Order Printed Copies)
$4.20
* 1999 and ** Recognition as Super
Lawyer for 2006, 2009, 2012-2014
8749 Holloway Drive West Hollywood CA 90069,
Office Off The Sunset Strip Est. 1967
INVOCATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CARD
The Law Office Of
BRUCE M. MARGOLIN
State And Federal Criminal Defense
310-652-0991
1-800-420-LAWS
420LAWS.COM
You may wish to keep this card with you and present it to
law enforcement in the event of questioning, detention
or arrest. This card is intended to help invoke your rights
guaranteed under the constitution.
“It Is Important To Be Respectful To The Police”
Note: Even though you may offer this constitutional rights card, note that the U.S Supreme Court
held in June 2010 that silence alone does not invoke one’s right to remain silent. If an officer
advises you of your Miranda Rights please be aware the person must verbally say “NO” or “I wish to
remain silent, or I want a lawyer,” to an officer’s request to waive his or her rights.
To Download Your Own Cut-Out-Wallet-Sized
“Invocation Of Constitutional Rights Card” Visit:
420LAWS.COM
“The indefatigable dean of cannabis law
is keen to educate the public on the continuing toll
of human suffering wrought by unjust marijuana laws
and why the 2016 initiatives are so vital.”
“Bruce Margolin Is Just Getting Started! By Tom Hymes” mg Magazine (See Page 42)
“Bruce Margolin is Synonymous
With Fighting Weed Busts in California.....
The Dean of Weed Defense Attorneys.
He has Defended 25,000 Pot Cases and Timothy Leary.”
-La Weekly “Prop 19: Dreams of Legal Weed” October, 2010/Vol. 32/No.48 (See Page 40)
“Finally someone has made the
Marijuana Laws easy to understand.”
“What you don’t know can hurt you. Read this Book.”
-Jack Herer, Hemp Advocate and Author,
The Emperor Wears No Clothes
R.I.P 1939-2010
“In our mission to provide quality training, Oaksterdam
University utilizes The Margolin Guide as a key component
to our curriculum. The Margolin Law Guide offers smart
practices to stay compliant with California Law. The
entire community will understand their constitutional
rights and learn to have successful encounters with
law enforcement by following this guide.”
-Dale Sky Clare, Executive Chancellor, Oaksterdam University.
The Law Office Of
BRUCE M. MARGOLIN
State And Federal Criminal Defense
Est. 1967
8749 Holloway Drive
At The Sunset Strip
West Hollywood, CA. 90069
Phone: 310-652-0991 or 1-800-420-LAWS
Fax: 310-652-1501
Email: bmargolin@margolinlawoffice.com
or Margolinlawoffice@gmail.com
Website: 420LAWS.COM
*Watch for Opening of our new office locations in Los Angeles & in Northern CA,
Mr. Margolin is available to represent clients throughout
California and in all 50 states (pro hoc vice)
2016 Edition “Copyright 2016” All Rights Reserved
From The Author About The Guide
& Report To The People
By Bruce M. Margolin, Esq.
I hope that the information contained in this guide will help everyone stay out of trouble because, “No one belongs in jail for
marijuana” SM ! Knowledge of the laws and your rights can be the key to your freedom. I trust that you will find my guide easy to
read and that it will make the laws and your constitutional rights simple to understand.
For over 40 years as a criminal defense attorney, I have successfully defended thousands of clients faced with marijuana related
charges and many others accused of all types of criminal offenses. See some of my Recent Successes on page 45.
Over the many years that I have spent defending marijuana cases, I have seen that many people have not only been the victims
of unjust marijuana laws, but also lacked understanding of how to protect their constitutional rights. To help ensure your
constitutional rights, including the right to refuse consent to search and to remain silent (Miranda rights), see the Invocation
of Rights (wallet sized card) inserted here at the centerfold of the guide. Note: even though you choose to invoke your rights
please note, it’s important to remain respectful to law enforcement.
Convictions of marijuana offenses continue to have serious consequences; including; jail or even prison, years of probation, loss
of professional licenses, driver’s licenses, student aid and possible deportation (even with a green card).
The Margolin Guide includes information about medical and non-medical California marijuana laws and new legislation creating
licensing or the provision of commercial (for-profit) medical marijuana. California’s current (2016) medical marijuana laws are
unique because they provide rights and protections to qualified patients, caregivers, collectives and patient cooperatives.
In addition, the new 2016 licensing laws now authorize profit in providing medical marijuana to patients through growing,
transporting, manufacturing, testing, etc. Contact my office for information about licensing procedures and for representation.
As of January 1, 2016, California passed comprehensive legislation permitting the full regulation of the medical marijuana
industry with Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266 and Senate Bill 643—collectively known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation
and Safety Act. MMRSA is a major change in the law as it provides twelve types of licenses from seed to sale to those who wish
to participate in the medical marijuana industry. Most importantly, MMRSA provides protection from arrest and prosecution
(subject to the compliance of new licensing provisions) and allows those working in the industry to make “profit.” To learn more
about MMRSA, see pages 28-31.
I’m pleased to report on the federal level that the United States Congress passed a spending provision that prevents the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) from using any funds that interfere with state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or
cultivation of medical marijuana. In response to the legislation, the U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled to lift the federal
injunction against the Marin Alliance (medical marijuana dispensary) that prevented it from operating.
The Margolin Guide is simply a guide to the laws; it is not intended to be legal advice. I have summarized many of the laws to
make them easier to comprehend, although not all the current laws are referenced. Only the actual statutes and case rulings
included herein should ultimately be relied upon.
I have done my best to be accurate, however, please note that errors can occur, including in the editing or printing
process. Finally, be aware that laws change frequently due to appellate court decisions and new legislation.
Visit my website and download the guide and my free app 420LAWS for current and future updates on my guide.
I am available for phone and office consultation if you or someone you know needs help or advice.
Call 1-800-420-LAWS (5297) or 310-276-2231.
Sincerely,
Bruce Margolin, Esq.
i
Table Of Contents
From The Author About The Guide & Report To The People
i
Possession of Up to 1 oz, Over 1 oz, and Concentrated Cannabis (Hashish)
1
California Health & Safety Code § 11357(b); Infraction § 11357(c): Misdemeanor and § 11357(a): Misdemeanor
Possession For Sale
2
California Health & Safety Code §11359: Felony
Cultivation
3
California Health & Safety Code §11358 Felony
Transportation, Importation, Sale or Gift
4
California Health & Safety Code §11360: Felony or Misdemeanor
Driving Under The Influence (DUI) When Impaired
5
Vehicle Code 23152e CA
Drug Testing And Employment
6
Forfeiture of Money and Property
7
California Health & Safety Code §11470(e)
Search And Seizure Laws
8
Courtroom Strategy: How To Avoid Conviction For Less Than An Ounce
9
§11357(b) H&S (And Save Your Driver’s License While Doing So)
Destruction Of Arrest & Conviction Records
9
California Health & Safety Code §11361.5 Removing and Expungement (PC §1203.4 ) of your Marijuana Conviction
Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) = Dismissal
10
PC §1000
Drug Court Sentencing Alternatives
11
Proposition 36 Alternative Drug Treatment Program
11
California Penal Code § 1210
Entrapment
11
Posting Bail
12
Federal Sentencing For Marijuana Offenses
13
Medical Marijuana Laws
14
Compassionate Use Act Of 1996/Proposition 215 (CUA)
Primary Caregivers
Health and Safety Code §11362.7 (MMP) (SB 420)
16
County & City Guidelines on Permissible Amounts Above Senate Bill 420
17
Appellate Court “Landmark Cases” Medical Marijuana
18
Patient Collectives And Cooperatives
23
Health and Safety Code §11362.775 and Senate Bill 420
Dispensaries
24
An Example Of A Legally Defensible Cooperative
25
How Many Plants Can A Patient Grow?
26
Medical Concentrated Cannabis
27
CA Health & Safety Code §11357(a) vs. Health & Safety Code §11362.5
Medical Marijuana While On Probation, Parole, or In Jail
27
CA Assembly Bill 266, etc.*
28
MMRSA (2016): State-Licensing for Commercial (profit) Medical Marijuana
The Marijuana Laws In All 50 States
32
Daily Journal Articles
37
More About Bruce
38
LA Weekly: Dreams Of Legal Weed
39
mg Magazine: Bruce Margolin is Just Getting Started!
41
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List
45
Possession of Up to 1 oz, Over 1 oz, and
Concentrated Cannabis (Hashish)
California Health & Safety Code § 11357(b); Infraction § 11357(c): Misdemeanor
and § 11357(a): Misdemeanor
LAW: POSSESSION OF UP TO AN OUNCE IS AN INFRACTION: It is illegal to knowingly possess marijuana
and have it under your dominion and control. Possessing less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use is
an offense that may not lead to an arrest [H&S Code §11360(b)]. California medical marijuana laws provide legal
defenses for medical marijuana patients (see pages 14 & 26).
PENALTY: As long as you have valid identification, there will be no booking and a citation (similar to a traffic
ticket) is issued, making a court appearance optional. This means that you can either plead guilty by simply paying
a fine or you and your attorney can plead not guilty and defend the case in court. The defendant is entitled to
move to suppress unlawful searches, etc. The defendant is not entitled to a jury trial; however, he/she is entitled
to a trial by judge. The defendant will not be subject to a jail sentence or a criminal record. The maximum penalty
is a $100 fine, plus assessments, totaling up to approximately $371. Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) and Drug
Sentencing Alternatives are available to avoid conviction. See pages 9 and 10 for more information on DEJ and
how to avoid conviction for less than an ounce.
LAW: POSSESSION OF CONCENTRATED CANNABIS (HASHISH) IS A MISDEMEANOR: As of November 2014,
possession of concentrated cannabis is a misdemeanor, punishable up one year in jail [H&S Code §11360(a)]..
Not that hashish is included under the Medical Marijuana patient’s protection (see page 27). However, giving
away or selling any amount of concentrated cannabis is a felony and is punishable by state prison.
PENALTY: The maximum sentence can be up to 6 months in county jail and a fine of up to $500. Deferred Entry
of Judgment (DEJ) and Proposition 36 are available (see pages 10 & 11). Note that for non-citizens, possession of
over 30 grams is a deportable offense (even if DEJ is granted); consult with an immigration attorney for specifics.
Note from Bruce: In my experience, first time offenders do not go to jail. Summary (non-reporting) probation is
usually granted on condition of a small fine or community service.
LAW: POSSESSION OF CONCENTRATED CANNABIS (HASHISH) IS A MISDEMEANOR: As of November 2014,
possession of concentrated cannabis is a misdemeanor, punishable up one year in jail [H&S Code §11360(a)]..
Not that hashish is included under the Medical Marijuana patient’s protection (see page 25). However, giving
away or selling any amount of concentrated cannabis remains a felony and is punishable by state prison.
Note from Bruce: Manufacturing concentrated cannabis, even for medical purposes, is illegal when made with
butane or chemical processes. This offense is punishable by 3,5, even 7 years in prison.
PENALTY: As a misdemeanor, the maximum sentence can total up to 1 year in jail, a maximum fine of $1,000, or
both of these penalties. As previously stated, those under the age of 21 will lose their driver’s license for one year.
Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) and Prop. 36 are available (see pages 10 and 11).
SEEDS: According to Health and Safety Code §11018, the term “marijuana” means all parts of the Cannabis plant
sativa L., whether growing or not and includes the seeds. Therefore, possession of marijuana seeds is also in
violation of the law.
JUVENILES (UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE): All marijuana offense may be dismissed through participation in
a drug education program and community service. Otherwise, the courts can impose home confinement,
probation, camp placement, or a youth authority commitment of up to the maximum term of imprisonment
for the offense. Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is punishable by up to $100 (plus penalties and
assessments). A minor’s criminal record is not permanent and can also be sealed.
Anyone who is under the age of 21 and who is convicted for any amount of marijuana will lose their
driver’s license for one year; regardless of whether or not the offense was related to driving. Refer to
page 9 to learn more about how to save your driver’s license.
1
Possession For Sale
California Health & Safety Code §11359: Felony
LAW: POSSESSION FOR SALE IS A FELONY: Possession of marijuana with the
intent to sell any amount is a felony. To sell means to exchange any amount of
marijuana for anything of value. Note that “giving away” up to an ounce of marijuana
is a misdemeanor with a $100 maximum fine [H&S Code §11360(b)]. Refer to
“Medical Marijuana Laws” on pages 14-31 to learn more about defenses for patients,
collectives, cooperatives, etc.
PENALTY: Possession of any amount of marijuana with the intent to sell is punishable
by state imprisonment [H&S Code §11359]. Unless probation is granted (which it
almost always is), penalties can total up to 16 months or 2 to 3 years in state prison
and a fine up to $10,000. For non-citizens, a conviction for possession for sale is a deportable offense and will
result in a denial of citizenship, naturalization, etc. Deferred Entry of Judgment and Drug Sentencing Alternatives
are NOT available.
Note from Bruce: A qualified narcotics officer’s opinion alone, that states the marijuana possessed is for sale
rather than for personal use often establishes proof of intent to sell. Their opinions are often based on the
quantity of marijuana, the number of packages, the presence of packaging material (baggies), the presence of
large amounts of money, scales, ledgers (pay and owe notes), cell phones, pagers, foot traffic to and from the
premises, incriminating text messages and/or statements by witnesses or the defendant.
The defense has the right to present his/her own expert to testify if the amount of marijuana and other factors
are consistent with personal use as opposed to possession for sale. The defendant may also choose to testify on
his/her behalf and to call other witnesses in order to defeat an allegation that the marijuana was for sale rather
than personal use. Our office has access to court qualified cannabis experts to testify on behalf of the defense. I
am also the director of the National Institute of Court Qualified Cannabis Experts. For more information on the
National Institute of Court Qualified Cannabis Experts, see page 26.
A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE RESIDENCE MAY BE OBTAINED NO MATTER WHERE THE BUST TAKES
PLACE: No matter where the location of the arrest for possession for sale takes place (it can even be a car 100s
of miles away), police may still be able to obtain a search warrant for the defendant’s residence.
THE NUMBER OF PACKAGES AND THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS: The number of packages seized is often the
controlling factor relied upon by the prosecution. For example, a half pound of marijuana in one package may be
charged as simple possession; however, a 16 half ounce package will almost certainly be charged as possession
for sale, especially if the packages are in specific weights (eights, ounces, quarter pounds).
“WOBBLERS” TO OBTAIN A MISDEMEANOR AND PLEA BARGAINING: Through plea-bargaining, felony
marijuana offenses for possession for sale, cultivation, and transportation may sometimes be reduced to a
charge of “maintaining a place where marijuana is possessed” [H&S Code §11366]. This offense is a “wobbler,”
meaning that it can be reduced to a misdemeanor either at the time of sentencing or more often after a period
of probation of 18-36 months. At that point, the conviction can be expunged, meaning that the court records
will show that the conviction is set aside, a plea of not guilty is entered, and the case is dismissed per Section
1203.5 of the Penal Code.
Note from Bruce on Second and Third Strike Laws and felony and marijuana convictions: To be a strike it
must be serious or violent; marijuana offenses do not count as “strikes.” However, any felony marijuana conviction
with one or more prior strikes mandates no probation and doubles the sentence, serving approximately 80% of
the time in prison. Example: Transportation of more than a ounce is a felony, and punishable by 2-4 years, but
because of the strike it becomes 4-8 years . JUDGES CAN SET ASIDE THE USE OF THE PREVIOUS STRIKE AT
THE TIME OF THE SENTENCING (Romero Motion).
2
Cultivation
California Health & Safety Code §11358 Felony
LAW: It is a felony to plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process (even just one plant).
California medical marijuana laws protect patients and their caregivers. Please see
“420 Limits” on page 17 and “How Many Plants Can a Patient Grow?” on page 26.
PENALTY: Unless probation is granted (as it almost always is), sentencing can
range from 16 months to 2 or 3 years in state prison with a fine of up to $10,000.
Persons under the age of 21 will lose their driver’s license for one year. For non-citizens, this is also a deportable offense. Refer to the “Deferred Entry of Judgment”
sections of this guide for more information on how to obtain a dismissal (Page 10).
Note from Bruce: Even when hundreds of plants are seized, probation is usually
granted to first time offenders. When a few plants are seized, some prosecutors will charge only a misdemeanor possession offense (H&S Code §11357).
PLANTS ALONE MAY BE CHARGED AS POSSESSED FOR SALE: 1992 DEA Cannabis Yields Study states that
(saleable) marijuana buds comprise less than 10% of the total net weight of the plants; therefore, the defense
may be able to refute the prosecution’s charge of possession for sale in cultivation cases. Refer to the “Report to
the People” section on page iv of this guide for more information on The National Institute of Court Qualified
Experts. In addition, see page 26 for more information on how to evaluate when marijuana is possessed for sale
rather than personal use.
TOO MANY PLANTS FOR DEFERRED ENTRY PROGRAM: Even though possession for sale is not charged,
the prosecution may object to DEJ by contending that the cultivation is not for personal use. The defendant
is entitled to a hearing before a judge who decides whether or not DEJ will be granted over the prosecution’s
objection.
FEDERAL 5 AND 10 MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS: In Federal Courts and in other states besides
California, the number of plants determines the length of the prison sentence. Under Federal law, there is a
mandatory sentencing of five years for 100+ plants, and a mandatory sentencing of 10 years for 1,000+ plants,
no matter how big or what state they are in (even just rooted seedlings). Refer to “Federal Sentencing” on page
13 for more information.
FENCES AS PROTECTION FROM POLICE: Fully enclosed residential yards with 6 foot fences are legally
protected from police observation by Case Law. However, if officers can view plants in other ways, such as from
a neighbor’s property or from aircraft, they can obtain a warrant for the home and buildings that are on or connected to the property. Even Google Maps, as one judge has opined, can destroy the expectation of privacy.
TRASH CANS ARE NOT PROTECTED: Trash cans that are left outside of the property can be searched without a warrant. If plants or other incriminating items constituting probable cause are found, a search warrant
can be issued for the residence and the entire property.
HIGH ELECTRIC BILLS AND PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT: Indoor cultivation busts are
often the result of unusually large electric bills (compared to others in the neighborhood) combined with informant tips, and/or the smell detected from outside the property. Electric bills are not constitutionally protected,
so they may be obtained without a warrant or probable cause.
THEFT OF ELECTRICITY: Persons who tap electric lines or bypass electrical metering will also face felony
grand theft charges. This makes the cultivation defense more complicated, particularly when there is potential
for medical defense.
Note from Ed Rosenthal (Ask ED, author-activist)
“Using marijuana is not addicting but cultivating often is.”
3
Transportation, Importation, Sale or Gift
California Health & Safety Code §11360: Felony or Misdemeanor
LAW: LESS THAN AN OUNCE IS A MISDEMEANOR: Giving away and/or
transporting less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use is an offense that does
not lead to an arrest [H&S Code §11360(b)]. As long as you have valid identification, a
ticket will be issued (similar to that of a traffic violation), requiring a mandatory court
appearance on a future date. However, if you do not have valid identification, you are
subject to arrest
PENALTY: The defendant will not be subject to a jail sentence or a criminal record. The
maximum penalty is a $100 fine, plus assessments, totaling up to approximately $371.
Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) and Drug Sentencing Alternatives are available to
avoid conviction (see pages 10 and 11).
LAW: MORE THAN AN OUNCE IS A FELONY: Offering or attempting to transport or import over an ounce of
marijuana into the state in order to sell, furnish, administer, or give away marijuana is a felony. The term “sale” refers
to bartering or exchanging items for anything of value. Please refer to “Medical Marijuana Laws” on page 14 to
learn more about a patient’s legal defenses and protections.
Refer to “Medical Marijuana Laws” on page 14 and “Landmark Medical Marijuana Appellate Cases” on pages 18-22
to learn more about cases regarding transportation by patients, caregivers, member of Co-ops and collectives.
PENALTY: Unless probation is granted for first time offenders (it almost always is), sentencing ranges from 2 to 4
years in state prison. Under H&S Code § 11361, if a person 18 years of age or older hires, employs, or uses a minor
under the age of 14 to transport, carry, sell, or give away marijuana, he/she is subject to 3, 5, or 7 years in state
prison. If a minor is over 14, sentencing ranges from 3 to 5 years in state prison.
Under prop 36, an alternative sentencing program can be granted for transportation and possession for personal
use. Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) is not available for this offense (see page 10). However, under Proposition
36, an alternative sentencing option can be granted for transportation and possession for personal use (see page
11).
Possession and transportation of over 30 grams is a deportable offense for non-citizens, even those who possess
green cards; under immigration laws, it is considered an aggravated felony. DEJ is not a defense against deportation.
Under 8 USC 1227 (a)(2)(b)(i), a simple possession of 30 grams or less for one’s personal use is not an aggravated
felony.
Refer to “Medical Marijuana Laws” on page 14 and “Landmark Medical Marijuana Appellate Cases” on pages 18-20
to learn more about cases regarding transportation by patients, caregivers,WW member of Co-ops and collectives.
Note from Bruce: How “probation” is defined and how it can be expected: The term probation does not
necessarily mean that time in county jail will not be imposed. In felony cases, “probation” simply means that a
state prison sentence is not imposed. Probation terms can include up to a year in county jail as well as search
conditions; other alternatives to jail include fines, house arrest, or community service. In misdemeanor cases,
probation means that a part of or the entire county jail sentence may not be imposed. In my experiences, I have
noticed that almost without exception, first time convicted offenders receive probation in almost all CA State
Courts, regardless of the amount of marijuana involved (i.e. 700 plants, 5,263 pounds).
THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (MIRANDA RIGHTS): When being detained during an investigation, suspects
do not have to be advised of their Miranda rights; by choosing to talk, the statements you make can and will be
used against you. Upon arrest, officers are required to advise a suspect of his or her Miranda rights; however, even
if officers fail to give Miranda warnings, any statements made by the defendant are still admissible to contradiction
if he or she takes the stand to testify. Note that as of June 2010, the Supreme Court held that silence alone does
not invoke one’s right to remain silent. The suspect must verbally say “NO” or “I wish to remain silent, I want a
lawyer,” to an officer’s request to waive his or her rights. To protect your constitutional rights, see the wallet sized
“Invocation of Rights” card in the centerfold of this guide.
4
Driving Under The Influence (DUI)
When Impaired
Vehicle Code 23152e CA
LAW: It is unlawful to drive while under the influence of marijuana or any drug if
impaired to the degree that one is unable to operate a motor vehicle safely.
PENALTY: For first time offenses, the maximum penalty amounts to six months in
jail, a fine of $390-$1,000, a restricted license and a three year probation. If a person
is under 21 years old, he/she will lose their license for 1 year and be subject to a DUI
program. Medical marijuana patients are not exempt from statues that prohibit driving while impaired.
Note from Bruce: MARIJUANA DUI CASES ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT FOR THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE. Unlike the .08% blood alcohol level, which makes a defendant guilty in drunk driving cases,
there is no legal standard amount of THC that presumptively establishes impairment. Other factors are used by
the prosecution to try to get a conviction. These factors include driving violations, such as weaving and field
sobriety tests such as walking a line, touching a nose, speech, or admissions of effects. Note that claiming to be
tired only adds to the possibility of impairment.
ALCOHOL AND WEED DON’T MIX! Studies show that alcohol with marijuana radically increases chances of impairment. These types of cases are less defensible. DON’T DO IT!
DUI SUSPECTS CAN REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SUCH AS WHEN THEY LAST USED MARIJUANA OR TO TAKE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS: In the event of being pulled over by the police, suspects may refuse
to answer any questions (other than those identifying themselves) and also refuse to take field sobriety tests.
If you are arrested, you are required to take a Breathalyzer and/or blood or urine test if requested. Otherwise,
REFUSAL TO TAKE A CHEMICAL TEST WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR A YEAR and
may be deemed as consciousness of guilt.
Note from Bruce – GET MY FREE 420 LAWS APP: Answering questions about your use of marijuana can be very
damaging to the defense, especially if you have used marijuana within four hours. My free 420 Law app will provide you with helpful information and suggestions you may wish to follow if you are pulled over in a DUI case.
It will also record the conversation between you and the police officer on iCloud to further provide protections
against any miscommunication. PRESS THE PANIC BUTTON.
CHOOSING A BREATH, BLOOD, OR URINE TEST: Experts advise to first choose a breath test because it does
not register THC. However, if you have not used marijuana for at least 3 days and an officer requests that you
submit to a blood or urine test, choose the blood test; experts indicate that THC is usually detectable in the
blood for up to two days. Otherwise, choose a urine test; even though a urine test will most likely show a positive
marijuana metabolite result (up to 35 days or more), its presence alone is even less relevant than blood analysis
to establish impairment, which is required to prove DUI.
CALIFORNIA LAW: Anyone under 21 who is convicted of DUI or any other marijuana offense will lose his/her
California Driver’s License for one year. Please see page 9, “Courtroom Strategy: How to Avoid Conviction for
Less Than an Ounce.”
Adults can obtain a restricted license (for first offenses only); however, they may now be required to install a car
ignition interlock device per D.M.V. instructions.
Adults may also lose their license when convicted of marijuana offenses for up to three years when a motor
vehicle is involved [CA Vehicle Code §13202]. The judge can suspend or order the DMV to revoke a driver’s license for possession for sale, transportation, or sale to a minor. In many other states, a conviction involving any
controlled substance, including marijuana, results in a loss of driver’s license for six months or more, regardless
of whether or not the offense is driving-related. When the defendant shows a “critical need to drive,” he/she
can attempt to obtain a restricted license [Vehicle Code §13202.5].
5
Drug Testing And Employment
Ross v. Raging Wire Telecom [42 Cal. 4th 920 (2008)]- CA Supreme Court ruled that
an employer may terminate or deny employment by a private company to anyone
who merely admits to using or who uses marijuana, even if they are a qualified
medical marijuana patient.
There is no constitutional protection from testing or for refusing a drug test unless
one is employed by a governmental agency. Testing governmental employees has
been struck down by courts in many types of work except where the employee’s
impairment could cause serious threat or harm, (i.e. a job as a train conductor).
However, private employers may impose drug testing as a condition of employment
and if the “dirty” employee can be fired.
An employee accused of having a positive drug test result should request a second independent laboratory test
of the “dirty” sample. It has been reported that false positives can result from a number of reasons. False positives
can force an employee into unnecessary rehabilitation programs or, even worse, result in an unwarranted firing.
Firing a good employee is a loss to both parties.
Estimated lengths of time that marijuana use is detectable in the body by urine testing:
Single Use: 5 days
Double Use: 12-17 days
Heavy Use: 15-35 days
Note from Bruce: I am unaware of any chemical product that has proven effective in “cleansing” the system of
THC. Abstaining, exercising, and drinking a lot of water are the only proven ways to rid the body of THC. You may
purchase an over-the-counter kit that detects THC from most drugstores to do a confidential test.
EMPLOYERS NEED GUIDANCE: Employers should be informed and made to understand that the rational
purpose for conducting drug testing is to determine whether or not an employee is impaired on the job. Since
marijuana metabolite is detectable in urine for up to 35 days or more after use, it does not establish impairment.
The scientific community generally agrees that the effects of marijuana last no more than about three hours
after use.
Arguably, a more effective approach to ensure safety is to observe the employee’s on the job behavior and to
administer motor skill tests similar to those used in DUI cases. This type of policy reduces the cost of testing,
protects the privacy and morale of the employees, and is a more effective way to uncover an employee’s inability
to perform his/her duties safely which could be for any number of reasons.
High THC levels indicate recent use but do not necessarily indicate impairment. Zero tolerance laws incriminate
many un-impaired drivers.
The scientific basis for such laws is still being tested and remains unclear. There is no agreement on what threshold
amount causes impairment; THC-COOH (Matabolites) has no bearing on impairment.
6
Forfeiture of Money and Property
California Health & Safety Code §11470(e)
Forfeiture laws allow state and federal governments to seize money and property that
are proceeds of, or are used to, facilitate illicit drug activity. Forfeiture proceedings are
usually filed separately from the criminal case in which the “defendant” is the money
or property itself. The owner must file a claim opposing forfeiture and may be required
to prove its legitimate source.
U.S. V. BAJAKAJIAN (1998) 524 U.S. 321. The forfeiture of a defendant’s property or
money must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense committed.
State and Federal governments can impose criminal punishment in addition to forfeiting the defendant’s
property and money. In these cases, there is no double jeopardy defense.
The Federal courts held that the value of the forfeited property cannot be disproportionate to the crime. In 1995,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated “If, for example, one marijuana plant were found growing on the ranch,
forfeiture of all 825,000 acres would be excessive” (U.S. v. 6380 Little Canyon R.D.), (1995) [59 F. 3d 974, 9th Circuit]
In some cases, California law protects innocent owners (see below). Under California statutes, a criminal
conviction is required for forfeitures under $25,000. However, the state police agencies may turn the property
or money over to the Federal government; in this case, a criminal conviction is not required under federal laws.
The California Forfeiture Statue [Health and Safety Code §11470(e)]
allows forfeiture of the following:
A) All controlled substances, except arguable for medical marijuana
B) All of the money and equipment involved in the crime
C) Any vehicle used, or intended to be used, in the transportation of marijuana (more than 10
pounds dry weight)
Motor vehicle forfeitures can be prevented if an innocent spouse is a co-owner, or has a community property
interest, and if the defendant immediate family, having no knowledge of the illegal activity, uses the vehicle.
Maintaining a Place [H&S Code §11366] and Forfeitures: Homes and land (real property) are also subject to state
forfeiture if the owner is convicted of maintaining the property for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing,
or possessing marijuana for sale. However, if a property is used as a family residence or other lawful purpose, and
is co-owned by an innocent person with no knowledge of the unlawful use, it may not be subject to forfeiture.
Note from Bruce: I have many clients who had their money seized at airports or when traveling in vehicles. The
cops often use narcotics dogs to see if they have a “hit” (smell marijuana) on the currency and use that as a reason
to seize the currency; however, the dog’s smell alone may not be enough reason to forfeit the money. It often
takes months for state or federal prosecutors to notify the defendant of their intent to proceed with forfeiture.
The money becomes the defendant in civil proceedings, and is considered to be the unlawful proceeds used to
facilitate unlawful drug activity. The claimant must file a notice to oppose the forfeiture within 30 days. Call my
office if you need help with a forfeiture matter.
7
Search And Seizure Laws
The California Constitution and the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantee our right to be free from
unlawful searches and seizures by police officers. Illegally seized evidence must be suppressed and excluded in
any criminal prosecution against a defendant if his/her rights have been violated. With no admissible evidence,
the case must be dismissed.
YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INCLUDE (AMONG OTHERS):
•
•
•
•
To refuse to have your personal property searched without a search warrant
To refuse to answer an officer’s questions or make any statements
To refuse to open the door to your home unless there is an emergency or a
search warrant
To refuse to be detained or questioned without your consent (even at airports)
Note from Bruce: See the “Invocation of Rights” wallet sized card inserted in the
centerfold of my guide. This will help assure that your rights are invoked and thereby protected. See bottom of page 4 regarding Miranda Rights.
THE DEFINITION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: “Probable cause” to search and seize must exist; otherwise, the evidence cannot be used against the defendant in court. There must be reasonable belief that a crime has been or
is about to be committed (i.e. there is contraband present). In order to search homes or other private property,
officers are required to have a warrant; however, automobiles can be searched without a warrant.
THE SMELL OF MARIJUANA: If officers or their trained dogs detect the smell of marijuana, either burnt or fresh,
they have probable cause to search the suspect’s person and car without a warrant. It can also be used as the
basis to obtain a search warrant for a home or other place.
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IS REQUIRED FOR A DEFENDANT TO HAVE “STANDING” IN
ORDER TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE: In California, many other states, and under Federal law, the defendant must
have a reasonable expectation of privacy, also known as “standing”, in the location of the search in order to
challenge the admissibility of illegally-seized evidence and have it suppressed. Some examples are listed below.
CAR PASSENGERS: Those who have their possessions (i.e backpacks), in someone else’s car have no standing to
challenge an illegal search. There is no recognized right of privacy in someone else’s car unless you are the driver
at the time of the search. However, all persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy of the clothing they are
wearing and anything on them. Passengers can challenge an unreasonable cause for the stop.
HOUSE GUESTS HAVE STANDING: Overnight guests have the same right to object to an illegal search as the
occupants of the home. Places such as campsites, motels and hotel rooms are also protected.
BACKYARD FENCES MAY CREATE RIGHT OF PRIVACY: Renters and homeowners with enclosed yards (a six
foot fence, even with small cracks) are protected from any police peeping through the fence, but not from aerial
observation. Police may not use ladders to see over an enclosed fenced yard
NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION WHILE IN JAIL AND IN PUBLIC ETC.: There is no right of privacy in a
police car, in jail, during telephone calls, or in visiting rooms; however, there is a right to have private conversations during in-person meetings with lawyers or clergy. There is no right while in a public place; for example,
there might be a police camera directed towards your driveway.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION REGARDING PHONES, TEXTS, INTERNET: Conversations on hard wire, on
cell phones, and in telephone booths are protected, unless one party agrees to the police listening in. Cordless
phone users do not have an expectation of privacy because neighbors can hear conversations with the same
frequency. There has been a great increase of governmental use of electronic surveillance such as wire tapping;
the laws have made it much easier for police to access electronic surveillance. Legal rulings regarding the use of
cell phone locators are under consideration. There is no warrant required to disclose information stored by your
INTERNET PROVIDER (i.e. Hotmail, Gmail, AOL.) Police may confiscate a suspect’s cell phone and read incoming
text messages when making a lawful arrest for a drug offense. However, they need a search warrant to search
through the cell phone’s message log.
POLICE MAY NOT ENTER A HOME BASED ON SEEING THE OCCUPANTS SMOKING MARIJUANA: [People
v. Hua (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1027] Police entry into the defendant’s apartment without a warrant was not justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The defendant’s refusal to allow the
police to enter the home was upheld. The plants observed inside were suppressed and the case was dismissed.
8
Courtroom Strategy: How To Avoid
Conviction For Less Than An Ounce
§11357(b) H&S (And Save Your Driver’s License While Doing So)
Note from Bruce: Under California law, anyone younger than 21 years old who is convicted of a marijuana offense
may lose his/her driver’s license for one year, even if the offense is not driving related; this is subject to the discretion
of the Judge. The DMV may also require an administrative hearing to determine addiction.
1. DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (DEJ) will prevent the loss of your license because the conviction is
deferred (held until the conditions are met), and then later dismissed in 18-36 months. Refer to page 10 to
learn more about DEJ.
2. INFORMAL DIVERSION: Some prosecutors will agree to dismiss the case if the defendant agrees to
participate in informal diversion on the condition that the defendant attends 5-15 Narcotics Anonymous
meetings. Informal Diversion is better than formal court ordered DEJ, because the 5-year exclusion from
formal DEJ is not affected and does not show on the record. Informal DEJ takes much less time and avoids
the substantial costs of formal DEJ programs.
3. ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE: Refer to the previous “Search and Seizure” section of the guide. Illegally
obtained evidence must be suppressed and cannot be used against the defendant in court. Then there
would be no conviction or loss of license.
4. PLEA BARGAIN: In “less than an ounce” cases, prosecutors may agree to dismiss the offense in exchange for
a plea to other charges such as “Disturbing the Peace” [PC §415], or “Trespassing” [PC §602]. There is no loss of
license for these offenses. In addition, try to get an infraction instead of a misdemeanor count.
5. TRIAL BY JUDGE: the defendant has the right to a trial by judge in which he/she does not have to plead
guilty or no contest (nolo contendere is the same as pleading guilty). In less-than-an-ounce cases, the
prosecution or the court may decide to dismiss the charges in order to avoid the time and expense of a
trial. In the event of a conviction after a jury trial, the maximum fine is still $100 (plus court assessments).
The total amounts to approximately $371 if the charge involves less than one ounce. Refer to the “Prop.
36” section of the guide for information about dismissals even after a conviction by participation in drug
programs (page 11).
Destruction Of Arrest &
Conviction Records
California Health & Safety Code §11361.5 Removing and
Expungement (PC §1203.4 ) of your Marijuana Conviction
California law requires all governmental agencies to automatically destroy any records of marijuana possession
charges and any records of charges for giving away or transporting up to one ounce of marijuana two years after
the date of conviction or arrest, unless the terms of the sentence have not been satisfied; this does not include
cases concerning concentrated cannabis.
Drug diversion records are also to be destroyed. Thereafter, no public agency may limit or deny an individual of
any opportunity as the result of the conviction. The record should not be included in any subsequent probation
report or be considered for any purpose by any subsequent sentencing court in any other matter [H&S §11361.7].
However, I have been advised that US federal records do not get destroyed.
Unfortunately, felony marijuana convictions for sale, transportation, possession for sale and cultivation cannot be
destroyed. However, they are subject to expungement under PC 1203.4, which gives the person the right to deny
the conviction except when applying for public office, licensing by a state or local agency, or contracting with the
state lottery. Nevertheless, the possession or use of a firearm can be used as prior for future convictions against an
ex felon; expungement does not prevent the prosecution. Expungement does not remove a conviction from the
defendant’s records, but it would indicate that the conviction has been set aside, a not guilty plea is entered and
the case is dismissed.
9
Deferred Entry of Judgment
(DEJ) = Dismissal
PC §1000
Charges for the possession of marijuana or hashish and for the cultivation of
marijuana for personal use can be dismissed through successful completion of
Deferred Entry of Judgment. DEJ is not applicable to charges involving possession
for sale or transportation unless the marijuana is for personal use. The defendant
must plead guilty to the offense prior to trial; however, the conviction is not entered,
and the sentence remains deferred pending successful completion of the courtmandated drug education program. After successful completion of an approved
drug education program, the case will be dismissed in 18-36 months. The program
requires about 20 hours of classes and may include drug testing.
The Requirements For Eligibility:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The defendant has no prior convictions involving controlled substances
The defendant did not involve a crime of violence or threatened violence
Non deferrable narcotics offenses must have been committed concurrently
Probation or parole has never been revoked without being completed
The defendant has not been previously diverted in the past five years
The defendant has not had any felony convictions within the last 5 years
The Court Will Enter Judgment If The Defendant:
•
•
•
Performs inadequately in the drug program
Is convicted of any felony or misdemeanor that reflects a propensity for violence
Engages in any criminal conduct rendering him or her unsuitable for DEJ
If the defendant fails the DEJ program, the law allows and provides him/her a possible alternative program.
Proposition 36 is only used for cases involving possession and transportation for personal use. If the defendant
refuses or fails in drug court, the court will impose the sentence.
Upon dismissal, the defendant can legally assert that he or she was not convicted, granted DEJ, or even arrested,
except when applying for a position as a police officer or enrolling in the state lottery. Note, DEJ will not protect
non-citizens, even those with green cards, from deportation if more than 30 grams were involved in the crime.
Note from Bruce:
Large Cultivation: The prosecutor may object to DEJ by contending that the amount of marijuana cultivated is
beyond personal use, even when possession for sale is not charged. The defendant is entitled to a hearing before
a judge, who may overrule the District Attorney’s objection to DEJ.
DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IS NOT A FREE RIDE. It involves a considerable time and expense to
complete the required programs. DEJ is a trump card, available to the defendant only once every five years. It
should not be used without carefully considering the ways to beat the case or to plea bargain to an alternative
offense (e.g. “Trespassing” PC §602 or “Disturbing the Peace” PC §415) as an infraction. Informal diversion
requires no guilty plea and means that the prosecutor agrees to institute a mandatory completion of Narcotics
Anonymous meetings, thus dismissing the case.
Under the DEJ program, drug testing can be imposed. Dirty tests (the absence of THC reduction) will be the
grounds for entry of conviction and imposing the sentence. Some organizations that oversee the programs do
not drug test. The law is not settled regarding a patient’s rights to use medicinal marijuana on DEJ. However,
note that recent case law provided patient eligibility for treatment under Prop 36 and is a good argument for
DEJ patients. Medical marijuana patients are eligible for Prop 36 treatment. See People v. Beaty (2010) 181 Ca App
4th, p.644. Also see page 11 regarding more information on Prop 36.
10
Proposition 36 Alternative
Drug Treatment Program
California Penal Code § 1210
California law mandates drug treatment instead of incarceration for the possession and for transportation of
marijuana and other drugs for personal use. The defendant is eligible for a drug treatment program even after
conviction, unlike Deferred Entry of Judgment which must be taken before trial. The program can require
numerous meetings, counseling and the commitment to stop all drug use.
The program ranges from 6 to 12 months after-treatment. Defendants can expect to be drug tested in Prop.
36 programs. Probation may be revoked if the defendant fails to complete the drug treatment program or if
he/she commits a violent offense. Defendants are allowed probation violations such as two failed drug tests
or poor attendance, prior to being exposed to jail. The conviction will be set aside upon successful completion
of the program.
Prior convictions for drug offenses such as possession for sales will not disqualify a defendant under Proposition
36 unless the conviction is for a serious or violent felony committed within the past five years, e.g., a strike
conviction as listed in CA Penal Code §667.5 or §1192.7.
Note from Bruce: Medical marijuana patients are eligible for Prop. 36 treatment; see People v. Beaty (2010)
181 Cal. App. 4th 644.
Drug Court Sentencing Alternatives
A rehabilitation program can be an alternative to jail; a conviction for almost any offense committed due to
substance abuse may qualify. The court has great discretion regarding which defendants they will accept. The
defendant’s history and record is considered, mainly any prior rehabilitation attempts and violent offenses.
Typically the cases that are accepted are theft related crimes due to drug dependency.
Parolees: A person on parole who commits a non-violent drug possession offense
or who violates a drug related condition of his/her parole may be eligible for Prop. 36
programs and avoid going to prison. The parolee must have no prior convictions at
any time for serious/ violent felonies. Parole authorities (not the courts) set conditions.
Entrapment
LAW: Entrapment occurs when police or informants use tactics that could convince
an otherwise law-abiding person to commit a crime. A defendant is not guilty of any
offense if the defendant’s intent to commit the crime was created by the police or their informant. Under Federal
law, showing that the defendant had a prior propensity to commit the crime can defeat a claim of entrapment
OFFERING AN OPPORTUNITY IS NOT ENTRAPMENT!
Undercover police or their agents (informants) may provide the opportunity for the crime to be committed. For
example one might ask, “Hey, anyone here want to sell me some herb?” That is NOT entrapment.
Note from Bruce: COPS CAN LEGALLY LIE! Undercover narcotics officers and their informants do not have to tell
the truth about their role in undercover operations. Asking directly, “are you a cop?” does not help.
11
Posting Bail
TYPICAL BAIL RANGES (STATE OF CALIFORNIA):
Possession of less than an ounce: no arrest and a ticket; Possession of over an ounce: $500
Possession of Concentrated Cannabis (Hash): $10,000
Cultivation/Processing up an 1 lb: $10K; Up to 25 lbs: $30K; Over 25 lbs: $50
Possession for Sale up to 1 lb: $5K-$20K; 1-24 lbs: $25K-$30K; 25-50 lbs: $50K; over 50 lbs: $100K
RELEASE ON YOUR OWN RECOGNIZANCE (O.R.) is a person’s promise to
appear in court. In Los Angeles, if an arrested person is in custody after booking,
he/she may call the Bail Commissioner prior to the court appearance in order to
request an O.R; neither the attorney nor anyone else will be able to do it for the arrested person. Jailers provide
the on duty Bail Commissioner’s phone number and the commissioner will then attempt to verify employment,
residence, etc. by calling the arrestee’s references to see if he/she has sufficient local ties to justify O.R. The Bail
Commissioner may consider the opinion of the arresting officer, any prior records and/ or prior failures to appear
in previous court cases (traffic citations are included). If the Bail Commissioner denies the O.R. release, the judge
in court may either grant O.R. or reduce bail at the arraignment or after the preparation of an O.R. report.
IF YOU HAVE TO POST BAIL: Bail can be posted by cash or cashier’s check for the full amount of bail, which will
be returned if the defendant appears as directed at the court proceedings. -WARNING- Posting cash bail often
results in money seizure for purposes of forfeiture, based on claims that they are the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Note from Bruce: A second option is to go to a BAIL BONDSMAN, who typically will charge a non-refundable
premium of 8-10% of the amount for bail; for example, if the bail is $10,000, you pay the bondsmen $1,000 which
you never get back. Bail bond agents usually have discretion regarding the type and the amount of collateral
required. Some agents will waive the collateral altogether if the defendant’s friends or family members have
good jobs and guarantee the bond return.
UNDER THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, a release can be made on personal surety bonds (promise to appear), corporate
surety bail bond companies, third party surety, a real property bond, and/or cash; collateral may be required.
YOUR PHONE CALL: In California, after an arrestee is booked, he/she has the right to make three completed
phone calls to an attorney, to a bail bondsman, and to a relative or other person; however, be careful because
these phone calls are not confidential.
BAIL ENHANCEMENTS: Be aware that depending on the county you are in, the bail can be raised considering
the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Some counties have bail charts and enhancements listed online; for
example, San Bernardino County has listed the following bail enhancements for H&S Code §11358: Cultivation
of Marijuana.
•
•
•
•
•
$25,000 + chart enhancement
Over 10 lbs: add $40,000
Over 25 lbs: add $50,000
Over 100 lbs: add $200,000
Gun at the scene: $50,000
12
Federal Sentencing For
Marijuana Offenses
The States will usually prosecute marijuana offenses. However, based on my experience,
the Federal Government may opt to prosecute offenders when the incident involves
Federal property (U.S. national forests), cultivating large quantities of marijuana (over
1,000 plants or more than 500 kilos), crossing state and national borders, and/ or
instances in which Federal agents conduct the investigation. However, I still had a
whereoffenses.
U.S. Federal
Courts prosecuted
my client
for cultivating
approximately
States prosecute almost allcase
marijuana
My experience
is that the Federal
government
may opt
to prosecute when offenses involve
400Federal
plants.property (such as U.S. national forests), very large quantities (for example,
Federal Sentencing For Marijuana Offenses
1,000s + plants or 500+ kilos), the crossing of national borders, and/or where Federal agents conducted the investigation. However, I had a case this year involving
Beapproximately
aware that Federal
Courts
mandateinfive
ten year
prison sentences for marijuana
400 plants
prosecuted
U.S.toFederal
Court.
offenses. Offenses involving up to 99 kilograms, 100 plants or rooted seedlings are
Be aware that
are 5 and
10-yearinvolving
mandatory1,000
prisonplants
sentences
for marijuana
of- are
punishable
by there
five years;
offenses
or rooted
seedlings
fenses
in
Federal
Court.
100
Kilos,
100
plants
or
rooted
seedlings
mandates
5
years;
punishable by ten years. Unfortunately State Medical Marijuana Laws are not applicable in Federal Court.
1,000 plants or rooted seedlings is 10 years. Neither medical marijuana nor the California medical laws are recognized as a defense in Federal Court.
Seedlings are assigned a weight of 100 grams; this means that 60 plants or 6,000 grams is equal to 6 kilos and is a
are assigned
weight of If100
grams,weighs
for example,
plants=
grams=
level 14 offense punishable by Seedlings
up to a 15-21
month asentence.
a plant
more60
than
100 6,000
grams,
the actual
6
kilos=15-21
months
level
14
offense.
If
a
plant
weighs
more
than
100
grams,
the
weight is used.
actual weight is used.
The Federal
guidelines
below
areare
used
by the
judge
to consideraswhat
sentence
to impose
and
are
The Federal
guidelines
below
for the
judge’s
consideration
to what
sentence
to impose
and
areconsidered
consideredto be
the
most
relevant
factor
in
determining
the
sentence
but
they
are
no
longer
mandatory.
the most relevant factor in determining the sentence; however, they are no longer mandatory.
Amount of Marijuana
Less than 250 grams
250-999 g
1-2.4 kg
2.5-4.9 kg
5-9.9 kg
10-19 kg
20-39 kg
40-59 kg
60-79 kg
80-99 kg
5-Years Mandatory
100-399 kg
400-699 kg
700-999 kg
10-Year Mandatory
1000-2999 kg
3000-9999 kg
More than 10,000 kg
Sentence/Months
0-6 months
2-8 months
6-12 months
10-16 months
15-21 months
21-27 months
27-33 months
33-41 months
41-51 months
51-63 months
Offense Level
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
63-78 months
78-97 months
97-121 months
26
28
30
121-151 months
151-181 months
188-230 months
32
34
36
Level Adjustments
Early plea & acceptance of responsibility -2 or- 3 at level 16
Organizer or Leader +4
Between Minimal & Minor -3
Manager or Supervisor +3
Abuse of Position of Trust +2
Lesser Leader +2
Use of Special Skill +2
Minimal Participants -4
Obstruction +3
There are numerous factors (i.e. criminal convictions history) that affect the guidelines and sentencing.
13
13
Medical Marijuana Laws
Compassionate Use Act Of 1996/Proposition 215 (CUA)
CA Health and Safety Code §11362.5 etc.
Any licensed physician (M.S., O.D.) may orally, or in writing, approve or recommend the use
of marijuana for the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma,
arthritis, migraine, and any other condition or illness for which marijuana provides relief.
Note from Bruce: Interpreting medical marijuana laws leads to a lot of confusion. This is partially
due to the fact that the courts of appeals have not yet had the opportunity to rule on their
interpretation. Many of the most relevant appellate “Landmark Cases” regarding marijuana are
included here in my guide on pages 18-22. Also see the bottom of page 15 to learn more about
the ambiguities of medical marijuana laws
The Compassionate Use Act allows patients (and their caregivers) to possess and cultivate
marijuana in any amount consistent with the patient’s current medical needs [H&S Code §11362.5]. See page 23 for more
information regarding patient collectives and co-ops authorized by Senate Bill 420 §11362.775.
Note from Bruce: A doctor’s opinion regarding a patient’s medicinal needs along with a court qualified cannabis expert
can be the most important testimony for the defense. Patients and caregivers should have a discussion with their doctors in
order to establish the doctor’s commitment to testify on their behalf in the event that the patient faces prosecution.
Note from Bruce: The transportation of marijuana for current medical needs is also lawful [See H&S Code §11362.76], but it
is not lawful to store marijuana in the vehicle (People v. Wayman (2010) [189 Cal. App. 4th 215] (Page 18))
Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate Bill 420)
Health and Safety Code §11362.7-11362.83
This bill protects patients from any arrests and seizures for marijuana amounting to 8 ounces of dried flowers and
6 mature or 12 immature plants. However, a patient’s doctor may determine that the patient requires more for his/
her medical needs or if the city or county allows greater amounts (see page 17).
The act provides that a physician (M.D. or O.D.) may recommend or approve marijuana use if he/she has conducted a
medical examination, taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, and has concluded that the patient has a serious
medical condition requiring the medical use of marijuana [H&S Code §11362.7].
In order to give law enforcement some much-needed guidance on the amount of marijuana that is presumptively legal and
to protect qualified patients against unnecessary arrest, confiscation and prosecution, the California Legislature enacted
Senate Bill 420. Senate Bill 420 provides legal defenses for patients; it includes the formation of collectives and co-operatives
used to cultivate and provide marijuana to their members. Senate Bill 420 also provides patient protections from arrests and
seizures.
This act greatly expanded medical laws by providing patient’s collectives and cooperatives and providing a
variety of new defenses (such as transportation). Please see page 23 to learn more about Health and Safety Code
§11362.75.
Note from Bruce: The Compassionate Use Act (Prop 215), passed in 1996, protects qualified patients from conviction only,
not from arrest, seizure or prosecution. Unlike the Compassionate Use Act, Senate Bill 420 additionally provides protection
from arrest, seizure, prosecution and conviction.
The limits are set to 8 ounces of mature marijuana (flower/buds) and 6 mature plants (flowering) or 12 immature plants
in order to gain protections from this legislation. Doctors will usually provide a letter confirming that their patient’s use of
marijuana has been recommended and approved.
Health and Safety Code §11362.77 states that only dry processed flowers (buds) are to be considered when evaluating the
permissible amounts; leaves and stalks are not to be considered.
The Supreme Court of California held in January 2010 that the limits set in Senate Bill 420 are not applicable in the prosecution
of a patient. Patients need only to raise a reasonable doubt in court that the amounts confiscated were consistent with the
patient’s current medical needs, because it would violate the legal defenses established by initiative under Prop 215 (CUA)
(People v. Kelly (2010) (47 Cal. 4th 1008)).
14
Medical Marijuana Laws (continued)
Under SB 420, the County of Health Department ID Program was passed by the legislature
in 2005. By establishing a government approved Patient Identification Card, the program
provides protection to patients and their primary caregivers. Note that a county issued ID
card is not required for court proceedings.
TO OBTAIN A COUNTY HEALTH ID PROGRAM CALL 866-621-2204 AND DIAL “0”.
Note from Bruce: POLICE OFTEN IGNORE DOCTOR’S LETTERS; HOWEVER, THEY MUST
RECOGNIZE COUNTY ISSUED CARDS. Unless the records are subpoenaed to court from
the custodian of doctor’s records, police, courts, and prosecutors do not have to accept a
doctor’s letter of recommendation as proof of the patient’s legitimacy. The police often ignore a physician’s recommendation letter by claiming that they cannot determine if the document is legitimate or forged; however, the law mandates
police to acknowledge County Health Department ID Cards. Patients are strongly urged to obtain a County Issued ID
Card for the best protection against arrest, seizures, and prosecution. SB 420 states that “the department shall establish
and maintain a 24 hour, toll free telephone number that will enable law enforcement officers to have immediate access
to any information necessary to verify the validity of an identification card issued by the department, until a cost effective
Internet based system can be developed for this purpose.” SB 420 makes it mandatory for law enforcement to comply;
see Health and Safety Code §11362.78.
Note from Bruce: THE ID SYSTEM IS ALSO DESIGNED WITH THE SAFEGUARD NEEDED TO PROTECT PATIENT PRIVACY.
SB 420 criminalizes confidentiality breaches or “information provided to, or contained in the records of the department
or of a county health department of the county’s designee pertaining to an identification card program” [H&S Code
§11362.81(d)]. This means that it is illegal to report confidential information about medical marijuana use to outside
agencies, including the Federal Government.
Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), Health and Safety Code §11362.765
(Senate Bill 420): Patient’s collectives, cooperatives and dispensaries
SB 420 protects qualified patients who cultivate marijuana collectively and cooperatively for medical use, solely
on that basis. Patients shall not be subject to state criminal sanctions for marijuana offenses, including:
Possession
Cultivation
Possession for Sale
Sale, Possession, Transportation, Maintaining a Location
Health and Safety Code §11357
Health and Safety Code §11358
Health and Safety Code §11359
Health and Safety Code §11360, 11366, etc.
For more information on Collectives, Cooperatives, and Dispensaries as well as the interpretation of these laws, see pages 18-22
Health and Safety Code §11362.79: The following are not afforded protections under SB420. A qualified patient or
person with an identification card cannot engage in smoking medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
(a) Any place where smoking is prohibited by law
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical
use occurs within a residence
(c) On a school bus
(d) While in a motor vehicle or boat that is being operated
Under Prop 215 (CUA) and Senate Bill 420, there are no prohibitions on locations where marijuana may be used
and the limitations under SB420 do not affect the legal defenses of patients and caregivers in court.
NOTE FROM BRUCE ON THE AMBIGUITIES OF THE CURRENT MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS: Refer to my website to find
more information on Jerry Brown’s “non-binding” Attorney General’s Guidelines on Collectives and Cooperatives (2008).
In addition, see the former Attorney General Kamala Harris’ letter to the legislature that confirms that there are significant
unresolved questions concerning laws and asks for legislation to clarify medical marijuana laws including: 1) the formation and operation of marijuana dispensaries; 2) the definition of profit, and; 3) concerns about edibles. However the
legislature responded by passing AB 266, which addresses these issues. See pages 28-31 for more information.
15
Primary Caregivers
Health and Safety Code §11362.7 (MMP) (SB 420)
WHO: A primary caregiver is an individual who is designated by the patient to consistently assume responsibility
for a patient’s housing, health and safety. At a minimum, a primary caregiver must prove that he/she (1) consistently
provides care for the patient; (2) provides care that does not have anything to do with medical marijuana; and
(3) provides care at or before the time that the primary caregiver assumed responsibility for assisting with the
patient’s medical marijuana needs. For more information, refer to People v. Mentch (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 274.
Note from Bruce: providing marijuana alone is not sufficient to be patient’s primary caregiver. For more
information, see People v. Windus (2008). In addition, cannabis clubs do not qualify as primary caregivers (People
ex rel. Lundgren v. Peron (1997)).
Health and Safety Code 11362.765(b)(3) extends SB 420 protections to any individual providing assistance to a
qualified patient or an individual with an identification card, or to his/her primary caregiver when administering
medical marijuana or acquiring the skills to cultivate or administer marijuana.
HOW TO: There is no requirement stating that a primary caregiver must be designated in writing. Senate Bill 420
includes provisions for every county health department to issue an ID card for primary caregivers.
REASONABLE COMPENSATION IS ALLOWED BUT NOT FOR PROFIT*: The designated primary caregiver
can receive any compensation for expenses. This includes reasonable compensation for any services provided
for the care of the patient and out of pocket expenses. Note that the term profit is not defined by the law and
is up to the discretion of the jury. Please refer to People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 274 and People v. Windus
(2008) 165 Cal. App 4th 634.
*See AB 266 regarding new licensing regulations that authorizes profit (pages 28-31)
Notes from Bruce:
1. The “primary” caregiver is the individual rather than the organization. An individual or agency
can be deemed a “caregiver” when a patient receives either medical care, supportive services,
or both from a clinic, a health care facility, a hospice, or a home health agency.
2. The “primary caregiver” can care for more than one person. SB 420 prohibits caregivers from
having more than one patient residing outside the county of the caregiver. This may be an
unconstitutional restriction and is subject to challenge.
3. There is not one case that states that a patient must be unable to grow his or her own
marijuana as a condition for having a caregiver.
4. Designated primary caregivers are also eligible for Health Department ID cards
16
County & City Guidelines on
Permissible Amounts Above
Senate Bill 420
As I predicted, the California Supreme Court ruled that the limits set by SB 420 (8
ounces, 6 mature or 12 immature plants) are unconstitutional when applied to
court proceedings, which means that a patient needs to merely raise reasonable
doubt that the quantity is related to his/her medical needs when defending his/
her case in court. All the other provisions of SB 420 remain, including a patient’s
legal defense to collectively cultivate marijuana. See People v. Kelly (2010) in
“Landmark Cases” on page 19.
Local safe harbor policies exist to provide guidance to the police, to prevent
patients from being arrested or prosecuted, and to avoid confiscation of their
medical marijuana.
A physician’s opinion regarding the amount of marijuana consistent with the patient’s needs takes precedence
over the limits set by SB 420 (Trump Card).
THE SAFE HARBOR LOCAL GUIDELINES BELOW ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. PLEASE CHECK
COUNTY OR CITY WEBSITES FOR UPDATES. THE ONES BELOW SERVE AS EXAMPLES:
Most Counties And Cities Not Listed Below Adhere To Ca State Default Guidelines Of 6 Mature Or 12 Immature Plants And 8 Oz. Of
Dried Processed Marijuana (Bud). Check Internet For Updates And For Recent Changes
ARCATA: ordinance: the Chief of Police maintains An ID card system. Maximum of 10 plants + 2 pounds dried
BERKELEY: ordinance: up to 10 plants and 2.5 lbs per patient; collectives can have up to 50 plants and 12.5 lbs total at any given time. Caregiver amounts are
calculated on the above numbers per patient served
FRESNO CITY: on December 15, 2011, the city of Fresno enacted a 45-day moratorium on outdoor cultivation. In January 2012, it extended the moratorium for
10 months, through December 15,2012. A permanent ban was enacted at the city council meeting on June 21, 2012.
FRESNO: In 2014, the county voted to ban all medical marijuana cultivation in unincorporated areas of Fresno County. Violations are misdemeanor crimes, with
daily fines, after an abatement order is sent to the property owner with a 15-day notice, or an “immediate threat” is determined. CalNORML contacted county
officials to let them know that we are challenging Live Oak’s cultivation ban. In the meantime Fresno sheriffs are already enforcing the ban in unincorporated
areas of the county. Ordinances in the city of Fresno and Clovis allowing indoor grows remain in effect.
LOS ANGELES: On May 22, 2013, voters approved Proposition D, which allows three-patient collective grows by patients or designated primary caregivers. No
plant limits are stated; using the state guidelines, 18 mature plants for a three patient garden would be permitted. No Delivery Service
MENDOCINO: In 2008, Measure B was enacted in order to revert the minimum guidelines of 6 mature or 12 immature plans and 8 ounces of bud. The DA has
announced that the county will not enforce plant limits, only square footage.
OAKLAND: Ordinance: Indoors, one can have up to 72 plants with a canopy up to 32 square feet and 3 pounds of dried bud. Caregiver amounts are calculated on
the above numbers per patient served. Outdoors, one can have up to 20 plants at any stage of development and 3 pounds of dried bud. Collective can not exceed
three patient members. The city only allows four licensed dispensaries. Dispensaries are limited to 8 ounces and 6 mature and 12 immature plants per patient
member at any given time. The city does not permit on-site consumption.
SAN DIEGO: With the approval of a San Diego County doctor, adult marijuana patients can keep up to 1 lb of marijuana and grow up to 24 plants. Under the
measure, caregivers can keep up to 2 lbs of marijuana and grow up to 48 plants for as many as four patients. The ordinance is still in the process of enactment.
SAN JOSE: There are no limits on quantity. Officers will not cite or arrest physicians, primary caregivers, or patients possessing or using marijuana for legitimate
medicinal purposes in accordance with H&S 11362.5. A mere oral approval by a physician is all that is necessary to comply with the law. Permitted uses of
marijuana under Proposition 215 must be taken into account when determining probable cause for vehicle searches, person searches, or arrests.
SANTA CRUZ: There are no quantity guidelines. City ordinance regulates cannabis clubs and allows a physician’s diagnosis for recommendation.
SEBASTOPOL: Protection of patients with 4.5 pounds and 150 square feet of garden canopy. A unanimous vote in 2009 approved to extend the hours of operation from 8 pm to 9pm; to add the use of a California State Medical Marijuana Identification card and Patient ID Center Identification card as proof of a patient’s
status; to remove the 30 immature plant limitation from retail sales, and; to allow 150 sq ft for the display and sale of medical use devices.
TULARE: Requires marijuana to be grown “within a secure, locked, and fully enclosed structure” whose exterior is “compatible with the exterior appearance of
structures already constructed or under construction within the immediate area” and has an alarm system and exterior lighting. Collectives may grow up to 99
plants within proper zoning otherwise up to 24 plants at 6 mature or 12 immature plants per patient for only 2 patients. Patients may smoke “only entirely within
a private residence or on the premises of a private residence but out of public view.”Violations are criminal misdemeanors
17
Appellate Court “Landmark Cases”
Medical Marijuana
A PATIENT HAS A RIGHT TO A HEARING TO DISMISS THE CASE BEFORE TRIAL
PEOPLE v. MOWER (2002) [28 Cal. App. 4th 457]: When a defendant is charged
with a felony marijuana offense and proves that he/she is a qualified patient,
the case should be dismissed pretrial. It is up to the prosecutor to prove that the
amount of cannabis in question is beyond the extent allowed by Proposition 215.
The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that patients and caregivers are
entitled to a pre-trial hearing in order to dismiss possession and/or cultivation
offenses; thus, patients should not be burdened with having to proceed to trial.
PATIENTS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR MEDICAL MARIJUANA RETURNED
TO THEM THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE v. THE SUPERIOR COURT, FELIX KHA
[(2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 355]: By providing a verified statement from their doctor,
patients can affirm their right to have any seized medical marijuana returned to them. In addition, they are not
required to provide information regarding the source of the marijuana. Federal laws pertaining to conspiracy,
aiding and abetting are not applicable because the city is merely abiding to a court order. Possession of medical
marijuana is not a crime in the State of California.
A DOCTOR’S ORAL RECOMMENDATION AND PATIENT’S TESTIMONY ALONE IS ENOUGH PEOPLE v.
JONES (2003) [112 Cal. App. 4th 341]: A patient’s testimony of oral approval from a doctor is sufficient enough
to raise reasonable doubt. Also see People v. Windus (2008) [165 Cal. App. 4th 634
THE JUDGE CAN DISMISS THE PATIENT’S CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PEOPLE v. KONOW (2004)
[32 Cal. App. 4th 995]: A patient/defendant may “informally suggest” that the court dismiss the complaint “in
the interests of justice,” and the court has the power to do so.
GROWERS MAY NOT PROVIDE TO DISPENSARIES (UNLESS THEY ARE A MEMBER OF A CO-OP OR
COLLECTIVE) PEOPLE v. GALAMBOS (2002) [104 Cal. App. 4th 1147]: The limited immunity created by medical
marijuana laws does not establish the same immunity for growers who furnish marijuana to dispensaries.
However, refer to SB 420 on page 15 for more information regarding co-op and collective member patient
protections that allow patients to cultivate marijuana and provide it to other patient members.
TO QUALIFY AS A CAREGIVER, ONE MUST DO MORE THAN JUST PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND
OCCASIONALLY PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES TO A PATIENT PEOPLE v. WINDUS (2008) [165 Cal. App. 4th
634]: As a caregiver, one’s services must be consistent. In People v. Mentch [45 Cal. 4th 274, 283], the Supreme
Court of California ruled that one must consistently assume responsibility before there is any marijuana provided
to qualify as a caregiver. In addition, one must also be able to provide care giving without providing marijuana.
ONCE A PATIENT HAS A DOCTOR’S APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION IT DOES NOT EXPIRE
AUTOMATICALLY AND THE DOCTOR CAN TESTIFY ABOUT THE CURRENT AMOUNTS NEEDED
PEOPLE v. WINDUS (2008) [165 Cal. App. 4th 634]: Windus had a recommendation that was expired when he
was arrested. His doctor testified at a trial that the 1.6 pounds Windus had when he was busted was reasonably
related to his medical needs at that time. The court held that the CUA does not state that recommendations
expire or that they must be renewed once given. NOTE THAT THE DOCTOR’S LETTER DID NOT HAVE AN
EXPIRATION DATE IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH MOST LETTERS DO.
THE TRANSPORTATION OF MARIJUANA MUST BE FOR THE PATIENT’S CURRENT MEDICAL NEEDS
PEOPLE v. WAYMAN (2010) [189 Cal. App. 4th 215]: In this case, the patient/defendant testified that he had
kept his entire supply of marijuana solely for his own personal medical use in the trunk of his car in order to
appease his mother who did not want it in her house. The appellate court upheld the conviction because
storing marijuana in the trunk of a car was not for “transportation” for his current medical needs. The defendant
had about four ounces of marijuana in 26 baggies (3.5 grams each), 14 small bottles of hash, an electronic scale,
and $120. The court noted that Wayman had been leaving town for an extended vacation, thus his possession
of four ounces may fall within the protections of the CUA and MMP.
18
Appellate Court “Landmark Cases”
Medical Marijuana (continued)
PATIENTS AND CAREGIVERS ARE ALLOWED TO TRANSPORT MARIJUANA FOR COLLECTIVES AND
CO-OPS PEOPLE v. COLVIN (2012) [203 Cal. App. 4th 1029]: Patients and caregivers who are members of
collectives or co-ops may transport medical marijuana for that purpose. AG Guidelines permit members of
collective or co-ops to perform other participant work besides cultivation for their collective or co-op.
TRANSPORTATION IS PERMITTED AS LONG AS THE AMOUNT IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE
PATIENT’S NEEDS PEOPLE v. TRIPPET (1997) [56 Cal. App. 4th 1532]: “The quantity possessed by the patient
or the primary caregiver and the form and manner in which it is possessed must be reasonably related to the
patient’s current medical needs.” Prop. 215, a ruling that allows transportation, is protected.
TRANSPORTATION FOR PERSONAL USE IS PROTECTED FOR MEDICAL PATIENTS PEOPLE v. WRIGHT
(2006) [40 Cal. App. 4th 81]: In this case, the defendant/patient denied that he had marijuana in the car, but
the cop found numerous baggies totaling slightly over a pound and a scale in the vehicle. The defendant was
charged with possession for sale and transportation; the jury was instructed on simple possession. In court, his
doctor testified that he had approved self- regulating doses for his patient and that a pound every two or three
months was consistent with his medical needs. The court held that the defendant was entitled to assert the
defense under H&S Code §11362.77b and was not limited to any particular amount. In addition, patients are
protected from charges of Vehicle Code §23222, possession of marijuana in a vehicle.
Note from Bruce: Because the FAA (Federal Aviation Association) is under Federal law, traveling by airplane with
medical marijuana is a violation of the Federal law, even if state law allows for the transportation of medical
marijuana. However, I am not aware of any Federal charges brought involving small quantities
THE REASONING BEHIND A DOCTOR’S RECOMMENDATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS NOT TO BE
SECOND GUESSED BY THE JUDGE, JURY OR PROSECUTORS PEOPLE v. SPARK (2004) [121 Cal App. 259]:
“The compassionate use defense (H&S Code §11362.5) does not require a defendant to present evidence that
he or she was ‘seriously ill…’ the question of whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate for a patient’s
illness is a determination to be made by a physician… not to be second-guessed by jurors who might not
deem the patient’s condition to be ‘sufficiently serious’”.
A DOCTOR’S RECOMMENDATION MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE THE BUST PEOPLE v. RIGO (1999) [69
Cal. App. 4th 409]: A doctor’s approval obtained post-arrest is not a defense.
Note from Bruce: A post-arrest Doctor’s recommendation may be helpful in plea bargaining and defending
any charges of possession of marijuana for sale.
A PATIENT/ DEFENDANT MAY POSSESS AND CULTIVATE ANY AMOUNT FOR THEIR PERSONAL
MEDICAL NEEDS PEOPLE v. KELLY (2010) [47 CAL. 4TH 1008]: The Supreme Court recently ruled that the
quantitative guidelines established in SB 420 were unconstitutional when applied to in-court prosecutions of
patients. This does not mean that there are no limitations on what a patient may grow or possess, but that these
limitations must be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES ARE RELEVANT IN EVALUATING THE LEGALITY OF DISPENSARIES/
COLLECTIVES PEOPLE v. HOCHANADEL (2009) [176 Cal. App 4th 997]: Dispensary/collective owners have
a 4th Amendment protection (standing) in regards to the location of the collective/dispensaries. The Court
held that the Attorney General Guidelines were instructive in the determination of the legality of a collective/
dispensary. HS Code §11362.5 instructs the Attorney General to formulate guidelines related to the application
of medical marijuana law.
STOREFRONT DISPENSARIES THAT ARE PROPERLY ORGANIZED AS COOPERATIVES OR
COLLECTIVES MAY OPERATE LEGALLY, BUT MAY NOT QUALIFY AS PRIMARY CAREGIVERS
PEOPLE v. HOCHANADEL (2009) [176 Cal. App. 4th 997]: Any monetary reimbursements that members
provide should only be the amount necessary to cover overhead costs and operating expenses. The 2008
California Attorney General Guidelines have considerable weight in evaluating the legitimacy of the organization
and their activities. New proposed Attorney General Guidelines have been published, but have not yet been
approved. (The entire AG Guidelines are on our website; refer to them for more information on the security and
non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use).
19
Appellate Court “Landmark Cases”
Medical Marijuana (continued)
A SEARCH WARRANT MUST INCLUDE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITY
UNITED STATES v. $186,000.00 527 F. SUPP. 2D 1103: The police cannot omit any facts when they apply for a
search warrant that fails to describe the existence of a medical marijuana organization. In this case, the federal
appeals court held that a warrant was invalid since the dispensary was most likely legal under CA laws.
POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE NOT ACQUIRED SUFFICIENT EXPERTISE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA
LAWS AND PATIENT PATTERNS OF USE MAY NOT RENDER AN EXPERT OPINION ON LAWFUL OR
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF OR INTENT TO SELL MARIJUANA. EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF GRAM
SCALES AND BAGGIES CAN BE CONSTISTENT WITH A PATIENT’S MEDICAL NEEDS PEOPLE v. CHAKOS
(2007) [158 Cal. App. 4th 357]: The defendant had 5.87 ounces of marijuana in multiple containers including
a glass jar containing less than an ounce, a zip lock baggie containing 1.47 ounces, and another large zip lock
baggie containing .28 ounces. However, multiple bags of marijuana and gram scales are consistent with the
needs of a medical marijuana patient and not indicative of sales. The court cites People v. Hunt [4 Cal. App. 3rd
238], “street value seems immaterial.”
THE LAW CONTEMPLATES THE FORMATION OF MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES THAT COULD RECEIVE
REIMBURSEMENT FOR MARIJUANA AND SERVICES PROVIDED PEOPLE v. URZICEANU (2005) [132
Cal. App. 4th 747]: This case is a dramatic change for the prohibition of use, distribution, and cultivation of
marijuana for individuals, qualified patients and primary caregivers. The law evaluates the formation and
operation of medical marijuana cooperatives that receive reimbursements for marijuana cultivation and other
services provided in conjunction with the oversight of marijuana. Please see page 23 for more detailed facts
and information about this very important case.
A DISPENSARY’S PATIENTS CAN TRANSPORT MARIJUANA; MEMBER PARTICIPATION REQUIRES
NOTHING MORE THAN BEING CUSTOMERS PEOPLE v. COLVIN (2012) [203 Cal. App. 4th 1029]: The court
held that per H&S Code §11362.775, transportation of over a pound of marijuana between dispensaries by is
legal if done by a manager. In addition, members of collectives need to do nothing more than shop at their
dispensaries and are not required to participate otherwise. Collectives and cooperatives may cultivate and
transport marijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its membership numbers. The possession of extracted or
concentrated cannabis is also protected. In this case, Marijuana was grown in Humboldt and Los Angeles;
the growers dropped off the marijuana in dispensaries and collectives for other members to buy it and the
members paid for the marijuana.
PATIENTS ARE ENTITLED TO CULTIVATE (NON-PROFIT) FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR COLLECTIVE NO
MATTER HOW LARGE THE COLLECTIVE MAY BE. PEOPLE v. JOVIAN JACKSON (2012) [210 Cal. App. 4th
525]: Even if a collective has 1600 members, the number of members does not delegitimize the collective.
Jackson is entitled to offer evidence under the Medical Marijuana Program Act (H&S Code §11362.7). In
this case, Jovian Jackson had testified that he and five others were cultivating and providing marijuana to
themselves and approximately 1,600 other members of the collective. Jackson offered no testimony regarding
the method in which the collective was governed, but did testify that the collective did not generate profit for
either himself nor the other 4 or 5 participants. He had testified that he and fellow members were paid only
for the expenses acquired from cultivating marijuana and operating the dispensary. In addition, there were no
membership meetings or any attempts to contact members regarding the operations. Although there were
high volume purchases made by members, this did not mean that the defendants made any profit. The other
statement the Attorney General offered, People ex. Rel. Trutanich v. Joseph (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th. 1512, 1523,
does not consider the express terms of the MMPA, but simply makes the conclusion that H&S Code §11362.775
“does not cover dispensing or selling marijuana.” This statement is inconsistent with the Attorney General’s
own guidelines, which states that collectives and cooperatives can dispense marijuana and are entitled to an
exchange for cash consideration. In addition, contrary to Trutanich v. Joseph, the Legislature’s recent addition
of Section 11362.768 to the MMPA states that “a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary… is
authorized by law to possess, cultivate, distribute marijuana and permits dispensaries,”
20
Appellate Court “Landmark Cases”
Medical Marijuana (continued)
THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT HE/SHE IS NOT GAINING
ANY PROFIT FROM CULTIVATING MARIJUANA FOR A COLLECTIVE PEOPLE v. LONDON (2014) [228 Cal.
App. 4th 544]: In this case, the defendant was deemed guilty for cultivating marijuana with the intent to
garner profit from his local medical marijuana collective. The defendant argued that the “profit” made was
merely reimbursement for his labor and any other costs and expenses incurred in growing the plants. However,
the court ruled that sale or possession for sale of marijuana was illegal “even as a nonprofit organization” so
any arguments about compensation or salary reimbursements were disqualified. It was found that the jury’s
instructions regarding the cultivation marijuana were flawed, as they were not based off the MMPA instructions,
which allow medical marijuana patient members of nonprofit collectives to reimburse each other for cultivating
marijuana. However, the court found no evidentiary basis proving that London was not obtaining an illegal
profit for cultivating and providing marijuana plants to a collective or that the collective was operating lawfully.
A PATIENT IN NEED OF RELIEF THROUGH MEDICAL MARIJUANA CAN PARTICIPATE IN A COLLECTIVE
BY MERELY CONTRIBUTING MONEY; HE/SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO WAIT TO ACQUIRE MEDICAL
MARIJUANA PEOPLE v. BANIANI (2014) [229 Cal. App. 4th 45]: Mr. Baniani was the founder of a medical
marijuana cooperative and was charged for the sale and possession for sale of marijuana. The court found
that the defendant was entitled to a defense under the MMPA since the collective was set up as a non-profit
cooperative, the defendant owned a state seller’s license, no profit was made from selling the marijuana to
any patients, and because growers were reimbursed for cultivation costs. The prosecutor argued that it was
unlawful for members of the cooperative who were unable to physically take part of tending to the plants to
participate through monetary contributions. The court disagreed with this statement by saying that it would be
cruel to force those in need of relief to contribute physical strength to cultivate marijuana only to wait months
to finally utilize it.
CONCENTRATED CANNABIS IS CONSIDERED TO BE MARIJUANA AND IS PROTECTED UNDER THE CUA
PEOPLE v. MULCREVY (2014) [233 Cal. App. 4th 127]: Mulcrevy’s probation was extended for two more years
because the court found that he violated his terms of probation by possessing concentrated cannabis. When
the appeal was reversed, the court ruled that Mulcrevy’s due process right was violated; concentrated cannabis
is in fact covered by the CUA so there was not enough evidence to conclude that the defendant violated his
probation.
CULTIVATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR A COOPERATIVE OR COLLECTIVE IS LEGAL IF THE INDIVIDUAL
IS A PATIENT AND A MEMBER PEOPLE v. ANDERSON (2014) [Cal. App. 5th]: Anderson was arrested and
charged for the cultivation of marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale and possession of concentrated
cannabis. The defendant was a medical marijuana patient who grew for his own personal use and cosigned
the excess to the medical marijuana cooperative that he was a member of. The defendant argued that the
jury was not given proper instructions regarding a medical marijuana patient’s defense because cultivation by
patients for cooperative and collectives is legal; in addition, he argued that any evidence of marijuana should
be excluded because officers destroyed almost all of the seized plants. The court agreed with the defendant’s
first claim; proper instruction would have reached a more favorable verdict to the defendant.
THE COMPASSIONATE USE ACT DOES NOT HAVE SIZE OR FORMALITY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES PEOPLE v. ORLOSKY (2015) [Cal. Rptr. 3d]: Officers executed a search
warrant and found numerous plants on the defendant’s property; Orlosky and his partner were charged with
possession of marijuana for sale and cultivation. The defendant asserted a medical marijuana defense under
the CUA, stating he was growing the marijuana for his and his partner’s medical needs. There was no formality
within the partnership, thus the prosecutor argued that the absence of business or formality results in the
absence of jury instruction on the collective cultivation defense. The appellate court disagreed, stating that
the CUA does not have a degree of formality when discussing qualified patients who work collectively and
cooperatively together to grow; thus the defendant’s requested jury instruction should have been granted.
21
Appellate Court “Landmark Cases”
Medical Marijuana (continued)
THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT USAGE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA WHEN IMPOSING
PROBATION PEOPLE v. LEAL (2012) [210 Cal. App. 4th 829]: The court granted Leal three years formal probation
and prohibited him from any form of marijuana use. The defendant was later found guilty of possession for sale
of marijuana. Although the defendant was a medical marijuana patient, the court found that “he is much more
likely to engage in future criminal activity selling marijuana again if he is in possession of it for medical use” and
upheld the previous probationary restrictions.
PARENTAL USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT A CHILD IS
IN RISK OF PHYSICAL HARM OR ILLNESS IN RE DRAKE M. (2012) [Cal. App. 2nd]: When Drake was nine
months old, he was referred to the Department of Children and Family Services because his mother had a
history of drug abuse and DCFS was already involved due to a case with another child she previously had. When
investigating the living situation, the social worker found that the father and mother used medical marijuana.
DCFS sought for the removal of Drake from his parent’s custody. The court ordered the father to avoid taking
care of his son when under the influence, to take part in counseling and parenting courses and to submit
to random drug testing along with the mother. When the case was appealed, the court found insufficient
evidence to support that Drake had suffered in any way because of his father’s marijuana use. The court made
the distinction between “drug use” and “drug abuse,” stating that the two terms do not have the same meaning.
THE MMPA PROTECTS THOSE WHO CULTIVATE SOLELY FOR NON-PROFIT COLLECTIVES PEOPLE v.
MITCHELL (2014) [255 Cal. App. 4th 1189]: The defendant was charged and convicted for cultivating marijuana;
he appealed the case because he claimed that he was entitled to the protections granted by the Medical
Marijuana Program Act. Because the defendant was growing for a for-profit medical marijuana collective, the
court ruled that the defendant cannot be granted immunity by the MMPA. The defendant should have been
cultivating marijuana “solely because” he was involved in the collective if he were to be granted immunity.
ANY AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA (FRESH OR BURNT) IS CONSIDERED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH
A VEHICLE PEOPLE v. WAXLER (2014) [Cal. App. 4th]: When approaching Waxler’s car, an officer smelled
burnt marijuana and spotted a marijuana pipe with a small amount of residue, thus considering the evidence
as probable cause to search the defendant vehicle. Upon inspection, the officer found methamphetamine
and arrested the defendant for possession of a controlled substance. When the case was appealed, Waxler
contended that the search should have been deemed illegal because there was evidently much less than
an ounce of marijuana in his pipe and because he had presented his medical marijuana card to the officers
upon detainment. The court rejected both arguments by ultimately deciding that any amount of marijuana
can be present in order to suspect that there is more marijuana in a vehicle. In addition, a medical marijuana
recommendation does not annul probable cause to search a vehicle.
ONE MUST PROVE THAT THE COLLECTIVE IS NONPROFIT AND IN ACCORDANCE TO THE DEFENITION
OF A “COLLECTIVE” TO ESTABLISH A DEFENSE UNDER THE MMPA PEOPLE v. SOLIS (2013) [25 Cal. Rptr.
2d 184]: The defendant operated a medical marijuana collective that served approximately 1700 members.
The defense used the MMPA to establish its right to collectively and cooperatively cultivate medical marijuana.
However, in order to do so, the defense had to prove that it was in fact operating in accordance with the
definition of a “collective or cooperative” and not gaining profit. The court found that the collective had made
$80,000 in excess profit annually which was to be the defendant’s personal salary and that the collective was
never registered as a nonprofit. Therefore, the MMPA defense is not valid.
EVEN THOUGH A POLICE OFFICER MAY NOT BE A MEDICAL MARIJUANA EXPERT, HE/SHE IS QUALIFIED
TO RENDER HIS/HER OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNT POSSESSED IS USED FOR THE
PURPOSES FOR SALE PEOPLE v. DOWL (2013): Dowl was arrested when an officer found 66.7 grams of
marijuana. Although the defendant had a medical marijuana card, the arresting officer testified that the
marijuana retrieved from Dowl’s car was possessed for the purposes of sale. The defense argued that the officer
was not a medical marijuana expert; therefore, he could not have been qualified to render such an opinion. The
court found that the evidence before the jury as well as the officer’s opinion was sufficient enough to prove
that Dowl was selling this marijuana for the purposes of sale.
22
Patient Collectives And Cooperatives
Health and Safety Code §11362.775 and Senate Bill 420
The legislature intends to “enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective,
cooperative cultivation projects.”
SB 420 does NOT DEFINE collectives and cooperatives. Collectives and cooperatives that abide by local laws and
guidelines exist throughout the state and can legally grow and provide marijuana to its members. Any individual
responsible for assisting others in administrating marijuana to patients and educating them about cultivation is also
protected. Refer to Health and Safety Code §11362.765 (b)(3).
Since medical marijuana is not recognized as a defense, federal laws do not protect patients or members of
collectives and cooperatives from prosecution. Recently, Feds have prosecuted cases involving very large
operations, tax evasion allegations, operations located 1,000 feet from schools, organized crimes groups, and forprofit organizations. For more details, see Federal Marijuana Sentencing on page 13.
In August 2008, the California Attorney General’s office published the “Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion
of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use.”These Guidelines are to provide a comprehensive understanding of collectives
and cooperatives. They are NOT binding in court; instead, they are intended to guide cooperatives and collectives
and to indicate various important factors necessary to take into account when operating a collective/cooperative.
Courts are to refer to these guidelines before determining if the collective/co-op is operating legally. See Attorney
General Kamala Harris’s letter to the legislature on my website for more information regarding the uncertainty of
the meaning of H&S §11362.775 and information on dispensaries, the term “non profit” and edibles.
Collectives and cooperatives are two distinct groups of qualified patients that may cultivate marijuana and provide it
to their members. Cooperatives must follow the California Corporations Laws requirement that includes guidelines
for setting up their group, maintaining records etc. Meanwhile, the law does not define collectives; however, they
are usually more informal patients groups who organize themselves to cultivate medical marijuana and to provide
assistance to patients with medical needs.
The Attorney General’s guidelines have concluded that both collectives and cooperatives are legal under the law.
Pursuant to the Attorney General’s Guidelines Opinion, collectives and cooperatives should substantially conform
to the following rules: (1) collectives and cooperatives must be democratically operated by their members; (2)
marijuana must not be diverted for non-medical purposes or diverted to individuals outside the operation; and, (3)
none of the activities may be carried out for profit.
Note from Bruce: The law does not define the term “profit.”
In appellate cases, issues of profit have not been directly defined by the law or in the Attorney General’s guidelines.
However, the direct expenses of cultivating and distributing medical marijuana can be reimbursed. Court rulings
do not exclude possible compensation for an individual’s work and effort; court rulings have held that the meaning
of profit is a question subject to the jury. Profit is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the excess of returns over
expenditures in a transaction or series of transactions.” Any money in excess of the expenses should be returned to
members, used to reduce the cost of medicine, or used to provide other medically related services to the members.
Refer to my website: www.1800420laws.com for the Attorney General’s Guidelines.
Note from Bruce: The fewer members of a collective the better; large cultivation projects are more likely to get
busted and prosecuted. Based on my experiences, it much easier to successfully defend smaller collectives. The
prosecutors may dismiss the case before litigation is required once they are presented with documentation and/or
the medical records of its members. I recently represented a member of a collective with about 120 plants and 22
members who was charged with possession for sale; the case resulted in a dismissal at the preliminary hearing. See
People v. Mower under “Landmark Cases.”
Note from Bruce: I founded and am the director of the National Institute of Court Qualified Cannabis Experts. Faculty
members of the institute and myself provide education about current marijuana case laws and other related issues.
In many medical marijuana cases, the expert testifying about patient’s collectives, dispensaries, medical marijuana
use, plant yields, etc., can be the turning point in obtaining a dismissal or not guilty verdict. Faculty members have
included court-qualified experts Chris Conrad, Bill Britt and others.
If you are interested in becoming an expert, send in your resume via
fax (310) 652-1501) or email bmargolinmargolinlawoffice.com
23
Dispensaries
California’s medical marijuana laws may not protect dispensaries that sell over the counter marijuana to anyone who
presents a doctor’s letter and are not patient co-ops or collectives. Dispensaries are not caregivers. (Refer to People v. Peron
(1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th1383).
In August 2008, Jerry Brown reiterated the Attorney General’s office’s opinion stating that properly organized collectives or
cooperatives dispensing medical marijuana through storefront locations may be lawful. Refer to my website, 420laws.com
for the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Security and Non Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use.
The Attorney General’s Guidelines state that patient’s collectives and co-ops may provide marijuana for the following
reasons: (1) it is free to its members; (2) it is provided in exchange for services provided by members; and (3) it is provided
for fees based on costs for overhead and operating expenses.
SB 420 “contemplates the formation and operation of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives that would receive
reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.” Patient
cooperatives or collectives may cultivate and dispense marijuana to their member patients. Refer to People v. Urziceanu
132 Cal App. 4th 747.
There are hundred of organizations currently dispensing medical marijuana in California. Many are conforming to required
local regulations, while others are not. Many are being tolerated because they meet the needs of patients and are careful to
exclusively provide marijuana to them.
In the City of Los Angeles, dispensaries that are not in compliance with Proposition D are being charged with Municipal Code
Misdemeanors. In some recent cases, the owners, bud tenders, and even volunteers have been charged with possession for
sale and sale of marijuana under California State Laws.
Undercover cops often pose as patients (with doctor’s letters) in order to bust dispensaries. Investigations are then launched
to determine whether the dispensaries are actually collectives (patient run, non-profit groups as required by state law)
rather than profit-making organizations, and whether or not these organizations have properly filed and paid Board of
Equalization Taxes, complied with local ordinances or have shipped or supplied marijuana out of state. See H&S Code
§11362.83.
Note from Bruce: My office is currently and consistently defending numerous collective and dispensary owners and
participants. For more information regarding local rules, regulations, and dispensary licensing, please contact my office for
referrals to experienced attorneys who are available to assist those who are interested in establishing dispensaries or coops/collectives.
California Health and Safety Code §11362.768- January 1, 2011
Applies to individuals of section 11362.765 collectives, caregivers and delivery services… etc
A medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, or provider who possesses, cultivates, or distributes medical
marijuana and has a storefront or mobile retail outlet that ordinarily requires a local business license, pursuant to this article,
cannot be located within a 600 foot radius of a religious institution, public park, school etc. See People v. Jovian Jackson
(2012) 210 Cal. App 4th 525 on page 20.
Note from Bruce:
DISPENSARY BUSTS
Police officers often have a list of questions they ask to properly assess the legality of a collective/ co-op at the scene of a
bust. Remember that everyone has the right to refuse to be detained or to answer questions. Wrong or confusing answers
have often been used as the basis for prosecution. The police have interrogated suspects in order to obtain proof of profit as
one of their latest prosecution tactics. Before, the last prosecution tactic used was meant to obtain proof that participating
members participate in every activity including growing. That position has been changed because of the ruling in People v.
Colvin in 2012 (See top of page 19) as patients need only purchase. See my wallet-sized invocation of rights card here
inside of my guide.
24
An Example Of A Legally Defensible
Cooperative
PEOPLE v. URZICEANU [2005 132 Cal. App. 4th 747]
The California Court of Appeals held that, based on the facts presented, there was substantial evidence suggesting
that the defendant (patient) was entitled to raise a collective defense under section H&S 11362.775. Accordingly,
the defendant was entitled to use section H&S 11362.775 as a defense for the charges of possession for sale and
cultivation. The case was returned to the trial court and the conviction was set aside.
The defendant ran Flora Care, a patient collective that cultivated between 190-300 plants at the location.
ADDITIONAL FACTS ABOUT THE CASE
• The police recovered $2,800 in cash and pay/owe sheets at the collective residence.
• Officers found at least 51 plants that were about 2-4 feet tall in the greenhouse. An estimate of 11 and
32 pounds of marijuana would be produced which is a sufficient amount for 12-20 chronic pain patients
per year. Officers also found another 259 plants that amounted to 410 pounds of marijuana around the
pool and backyard.
• Some patients testified that they were members of the cooperative; others stated that they believed they
owned a number of the plants. One member testified that he was a member of another cooperative as
well.
• Several patients had made donations in order to receive medical marijuana while others were given free
marijuana and plants. Another member paid $50 for an eighth of an ounce.
• The organization took in $3,000-$4,000 every day.
• The members of the collective paid $5,000 in attorney fees for consultation.
HOW THE COLLECTIVE WORKED
• The plants were collectively grown for the members; individual members owned some of the plants.
• Additional baked goods were available to the patients.
• The collective provided a typed list that suggested donation values for the products.
• There were a few hundred members, a $25 membership fee, and at least a dozen individuals who
assisted in cultivating the plants.
• Fifteen members assisted with the intake of new members. They were compensated for their work in the
form of gas money and marijuana.
• One member had the responsibility of delivering the marijuana to the patients.
PATIENT/MEMBERS MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT
• I have been diagnosed with a serious illness for which cannabis provides relief and have received a
recommendation or approval from my physician to use cannabis.
• I understand that my contributions for products I may acquire from this organization are used to ensure
continued operation and that this transaction in no way constitutes commercial promotion.
• The money I pay is to help the collective continue to provide its members with marijuana for our
medicinal needs.
• Flora Care is a collective with the medical marijuana in possession of all its members.
• I designate Flora Care as my provider for my medicinal marijuana.
Note From Bruce: For those interested in organizing collectives, co-operatives and dispensaries, my office
can refer you to specific business attorneys. Unfortunately, under the Federal US Controlled Substance Act,
medicinal marijuana is not recognized as a defense to the prosecution. Additionally, a lawyer’s advice does not
bar prosecution in State or Federal Courts.
25
How Many Plants Can A Patient Grow?
In order to have the protections afforded by SB 420, a patient cannot have more than six mature (flowering buds)
or twelve immature plants (unless local city or county guidelines exceed the amount) (SEE PAGE 17). Additionally, a
doctor’s letter alone does not have to be accepted by the police; therefore, it is necessary to have a county health
department issued patient or caregiver identification card to avoid being arrested and having your plants confiscated (SEE PAGE 15). When prosecuted in court proceedings, there is no limit to the number of plants a patient may
have; however, the amounts must be reasonably necessary for the patient’s current medical needs. There must also
be no evidence of sales made from the cultivation.
Please note that the U.S. Federal Program, established in 1976 by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in their
Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program, is still providing 7 patients with about a half-pound per month
or 2 ounces per week per patient, which works out to 6 pounds per year (See Internet, Patient Robert Randell 19482001). A large number of plants are needed to cultivate that amount of bud, especially if it is an outdoor grow, since
it is limited to one crop annually.
Pursuant to Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) there are no limits indicated to how many plants
or how much marijuana a patient may possess or cultivate. In court proceedings (where a patient is prosecuted),
the quantitative limitations (8 ounces, 6-12 plants) of SB 420 is not applicable as it has been deemed a violation of
Prop. 215, which takes precedent over any legislation including Senate Bill 420. Patients may possess or cultivate
any amount that is consistent with their current medical needs. See People v. Kelly (2010) under “Landmark Cases.”
A doctor’s evaluation of the patient’s medical needs can be the most relevant evidence. Some doctors have been
providing 99 plant recommendations. However, in my opinion, the 99-plant recommendation in and of itself is not
enough to establish a good defense. Therefore, it is important to make sure that your doctor will testify to verify the
amount of marijuana needed for the patient’s medical needs.
The 1992 DEA Cannabis Yields study concluded that the weight of dried, manicured, medical grade bud from a
plant only accounts for 7-10% of the plant’s total weight while being cultivated.
Defense expert testimonies may explain the factors involved in growing and harvesting medical marijuana in order
to help the judge or jury determine whether the number of plants seized was reasonably required to meet the
then-current medical needs of the patient.
See more information about the National Institute of Court Qualified Cannabis Experts in the “Patient Collectives
and Cooperatives” section in my guide.
Cannabis experts use some of the following factors in their opinions to determine whether the amounts are reasonably necessary:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The expected yield of medical-grade marijuana buds from the plants in question
Whether the grow is indoors or outdoors. Outdoor grows can only be harvested once a year, whereas indoor
grows may yield less per crop, but may yield two to three harvests each year
How the patient ingests or uses marijuana. For example, patients who eat marijuana may need to consume up
to four times the amount to get the same medicinal effects as the patients who smoke it
Whether the patient has built up a tolerance due to prior use of marijuana, pharmaceutical or street drug use.
Such patients may require higher dosages of medical marijuana in order for it to be effective
The effect of weather, insects and other natural variables that affect yields
How much medicine a patient must set aside for his or her reasonably expected needs.
Example of a court qualified cannabis expert’s testimony regarding the evaluation of the patient’s medical needs:
“Christopher Conrad is a court qualified cannabis expert. He testified that it is extremely common for users of medical marijuana to keep supplies of marijuana
on hand. This is because dispensaries routinely are being shut down all around the state, leaving patients with nowhere to go except the ‘black market,’ which
can be ‘unreliable, dangerous, [and] expensive.’ It is also common for users of medical marijuana to store marijuana in multiple bags to keep track of the different varieties of marijuana that come from different plants and to more easily carry and handle it for themselves. Marijuana can be stored for five years without
losing a significant amount of its potency. Marijuana can be ingested either by smoking it or eating it. When marijuana is eaten, patient needs to consume
between three to five times more then when it is smoked. According to a study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a typical marijuana plant of about six
feet produces about four ounces of ‘finished bud.’ ‘It is ‘extremely difficult’ to anticipate the yield from a marijuana plant because it is hard to tell how much a
plant will grow and how pests or diseases might affect the plant. The total useable amount calculated by Conrad, in that case, of approximately nine and onehalf pounds was enough for a one-year supply if the marijuana was eaten, or a three-year supply if smoked by that patient.” See People V. CHAKOS, Page 20.
26
Medical Marijuana While On
Probation, Parole, or In Jail
PATIENTS CAN DEFEAT A PROBATION VIOLATION BASED ON THEIR MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE
PEOPLE v. TILEHKOOH (2003) [113 Cal. App. 4th 1433] – Probationers are allowed to use medical marijuana,
even when on probation for marijuana or controlled substance offenses. Federal laws are not enforced in our
state courts. The term “obey all laws” as a condition of probation does not pertain to federal laws. However People
v. Bianco (2001) [93 Cal. App. 4th 748] held that judges have the discretion to refuse to give permission for medical marijuana use during probation. In addition, in People v. Moret (2009) [180 Cal. App. 4th 839], the court had
the right to require the defendant to turn in his medical marijuana card during his probation sentence.
California courts do not enforce Federal laws so the term “obey all laws as a condition of probation” does not
include Federal laws. See People v. Kha (2007)[157 Cal. App. 4th 355].
Persons who are incarcerated may not be punished or prevented from obtaining a patient I.D. card [SB 420; H&S
Code 11362.785(b)].
A prisoner or person under arrest who has an I.D. card cannot be prohibited from using marijuana for medical
purposes under the circumstances that the use will not endanger the health or safety of other prisoners or the
security of the facility [SB 420; H&S Code §11362.785(c)].
Probationers and parolees may confirm that they are allowed to use medical marijuana with the court or parole
board [SB 420; H&S Code §11362.795].
Note from Bruce: Medical marijuana patients are eligible for Proposition 36 treatment. See People v. Beatty
(2010) [181 Cal. App. 4th at 644].
.
Medical Concentrated Cannabis
CA Health & Safety Code §11357(a) vs. Health & Safety Code §11362.5
The Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) does not explicitly address the question of whether the use of
concentrated cannabis or “hashish” is protected by Prop. 215. However, the most recent edition of the Judicial
Council’s Jury Instructions (CalCrim §2377) requires judges to instruct juries that the use is protected. This rule
follows the former California Attorney General’s opinion (86 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 180, 194 (2003)). See my website,
www.1800420laws.com, for the full Attorney General’s opinion. Also see People v. Colvin (2012) [203 Cal 4th
1029], which also confirmed that concentrated cannabis is subject to the protections afforded to patients.
Note from Bruce: Manufacturing hashish, even for medical purposes, is illegal and dangerous when made with
butane or other chemical processes. Refer to People v. Bergen (2008) [166 Cal. App. 4th 161] which states, “nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that
endangers others.” This violation is punishable by 3, 5, or 7 years in prison. I have had numerous clients that have
used butane to manufacture hash and consequently have been seriously injured, burnt, and/or have caused
serious damage to a property. The current policy of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, in the event of an
explosion, is to refuse to plea bargain for less than five years.
Note that under MMRSA, there are licensing provisions for legally manufacturing concentrated cannabis.
(See Next Page)
27
CA Assembly Bill 266, etc.*
MMRSA (2016): State-Licensing for Commercial (profit) Medical Marijuana
CONTACT MY OFFICE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OBTAINING LICENSES AND PROCEDURES
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, effective January 1, 2016, creates a comprehensive state licensing
system for the commercial (profit authorized) cultivation, manufacture, retail, sale, transport distribution delivery
and testing of medical marijuana
AGENCIES: AB 266 establishes a new Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation under the department of
Consumer Affairs. The Bureau is meant to create a comprehensive Internet system in order to keep track of
licensees and to report and track the movement of commercial cannabis and cannabis products
SB 643 & AB 243 give the Dept. of Food and Agriculture the responsibility for regulating cultivation; the Dept.
of Public Health for developing standards for manufacture, testing, and production and labeling of edibles; the
Dept. of Pesticide Regulation for developing pesticide standards; and the Depts. Of Fish and Wildlife and State
Water Board for protecting water quality (sec. 19332).
LICENSE TYPES:
Along with Senate Bill 643, AB 266 establishes the following license types:
Type 1: Cultivation; Specialty outdoor. Up to 5,000 sq ft, using exclusively artificial lighting
• Type 1A: Cultivation; Specialty indoor. Up to 5,000 sq ft, using exclusively artificial lighting
• Type 1B: Cultivation; Specialty mixed-light. Up to 5000 sq ft, using combination of artificial & natural light
Type 2: Cultivation; Small outdoor. 5001 – 10,000 sq ft
• Type 2A: Cultivation; Small indoor. 5001 – 10,000 sq ft
• Type 2B: Cultivation; Small mixed – light. 5001 -10,000 sq ft
Type 3: Cultivation; Outdoor. 10,001 sq ft – 1-Acre
• Type 3A: Cultivation; Indoor. 10,000 – 22,000 sq ft
• Type 3B: Cultivation; Mixed-light. 10,001 – 22,000 sq ft
Type 4: Cultivation; Nursery
Type 6: Manufacturer 1 for products not using volatile solvents
Type 7: Manufacturer 2 for products using volatile solvents
Type 8: Testing
Type 10: Dispensary; General
• Type 10A: Dispensary; No more than three retail
Type 11: Distribution
Type 12: Transporter
CULTIVATION SIZE LIMITATIONS: the maximum allowable size is 1-acre (43,560 sq ft) outdoors (Type 3) or
22,000 sq ft indoors (Type 3A and 3B license). The DFA is directed to limit the number of Type 3, 3A and 3B
licenses (AB 243, 19332 (g))
VERTICAL INTEGRATION: there are complicated restrictions to prevent vertical integration. In general,
licensees can only hold licenses in up to two separate categories. Small cultivation licensee Types 1-2 may hold
manufacturing or Type 10A retail licenses (limited to three dispensaries). It appears that Types 3-4 can’t apply for
manufacturing licenses at all. However, Type 10A licensees can apply for both manufacturing and cultivation
licenses, provided their total cultivation area doesn’t exceed 4 acres. Also, facilities in jurisdictions that require or
permit cultivation, manufacture and distribution to be integrated as of July 1, 2015 may continue to operate that
way until January. 1, 2026
28
CA Assembly Bill 266, etc. (cont.)
MMRSA (2016): State-Licensing for Commercial (profit) Medical Marijuana
DISTRIBUTORS REQUIRED: Type 11 distributors are a new kind of entity that has been created to regulate the
flow of products. ALL cultivation and manufacturing licensees are required to send their products to a Type 11
licensee for quality insurance and inspection before passing them to the next stage of manufacturing or retailing.
The Type 11 licensee in turn submits the product to a Type 9 laboratory for batch testing and certification.
Afterwards, the sample returns to the Type 11 distributor for final inspection and execution of the contract
between the cultivator and manufacturer or manufacturer and retailer. The Type 11 distributor charges a fee that
covers the testing plus any applicable taxes (the Act doesn’t impose any new taxes, but anticipates that could
happen in the near future) (AB 266, 19326).
Type 11 distributors and Type 8 testing facilities can’t hold any other kind of license (however, licensees may have
their own labs for in-house testing).
LOCAL PERMITS REQUIRED: No person shall engage in commercial activity without BOTH a state license and
a license, permit, or other authorization from their local government (AB 266, 19320(a); AB 243, 11362.777(b)).
LAWFUL ACTS: Actions by licensees that are permitted by both a state license and local government are lawful
and protected from arrest, prosecution or other legal sanctions (AB 266, 19317).
GRANDFATHERING: Facilities already operating in compliance with local ordinances and other laws on or
before Jan 1, 2018 may continue to operate until such time as their license is approved or denied. (AB 266,
19321(c)). Facilities in operation before Jan. 1, 2016 shall receive priority, Los Angeles may in any case continue to
prosecute violations of Measure D.
APPLICANT QUALIFICATIONS: (SB 643, 19322) Applicants must provide proof of local approval and evidence
of legal rights to occupy proposed location. Applicants shall submit fingerprints for DOJ background check.
Cultivation licensees must declare selves “agricultural employers” as defined by the Alatore-Zenovich-Dunlap
Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act
Licensing authority MAY deny application if applicant has been convicted of an offense substantially related
to qualifications, including ANY felony controlled substance offense, violent or serious felonies, or felonies
involving fraud, deceit or embezzlements, or any sanctions by a local licensing authority in the past 3 years (SB
643, 19323(a)5).
FOR PROFIT ENTITIES: They are implicitly allowed under the qualifications established above. These were
previously “not authorized” under SB 420, but the new licensing provisions extend to individuals, partnerships,
corporations, business trusts, etc. (under the definition of “person” in AB 266, 29300.5(aj)). Likewise, applicants no
longer need to be patients.
CULTIVATION LICENSING: The DFA shall establish a medical cannabis cultivation program. All cultivation is
subject to local land use regulations and permits. In cities and counties without cultivation regulations of their
own, the state shall be the sole licensing authority as of March 1, 2016 (AB 243, 1362.777(c)4).
TRACK AND TRACE PROGRAM: The DFA shall implement a unique identification program for all marijuana
plants at a cultivation site, to be attached at the base of each plant. The information shall be incorporated into a
“track and trace” program for each product and transaction (SB 643, 19335 and AB 243 11362.777(e)). Cultivation in
violation of these provisions is subject to civil penalties up to twice the amount of the license fee, plus applicable
criminal penalties. Fines are enacted daily for each violation (SB 243).
PATIENT EXEMPTION: Qualified patients are exempt from the state permit program if cultivating less than
29
CA Assembly Bill 266, etc. (cont.)
MMRSA (2016): State-Licensing for Commercial (profit) Medical Marijuana
100 square feet for personal medical use. Primary caregivers with five or fewer patients are allowed up to 500
square feet (AB 243 11362.777(g) and SB 643, 19319). Exemption under this section does not prevent a local
government from further restriction or banning the cultivation, provision, etc. of medical cannabis by individual
patients or caregivers in its jurisdiction (AB 243).
DELIVERIES: Cannabis may be delivered to qualified patients only by dispensaries and only in cities or counties
where it is not prohibited by local ordinance. All deliveries are to be documented. No locality can bar transport of
delivered products through its territory. Deliveries may be taxed by the local county (AB 266, 19340). [In a separate
section (19334(a)4) it is confusingly stated that dispensers who have no more than three dispensaries (Type 10A)
shall be allowed to deliver “where expressly authorized by local ordnance.” It is unclear what conditions if any
apply to other, Type 10 licensed dispensers.
MANUFACTURERS: They are not to be licensed by DPH. The DPH shall limit the number of Type 7 licenses that
produce products using volatile solvents.
TESTING (AB 266, 19341-6): The DPH shall ensure that all cannabis is tested prior to delivery to dispensaries
or other businesses, and specify how often such testing shall be conducted. Confusingly, 19346(c) says the costs
of testing are to be paid by cultivators, whereas 19326(c)(3) states that distributors shall charge for the costs of
testing; since distributors serve manufacturers as well as cultivators, it doesn’t make sense that testing costs for
the former should be charged to the latter.
Licensees shall use standard methods established by International Organization for Standardization approved
by an accrediting body that is signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual
Recognition Arraignment (AB 266, 19342). Licensees shall test for cannabinoids, contaminants, microbiological
impurities, and other compounds spelled out in Section 19344. Licensees may conduct tests for individual
qualified patients, but not certify them for resale or transfer to other licensees.
SCHOOL ZONES: Cultivation and dispensary facilities must be at least 600 ft from schools (with grandfathered
exceptions specified in HSC 11362.768) (SB 643, 19322(a) 4).
TRANSPORTATION: Only licensed transporters can transport cannabis or cannabis products between licensees
(AB 266, 19326(a)). The bill doesn’t specify whether cultivators, manufacturers, or retailers can also have transport
licenses, but 19328 (a) states they can generally have at most two separate kinds of licenses. Licensed transporters
shall transmit an electronic shipping manifest to the state and carry a physical copy with each shipment (SB 643,
19337).
LABOR PEACE AGREEMENTS: Required of all applicants with 20 employees or more (SB 643, 19322 a(6)).
PACKAGING: Products shall be labeled in tamper-evident packages with warning statements and information
specified in Section 19347.
PRIVACY: Identifying names of patients, caregivers, and medical conditions shall be kept confidential (AB
266,19355).
SB 420 COLLECTIVE DEFENSE SUNSET: The provision in SB 420 affording legal protection to patient
collectives and cooperatives, HSC 11362.775, shall sunset one year after the Bureau posts a notice on its
website that licenses have commenced being issued. After that date, all cannabis collectives will have to be
licensed, except for individual patient and caregiver gardens serving no more than five patients.
PESTICIDE STANDARDS: They are to be promulgated by DFA and Dept of Pesticide Regulation (SB 643, 19332).
30
CA Assembly Bill 266, etc. (cont.)
MMRSA (2016): State-Licensing for Commercial (profit) Medical Marijuana
ORGANIC CERTIFICATION: It will be made available by DFA by January 1, 2020, federal law permitting (SB
643, 19332.5(a)).
APPELLATIONS OF ORIGIN: The bureau MAY establish appellations of origin for cannabis grown in California.
No product may be marketed as coming from a county where it was not grown (SB 643, 19332.5(b-d)).
PHYSICIAN RECOMMENDATIONS (SB 643): There are several new provisions clarifying the duties of medical
cannabis physicians; however, they don’t substantially affect or impair patients’ current access to medical
recommendations:
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
The Med Board’s enforcement priorities are amended to include “repeated acts of
clearly excessive recommending of cannabis for medical purposes, or repeated acts of
recommending without a good faith of prior exam” (SB 643, 2220.05). This is identical to
existing language regarding controlled substances, which has generally been assumed to
apply to MMJ heretofore.
It is unlawful for physicians to accept, solicit, or offer remuneration to or from a licensed facility
in which they or a family member have a financial interest.
The Med Board shall consult with the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in
developing medical guidelines for cannabis recommendations.
This recommending persona shall be the patient’s “attending physician” as defined in HSC
11362.7(a). Contrary to popular misconception, this is nothing new and in no way limits
patients to their primary care physician. It merely restates current language in SB 420.
Physician ads must include a warning notice that MMJ is still a federal Schedule I substance.
FEES AND FUNDING: Each licensing authority shall establish a scale of application, licensing and renewal fees,
based upon the costs of enforcement. Fees shall be scaled dependent on the size of the business (AB 243, 19350
(c)). A Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund is established in the state treasury to receive fees and
penalties assessed under the act.
Ten million dollars is allocated to DCA to begin operations, with the possibility of an additional operating loan
of $10 million from the General Fund (AB 243, 19352). The Bureau shall use the fund for a grant program to assist
in state and local agencies in enforcement and remediation of environmental impacts from cultivation (AB 243,
19351).
COUNTY TAXATION: Counties may levy a tax on the cultivating dispensing, producing, processing, distributing,
etc., of medical cannabis subject to standard voter approval requirements. (Many cities already exercise this
authority, but the authority of counties to do so has been unclear heretofore) (SB643, 19348).
*Prepared by Dale Gieringer of California NORML (including comments)
Gieringer, D. (Oct. 2015). “CA Regulates Medical Marijuana.” California NORML Reports. Vol 39 #2.
Feel free to contact my office regarding licensing, procedures and representation.
Call 1-800-420-LAWS (5297) or 310-276-2231.
31
The
In All 50 States
T HEMarijuana
M ARIJUANA LLaws
AWS I N A LL 50 S TATES
CALIFORNIA:
Notes
Some of these state-by-state marijuana laws have been compiled from unofficial sources;
however we have done our best to provide accurate data. It is always best to rely on the state
have done
our best toinprovide
accurate
data.
is always
relymight
on the have
state codes,
particularly
codes,
particularly
light of
the fact
thatIt some
of best
the to
laws
changed
before in
and
light
of
the
fact
that
some
of
the
laws
might
have
changed
since
this
publication.
after publication
= The state has DECRIMINALIZED marijuana to
to some
somedegree.
degree.InIngeneral
generalthis
thismeans
meansthere
there
in in
= The state has MANDATORY minimum sentences
sentencesand
andthe
thejudge
judgehas
hasnonodiscretion
discretion
oror
higher.
A prisoner
serving
a MMS
for afor a
sentencing to
to give
give less
lessthan
thanthe
themandatory
mandatoryminimum
minimum
higher.
A prisoner
serving
a MMS
= State allows for the CONDITIONAL
the
individual
is spared
anyany
of the
stated
on trial. Upon
Upon successful
successfulcompletion
completionofofthe
theprogram,
program,
the
individual
is spared
of the
stated
penalties and
and accompanying
accompanyingcriminal
criminalrecord.
record.
= MEDICAL MARIJUANA laws passed.
passed.
Misdemeanor
M = Misdemeanor
F = Felony
< = less than
> = more than
MMS = Mandatory Minimum
Minimum Sentence
Sentence
ALABAMA:
ALABAMA:
POSSESSION: any amount (in the 2nd degree)
POSSESSION: any amount (personal use) –
- M/1 yr/$6,000; any amount (in the 1st degree) M/1
yr/$6,000; any amount (not personal
F/1
yr-10yrs/$15,000
use)
– F/MMS 1-10
yrs/to$15,000
SALE/TRAFFICKING:
2.2lbs
100 lbs- F/MMI
3 yrs/$25,000; 100 lbs to 500 lbs- F/MMI 5
SALE/TRAFFICKING:
2.2 lbs
100 lbs
yrs/$50,000;
500 lbs to 1,000
lbs-toF/MMI
15 – F/
MMS 3 yrs/$25,000;
100
lbs to
lbs – F/
yrs/$200,000;
>1,000 lbsF/MMI
life500
in prison;
on
orMMS
near 5school
campus-500
F/5 yrs
yrs/$50,000;
lbsadditional
to 1,000 lbs –
PARAPHERNALIA:
possession/saleF/MMS 15 yrs/$200,000;
>1,000M/1yr/$6,000;
lbs – MMS
sale
to
a
minorF/2
yrs-20
yrs/$30,000
life in prison; on or near a school campus
– F/5 yrs additional
ALASKA
POSSESSION:
<1 oz. inpossession/sale
residence or homeno
PARAPHERNALIA:
– M/1
penalty;
1
to
4
oz.
–M/90
Days/$1,000;
>4
oz.
yr/$6,000; sale to a minor – F/10 yrs–F/5 yrs. /$50,000; Any amount within 500ft. of
life/$60,000
campus, school, or other educational instituteF/5 yrs./$50,000
ALASKA:
SALE/CULTIVATION:
<1 oz. - M/1 yr./$5,000; >1
POSSESSION:
<4 oz in residence or home –
oz.F/5 yrs./$50,000;
no penalty; 1- 4 oz – M/1 yr/$10,000; >4 oz
– F/5 yrs/$50,000; Any amount within 500
ARIZONA
POSSESSION:
<2 lbs.-F/1
yr/$150,000;
2 to 4– F/5
feet of school
grounds
or rec. center
lbs.-F/18
months/$150,000; On or near school
yrs/$50,000
campus- Additional 1 yr/$2,000;
CULTIVATION:
lbs.-F/18
months/$150,000;
SALE: <1 oz<2
– M/1
yr/&10,000;
>1 oz – F/5
2yrs/$50,000;
to 4 lbs.-F/30 to
months/$150,000;
a person under>419lbs.-F/42
who is
months/$150,000;
3 or more years younger than the seller –
SALE: <2 lbs.-F/30 Months/$150,000; >4lbs.-F/5
F/10 yrs/$1000,000
yrs/$150,000;
Transport with Intent to Sell: <2lbs.-F/42
CULTIVATION: <6>2lbs.-F/5
plants inyrs/$150,000
residence – no
months/$150,000;
penalty;
6-25
plants
in
residence
– no
PARAPHERNALIA:Possession or sale- F/18
penalty;
>25
plants
–
F/5
yrs/$1,000;
to a
months/$150,000
Note:
Depending
onwho
extenuating
circumstances,
person
under 10
is 3 or more
years
some of the above felonies may be charged as
misdemeanors
UPDATE!
As of November 6, 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington
State have approved ballot measures, which allow adults 21
and older to posses up to an ounce, and to buy from state
licensed venders.
= Legalization of Recreational Use of
Marijuana for Adults 21 and over
ARKANSAS:
younger than seller – F/10 yrs/$100,000
POSSESSION: <1 oz.-M/1 yr/$1,000
SALE OR DELIVERY: <10 lbs.-F/4 to 10 yrs/$1,000;
10 to 100 lbs.-F/5 to 20 yrs/$15,000-$50,000; 100
ARIZONA:
lbs.
to 500 lbs.-F/5 to 30 yrs/$15,000-$100,000;
POSSESSION:
<240lbs
– F/MMS 4 mths>500
lbs.-F/10 to
yrs/$250,000
2 yrs/$150,000; 2-4 lbs – F/6 mths2.5 yrs/$150,000; >4 lbs – F/1-3.75
CALIFORNIA:
yrs/$150,000<28.5g.- IF/$100; >28.5g.-M/6 mo.
POSSESSION:
/$500;
grounds- M/Add 10 days/$500;
SALE: On
<2 school
lbs – F/1-3.75yrs/$150,000;
2-4lbs
CULTIVATION:
Any amount (except
patients/
– F/2-8.75 yrs/$150,000;
>4lbs –for
F/3-12.5
caregivers)yrs/$150,00F/3 yrs
SALE: Gift of <28.5g- M/$100; Any amount- F/2
to
4 yrs; Sale to minor
F/3 to 5 yrs;
CULTIVATION:
<2 lbsunder
– F/618mthsMinor <15 years old- F/ 3,5, or 7 yrs
2.5 yrs/$150,000; 2-4 lbs – F/1-3.75
yrs/$150,000; >4 lbs – F/2-8.75 yrs/
COLORADO:
$150,000
POSSESSION: Adults 21 and over may legally
possess up to an ounce ; 1 to 8 oz –M/6 mos..
ARKANSAS:
-18
mos./$500-$5,000; 1 to 8 oz. with prior
POSSESSION:
<4yrs/$1,000-$100,000;
oz (first offense) –>8
M/1
convictionF/1-3
oz.
yr/$2,500; 1-4oz (second offense) – F/<6
oz.with any prior
convictionF/2-6
yrs/$2,000yrs/$10,000;
4 oz-10lbs
– F/<6
yrs/$10,000;
$500,000
10-25lbs – F/3-10 yrs/$10,000; 25-100lbs
SALE:
<1 oz,
without monetary
exchange.– F/5-20
yrs/$15,000;
100-500lbs
– F/6-30
yrs/$15,000
15-18(w/ or w/out monetary exchange)- F/2-6
yrs/$2,000-$500,000; >1 oz to a minor <15- F/4DELIVERY: <14 g – M/<1 yr/$2,500; 14
12 yrs/$3,000-$750,000
g-4 oz – F/<6Adults
yrs/$10,000;
4 oz-25
may legally
grow lbs
up to
CULTIVATION:
F/3-10 yrs/$10,000;
F/56– ounces,
otherwise first25-100lbs
offense-F/3– yrs/Up
20$5,000;with
yrs/$15,000;
– F/6-30
to
any100-500lbs
prior conviction-F/3
yrs/$15,000
yrs/$5,00
CONNECTICUT:
POSSESSION: <1 oz – I/$100; <1 oz
POSSESSION: <4 oz.- M/1 yr/$1,000; <4 oz- with
(school
grounds) –F/5
M/10
days/$500;
any
prior convictionyrs/$3,000;
>4 oz-<1oz
F/5
(Under
18)
–
M/10
days/$250;
>1
oz –
yrs/$2,000; >4 oz- with any prior convictionM/6yrs/$5,000;
months/$500
F/10
within 1,500 feet of school- F/
additional MMI 2 yrs
SALE:
<1any
kg- amount
F/Up to 7–yrs/$25,000;
>1 kgSALE:
F/2-4 yrs/N/A;
giftF/5of
yrs-20
within 1,500 feet
of schoolF/Addi<1 ozyrs;
– M/N/A/$100;
Minor
– F/3-5
yrs/$0
tional MMI 3 yrs
PARAPHERNALIA:
possessionmos.mths/$500;
CULTIVATION: any
amountM/3
– F/16
within
1,500
ft.
of
schoolF/additional
1
yr
3yrs/N/A
DELAWARE:
COLORADO:
POSSESSION: Any amount- M/6 mos. /$2,000;
POSSESSION:
<1 oz – no
penalty;
within
300 ft. of religious
or rec.
area or within
1-2 oz
– Petty
Offense/$100;
2-6 oz –
1,000
ft. of
schoolF/15 yrs/$250,000
M/0-12
mths/$700;
6-12 oz – M/6-18
SALE,
CULTIVATION
OR TRAFFICKING:
<5 lbs.
>12 oz5–toF/1-2
yrs/$100,000
- mths/$5,000;
F/Up to 5 yrs/$10,000;
100 lbsF/MMI
2yrs/$25,000; 100 to 500 lbs- F/4 yrs/$50,000;
>500
8 yrs/$100,000;
Sale to minor
SALE:lbs<4F/MMI
oz – M/6-18
mths/$5,000;
4-12
(aged
16-20)F/Up
to
5
yrs/$10,000;
oz – F/6 mths-2 yrs/$100,000; 12aged
oz-51415mos./$10,000;
aged
<14- F/MMI
lbsF/MMI
– F/2-6
yrs/$500,000;
5 lbs-50lbs
–1
yr/$10,000;
within
300
ft.
of
religious/rec.
F/4-16 yrs/$750,000; >50 lbs – F/8-32area or
1,000 ft. of school- F/Up to 15 yrs/$250,000
yrs/$1,000,000
PURCHASE:From minor (aged 16-17)- any
amount- F/Up to 5 yrs; aged 14-15- F/MMI 6
CULTIVATION:
<6 plants
mos;
aged <14- F/MMI
1 yr; – no penalty;
6-30 plants – F/6 mths-2 yrs/$100,000; >30
plants
– F/2-6 yrs/$500,000
FLORIDA:
POSSESSION: <20g- M/1 yr/$1,000; >20g- M/5
yrs/$5,000
CONNECTICUT:
SALE OR CULTIVATION:
of <20g––Civil
no
POSSESSION:
<1/2 ozDelivery
(first offense)
monetary exchangeM/1(second
yr/$1,000;
<25 lbs- F/
Penalty/$150;
<1/2 oz
offense)
to 5Penalty/$500;
yrs/$5,000; 25 lbs
to 2,000
F/MMI
–UpCivil
½-4oz
(firstlbsoffense)
3
yrs/$25,000;
2,000
to
10,000
lbsF/MMI
7
– M/1 yr/$1,000; ½-4 oz(second offense)
yrs/$50,000; >10,000 lbs- F/MMI 15 yrs/$200,000;
– F/5 yrs/$3,000; >4oz (first offense) – F/5
within 1,000 ft. of restricted property- F/up to 15
yrs/$2,000;
>4oz (second offense) – F/10
yrs/$10,000
yrs/$5,000
PARAPHERNALIA: possession- M/1 yr/$1,000
DISTRIBUTION/CULTIVATION: <1kg (first
offense)
GEORGIA:– F/7 yrs/$25,000; <1 kg (second
offense)
– F/15
yrs/$100,000;
>1kg
(first
POSSESSION:
<1ozM/Conditional
probation;
offense) – F/5-20 yrs/$25,000; >1kg
(second
yr- 10 yrs;offense) – F/10-25 yrs/$100,000
SALE, CULTIVATION OR TRAFFICKING: <10 lbsF/1 yr- 10 yrs/ 10 lbs to 2,000 lbs- F/MMI 5 yrs/
DELAWARE:
$100,000; 2,000<175
lbs tog10,000
F/MMI 7 yrs/
POSSESSION:
– M/3lbsmths/$575;
$250,000; >10,000 lbs- F/15 yrs/$1,000,000; near
175-1500 g – F/3 yrs; 1500-3000 g – F/5 yrs;
3000-4000 g – F/8 yrs; 4000-5000 g – F/15
yrs; >5000g – F/2-25yrs
HAWAII:
POSSESSION: <1 oz- M/Up to 30 days/$1,000; >1
SALE/TRAFFICKING:
<1500g – F/8yrs; 1500oz- M/Up to 1 yr/$2,000; 2 lbs to 25 lbs- F/Up to
4000g
–
F/15
yrs;
>4000
g –toF/2-25
yrs
10 yrs/$25,000; >25 lbs- F/Up
20 yrs/$50,000
SALE AND TRAFFICKING: <1 oz- M/1 yr/$2,000; 1
to 5 lbs- F/Up to 10 yrs/$25,000; >5 lbs- F/Up to
FLORIDA:
20 yrs/ $50,000;<20g
any amount
to minor- F/Up to
POSSESSION:
– M/1 yr/$1,000;
10 yrs/$25,000
20g-25
lbs – F/5 yrs/$5,000; 25g-2000
lbs – F/3-15yrs/$25,000; 2,000-10,000 lbs –
32
26
The Marijuana Laws In All 50 States (cont.)
F/7-30 yrs/$50,000; >10,000 lbs – F/15-30
yrs/$200,000
SALE: <20g – M/1 yr/$1,000; <25 lbs
– F/5 yrs/$5,000; 25-2,000 lbs – F/3-15
yrs/$25,000; 2000-10,000 lbs – F/730 yrs/$50,000; >10,000lbs – F/15-30
yrs/$200,000
CULTIVATION: <25 plants – F/5 yrs/$5,000;
25-300 plants – F/15 yrs/$10,000; 300-2,000
plants – F/3-15 yrs/$25,000; 2,000-10,000
plants – F/7-30 yrs/$50,000
GEORGIA:
POSSESSION: <1oz – M/1 yr/$1,000; >1 oz
– F/1-10 yrs/$5,000
SALE: <10lbs – F/1-10yrs/$5,000; 10-2,000
lbs – F/5-30 yrs/$100,000; 2,000-10,000 lbs
– F/7-30 yrs/ $250,000; >10,000 lbs – F/1530 yrs/$1,000,000
CULTIVATION: >10lbs – F/1-10 yr/$5,000;
10-2,000 lbs – F/5-30 yrs/$100,000; 2,00010,000 lbs – F/7-30 yrs/$25,000; >10,00lbs
– F/15-30yrs/$1,000,000
HAWAII:
POSSESSION: <1oz – M/30 days/$1,000;
1oz-1lb – M/1 yr/$2,000; >1lb – F/5
yrs/$10,000
SALE: <1oz – M/1 yr/$2,000; 1oz-1lb – F/5
yrs/$10,000; 1-5 lbs – F/10 yrs/$25,000; >5
lbs – F/20 yrs/$50,00
CULTIVATION: 25-50 plants – F/5
yrs/$10,000; 50-100 plants – F/10
yrs/$25,000; >100 plants – F/20 yrs/$50,000
IDAHO:
POSSESSION: <3 oz – M/1 yr/$1,000; 3 oz-1
lb – F/5 yrs/$10,000
SALE: 1-5 lbs – F/1 yr/$50,000; 5-25 lbs –
F/3 yrs/$50,000; >25 lbs – F/5 yrs/$50,000
CULTIVATION: 25-50 plants – F/1
yr/$50,000; 50-100 plants– F/3 yrs/$50,000;
>100 lbs – F/5 yrs/$50,000
ILLINOIS:
POSSESSION: <2.5g – M/30 days/$1,500;
2.5-10g – M/6 mths/$1,500; >10-30g
(first offense) – M/1yr/$2,500; >10-30g
(second offense) – F/MMS 1-6yrs/$25,000;
>30-500g (first offense) – F/MMS
1-6yrs/$25,000; >30-500g (second offense)
– F/MMS 2-10yrs/$25,000; >500-2000g – F/
MMS 2-10yrs/$25,000; >2000-5000g – F/
MMS 3-14yrs/$25,000; >5000g – F/MMS
4-30yrs/$25,000
SALE: <2.5 – M/6 mths/$1,500; >2.510g – M/1 yrs/$2,500; >10-30g – F/MMS
1-6 yrs/$25,000; >30-500g – F/ MMS
2-10 yrs/$50,000; >500-2000g – F/MMS
3-14 yrs/$100,000; >2000 – 5000g – F/
MMS 4-30yrs/$150,000; >5000g – F/MMS
6-60yrs/$200,000
CULTIVATION: >5 plants – M/1 yr/$2,500;
>5-20 plants – F/MMS 1-6 yrs/$25,000;
>20-50 plants – F/ MMS 2-10 yrs/$50,000;
>50-200 plants – F/MMS 3-14 yrs/$100,000;
>200 plants – F/MMS 4-30yrs/$100,000
INDIANA:
POSSESSION: any amount – M/180
days/$1,000; <30g and prior drug offense –
M/1yr/$5,000; >30g and prior drug offense
– F/6mths-2 ½ yrs/$10,000
SALE: <30g – M/1yr/$5,000; 30g-<10lbs –
F/6mths-2 ½ yrs/$10,000; >10lbs – F/16yrs/$10,000; to a minor – F/1-6yrs/$10,000
IOWA:
POSSESSION: any amount (1st offense)
– M/6mths/$1,000; any amount (2nd
offense) – M/1yr/$1,875; any amount (3rd
offense) – M/2 yrs/$6,250
CULTIVATION: <50 kg – F/5 yrs/$7,500; >50100kg – F/10 yrs/$50,000; >100-1,000kg
– F/25 yrs/$100,000; >1000kg – F/50
yrs/$1,000,000; involving a minor – F/MMS
5-25yrs/$100,000
KANSAS:
POSSESSION: <450g – M/1yr/$2,500; any
amount (2nd offense) – F/MMS 10mths3.5yrs/$100,000
SALE: <25g – F/MMS 14 mths probation-51
yrs/$300,000; 25-<450g – F/46-83
33
mths/$300,000; 450g-<30kg – F/92144 mths/$500,000; >30kg – F/138-204
mths/$500,000
CULTIVATION: >4-<50 plants- F/46-83
mths/$300,000; 50-100 plants – F/92-144
mths/$500,000; >100 plants – F/138-204
mths/$500,000
KENTUCKY:
POSSESSION: <8 oz – M/45 days/$250
SALE: <8 oz (1st offense) – M/1 yr/$500;
<8 oz (2nd offense) – F/1-5yrs/$10,000;
8oz-5lbs (1st offense) – F/1-5yrs/$10,000;
8oz-5lbs (2nd offense) – F/5-10yrs/$10,000;
>5lbs (1st offense) – F/5-10yrs/$10,000; >5
lbs (2nd offense) – F/10-20 yrs/$10,000; to
a minor (1st offense) – F/5-10yrs/$10,000;
to a minor (2nd offense) – F/10-20
yrs/$10,000
CULTIVATION: <5 plants (1st offense)
– M/1yr/$500; <5 plants (2nd offense) –
F/1-5yrs/$10,000; >5 plants (1st offense)
– F/1-5 yrs/$10,000; >5 plants (2nd offense)
– F/5-10 yrs/$10,000
LOUISIANA:
POSSESSION: <14g (1st offense) – not
classified/15 days/$300; 14g-2.5lbs (1st
offense) – not classified/6 mths/$500;
2.5-60 lbs – not classified/MMS 2-10
yrs/$30,000; 60-2000 lbs – F/MMS 5-30
yrs/$100,000; 2,000-10,000 lbs – F/MMS
10-40 yrs/$400,000; >10,000 lbs – F/MMS
25-40 yrs/$1,000,000
CULTIVATION: any amount (1st offense) –
not classified/MMS 5-30 yrs/$50,000; any
amount (2nd offense) – not classified/MMS
10-60 yrs/$100,000; to a minor (1st offense)
– not classified/ MMS 5-45yrs/$100,000; to
a minor (2nd offense) – not classified/MMS
10-90yrs/$200,000
MAINE:
POSSESSION: <1.25 oz – civil violation/$600;
1.25-2.5 oz – civil violation/$1,000; 2.5-8 oz
– crime/6 mnths/$1,000; 8oz -1lb – crime/1
yr/$2,000; >1-20 lbs – crime/5yrs/$5,000;
>20 lbs – crime/10yrs/$20,000
SALE: <1lb – crime/1yr/$2,000; 1-20lbs
– crime/5 yrs/$5,000; >20 lbs – crime/10
yrs/$20,000; to a minor – crime/5 yrs/$5,000
The Marijuana Laws In All 50 States (cont.)
CULTIVATION: <5 plants – crime/6
mths/$1,000; 5-100 plants – crime/1
yr/$2,000; 100-500 plants – crime/5 yrs/
$5,000; >500 plants – crime/10 yrs/$20,000
– F/25yrs/$500,000; >50kg- F/30
yrs/$1,000,000; importing >100 kg –
F/35 yrs/$1,250,000; to a minor – F/20
yrs/$250,000
MARYLAND:
MISSISSIPPI:
POSSESSION: <10g – civil offense/$100;
10g-50 lbs – M/1 yr/$1,000; >50 lbs – F/5
yrs/$100,000
POSSESSION FOR SALE: <50lbs – F/5
yrs/$15,000; >50lbs – F/5 yrs/$15,000
TRAFFICKING: 5-45kg – F/10 yrs/$10,000;
>45 kg – F/25 yrs/$50,000
MASSACHUSETTS:
POSSESSION: <1oz – civil offense/$100;
>1oz (1st offense) – M/6 mths/$500; >1oz
(2nd offense) – M/2yrs/$2,000
DISTRIBUTION/ CULTIVATION: <50 lbs (1st
offense) – not classified/ 0-2yrs/$5,000;
<50 lbs (2nd offense) – not classified/1-2.5
yrs/$10,000; 50-100 lbs – F/MMS 1-15
yrs/$10,000; 100-2000 lbs – F/MMS 2-15
yrs/$25,000; 2,000-10,000 lbs – F/MMS 3.515 yrs/$50,000; >10,000 lbs – F/MMS 8-15
yrs/$200,000
MICHIGAN:
POSSESSION: any amount – M/1 yr/$2,000;
in a park – M or F/2 yrs/$2,000; use of
marijuana – M/90 days/$100
POSSESSION: <30g (1st offense) - $250;
<30g (2nd offense) – MMS 5-60 days/$250;
<30g (3rd offense) – MMS 5 days-6
mths/$500; 30-250g – F/3 yrs/$3,000; 250500g – F/MMS 2-8 yrs/$50,000; 500g-1kg
– F/MMS 4-16 yrs/$250,000; 1-5kg – F/624 yrs/$500,000; >5 kg – F/MMS 10-30
yrs/$1,000,000
SALE: <30g – F/3 yrs/$3,000; 30g-1kg –
F/5 yrs/$30,000; 1kg-10lbs – F/30 yrs/
$1,000,000; >10lbs – F/life/$1,000,000
MISSOURI:
POSSESSION: <35 g- M/1 yr/$1,000;
35g-30kg – F/1 yr/$5,000; 30-100kg –
F/5-15 yrs/$20,000; >100kg – F/10 yrslife/$20,000
SALE: <5g – F/7 yrs/$5,000; 5g-30kg –
F/5-15 yrs/$20,000; 30-100kg – F/5/15
yrs/$20,000; >100kg – F/10 yrs-life/$20,000;
>500 plants – F/10 yrs-life/$20,000
MONTANA:
POSSESSION: <60g (1st offense) – M/6
months/$500; <60g (2nd offense) – M/3
yrs/$1,000; >60g – F/5 yrs/$50,000
NEVADA:
POSSESSION: <1oz (1st offense) – M/$600;
<1oz (2nd offense) – M/$1,000; <1oz (3rd
offense) – M/365 days/$2,000; <1oz (4th
offense) – F/MMS 1-4 yrs/$5,000
SALE: <100 lbs (1st offense) – F/ MMS
1-4 yrs/$5,000; <100 lbs (2nd offense) –
F/ MMS 1-5 yrs/$10,000; <100 lbs (3rd
offense) – F/ MMS 3-15 yrs/$20,000;
100 – 2,000 lbs – F/MMS 1-5yrs/$25,000;
2,000-10,000 lbs – F/MMS 2-10yrs/$50,000;
>10,000 lbs – F/MMS 5-life/$200,000
CULTIVATION: >12 plants – F/MMS 1-4
yrs/$5,000; 100-2,000 lbs – F/MMS 1-5
yrs/$25,000; 2,000-10,000 lbs – F/MMS
2-10 yrs/$50,000; >10,000 lbs – F/ MMS
5-life/$200,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
POSSESSION: any amount- M/1 yr/$2,000
SALE: <1oz (first offense) – F/3yrs/$25,000;
1oz-5lbs (first offense) – F/7yrs/$100,000;
>5lbs (first offense) – F/20yrs/$300,000
NEW JERSEY:
POSSESSION: <50g – disorderly person/6
months/$1,000; >50g – crime/1.5
yrs/$25,000
SALE: <1 oz – crime/1.5yrs/$25,000; 1oz-5
lbs – crime/MMS 3-5 yrs/$25,000; 5-25
lbs – crime/MMS 5-10yrs/$150,000; >25
lbs – crime/MMS 10-20 yrs/$300,000;
within 1,000 of school – crime/MMS 3-5
yrs/$150,000
SALE: sale without remuneration –
M/1yr/$1,000; <5kg – F/4yrs/$20,000;
5-45kg – F/7yrs/$500,000; >45 kg – F/15
yrs/$10,000,000
SALE: any amount – F/MMS 1 yrlife/$50,000; to minor – F/MMS 2 yrs/
$50,000; within 1000 feet of a school – F/
MMS 3 yrs-life/$50,000
CULTIVATION: <20 plants – F/4yrs/$20,000;
20-200 plants – F/7yrs/$500,000; >200
plants – F/15 yrs/$10,000,000
CULTIVATION: <1 lb or 30 plants – F/10
yrs/$50,000; >1 lb or 30 plants – F/2 yrslife/$50,000
CULTIVATION: <10 plants – crime/MMS 3-5
yrs/$25,000; 10-50 plants – crime/MMS
5-10yrs/$150,000; >50 plants – crime/MMS
10-20 yrs/$300,000
MINNESOTA:
NEBRASKA:
NEW MEXICO:
POSSESSION: <1oz (1st offense) – I/$300;
<1oz (2nd offense) – M/$500; <1oz (3rd
offense) – M/7 days/$500; 1oz-1lb – M/3
months/$500; >1 lb – F/5 yrs/$10,000
POSSESSION: <1oz (1st offense) – M/15
days/$100; <1 oz (2nd offense) –
M/1yr/$1,000; 1-8oz – M/1yr/$1,000; >8oz
– F/1.5yrs/$5,000
SALE: any amount – F/MMS 1-20
yrs/$25,000; to a minor – F/MMS 1-50 yrs
SALE: <100 lbs (1st offense) –
F/1.5yrs/$500; <100 lbs (2nd offense)
– F/3yrs/$5,000; >100 lbs (1st offense)
– F/3yrs/$5,000; >100 lbs (2nd offense)
– F/9yrs/$10,000; to a minor (1st offense) –
POSSESSION: <42.5g – M/$200;
42.5g-10kg – F/5 yrs/$10,000; 1050kg – F/20 yrs/$250,000; 50-100kg
– F/25 yrs/$500,000; >100kg – F/30
yrs/$1,000,000; >1.4g inside a vehicle –
M/90 days/$1,000
SALE: <42.5g without remuneration
– M/$200; 42.5-5kg – F/5 yrs/$10,000;
5-25kg – F/20 yrs/$250,000; 25-50kg
34
The Marijuana Laws In All 50 States (cont.)
F/3 yrs/$5,000; to a minor (second offense)
– F/9 yrs/$10,000
CULTIVATION: any amount (1st offense) –
F/9 yrs/$10,000; any amount (2nd offense)
– F/18 yrs/$15,000
NEW YORK:
POSSESSION: <25g (1st offense) – $100;
<25g (2nd offense) – $200; <25g (3rd
offense) – 15 days/$250; 25g-2oz – M/3
mnths/$500; 2-8oz – M/1 yr/$1,000; 8oz-1
lb – F/4yrs/$5,000; 1-10lbs – F/7yrs/$5,000;
>10lbs – F/15 yrs/$15,000
SALE: <2g w/o profit – M/3 mths/$500;
<25g – M/1yr/$1,000; 25g-4oz –
F/4yrs/$5,000; 4oz-1lb – F/7yrs/$5,000; >1
lb – F/15yrs/$15,000
TRAFFICKING: any amount – F/MMS 15-25
yrs/$100,000
CULTIVATION: any amount – M/1 yr/$1,000
NORTH CAROLINA:
POSSESSION: <0.5 oz – M/$200; 0.5-1.5 oz
- </1-45 days/$1,000; 1.5 oz-10 lbs – F/3-8
mths/$1,000
SALE: <10 lbs –F/4-8 mths/$1,000; 10-50
lbs – F/MMS 25-39 mths/$5,000; 50-2000
lbs – F/MMS 35-51 mths/$25,000; 2,00010,000 lbs – F/MMS 70-93 mths/$50,000;
>10,000 lbs – F/MMS 175-222
mths/$200,000
CULTIVATION: <10 lbs – F/3-8 mths/$1,000;
10-50 lbs – F/MMS 2-2.5 yrs/$5,000;
50-2,000 lbs – F/MMS 3-3.5 yrs/$25,000;
2,000-10,000 lbs – F/MMS 6-7 yrs/$50,000;
>10,000 lbs – F/MMS 14.5-18 yrs/$200,000
NORTH DAKOTA:
POSSESSION: <1 oz – M/30 days/$1,500;
1oz-500g – F/5 yrs/$10,000; >500 g – F/10
yrs/$20,000
SALE: any amount- F/MMS 3-10
yrs/$20,000; using a minor – F/10
yrs/$20,000
PARAPHERNALIA: possession, manufacture,
delivery, or advertisement – M/1 yr/$3,000;
to a minor – F/5 yrs/$10,000
OHIO:
POSSESSION: <100g – M/$150; 100200g – M/30 days/$250; 200-1,000g
– F/1yr/$2,500; 1,000-20,000g – F/15yrs/$10,000; 20,000-40,000g –F/MMS
5-8yrs/$15,000; >40,000g – F/MMS
8yrs/$20,000
SALE/TRAFFICKING: gift of <20g (1st
offense) – M/$150; gift of <20g (2nd
offense) – M/30 days/$250; 200-1,000gF/1 yr/$2,500; 1,000-20,000g – F/1-5
yrs/$10,000; 20,000-40,000g – F/MMS
5-8 yrs/$15,000; >40,000g – F/MMS
8yrs/$20,000
PENNSYLVANIA:
POSSESSION: <30g – M/30 days/$500;
<30g M/1 yr/$5,000
SALE: <30 g no remuneration – M/30
days/$500; 2-10 lbs – F/1 yr/$5,000; 10-50
lbs – F/3 yrs/$25,000; <1,000 lbs – F/3
yrs/$25,000; >1000 lbs – F/10 yrs/$100,000
CULTIVATION: any number of plants – F/1-5
yrs/$15,000
RHODE ISLAND:
OKLAHOMA:
POSSESSION: <1 oz – civil violation/$150;
1 oz-1kg – M/1 yr/$500; 1-5kg – F/MMS
10-50 yrs/$500,000; >5kg – F/MMS 25yrslife/$100,000
SALE: <25 lbs – F/2 yrs-life/$20,000; 251,000 lbs – F/4 yrs-life/$100,000; >1,000 lbs
– F/4 yrs-life/$500,000
SALE/CULTIVATION: >1kg – F/30
yrs/$100,000; 1-5kg – F/MMS 1050yrs/$500,000; >5kg – F/MMS 20 yrslife/$10,000; to a minor at least three years
younger – F/2-5 yrs/$100,000
POSSESSION: any amount (1st offense) – 1
year; any amount (2nd offense) – F/2-10 yrs
PARAPHERNALIA: possession of
paraphernalia (1st offense) – M/1
yr/$1,000; possession of paraphernalia
(2nd offense) – M/1 yr/$5,000; possession
of paraphernalia (3rd offense) – M/1
yr/$10,000
OREGON:
POSSESSION IN PUBLIC: <1oz – no penalty;
1-2 oz – violation/$650; 2-4oz – M/6
mths/$2,5000; >4 oz – M/1 yr/$6,250
POSSESSION AT HOME: <8oz – no penalty;
>1-2 lbs – M/6 mths/$2,5000; >2 lbs – M/1
yr/$6,250
MANUFACTURE: any amount – F/5
yrs/$125,000; within 1000 feet of school
grounds – F/20 yrs/$375,000
SOUTH CAROLINA:
POSSESSION: <1 oz (1st offense) – M/30
days/$200; <1 oz (2nd offense) – M/1
yr/$2,000
SALE/TRAFFICKING: <10 lbs – F/5
yrs/$5,000; 10-100 lbs (1st offense) – F/
MMS 1-10 yrs/$10,000; 10-100 lbs (2nd
offense) – F/MMS 5-20 yrs/$25,000; 10-100
lbs (3rd offense) – F/MMS 25 yrs/$25,000;
100-2,000 lbs – F/MMS 25 yrs/$25,000;
2,000-10,000 lbs – F/MMS 25 yrs/$50,000;
>10,000 lbs-F/MMS 25 yrs/$200,000
CULTIVATION: <100 plants – F/5 yrs/$5,000;
100-1,000 plants- F/MMS 25 yrs/$25,000;
1,000-10,000 plants – F/MMS 25
yrs/$50,000; >10,000 plants – F/MMS 25
yrs/$200,000
DELIVERY: <1oz without compensation
– no penalty; 1 oz-16oz without
compensation – violation/$2,000;
>16oz – M/1 yr/$6,250; to a minor – F/5
yrs/$125,000
SOUTH DAKOTA:
CULTIVATION: <4 plants – no penalty; 4-8
plants – M/6 mths/$2,500; >8 plants – F/5
yrs/$125,000
SALE: <1/2 oz – M/MMS 15 days1yr/$2,000; ½ -1oz – F/2yrs/$4,000; 1oz-1/2
lb – F/5 yrs/$10,000; 1/2-1 lb – F/10
yrs/$20,000; >1 lb – F/15 yrs/$30,000
35
POSSESSION: <2 oz – M/1 yr/$2,000; 2oz- ½
lb – F/1 yr/$4,000; ½-1 lb – F/5 yrs/$10,000;
1-10 lbs – F/10 yrs/$20,000; >10 lbs – F/15
yrs/$30,000
The Marijuana Laws In All 50 States (cont.)
TENNESSEE:
lbs – F/5 yrs/$100,000; >10 lbs – F/15
yrs/$500,000
POSSESSION: <½ oz (1st offense) – M/1
yr/$250; <½ oz (2nd offense) – M/1
yr/$500; <½ oz (3rd offense) – F/1-6
yrs/$1,000
SALE: <½ oz – M/2 yrs/$10,000; ½ oz1lb – F/5 yrs/$100,000; 1-50 lbs –F/15
yrs/$500,000; >50 lbs – F/30 yrs/$1,000,000
SALE: ½ oz – 10 lbs – F/1-6 yrs/$5,000;
10-70 lbs – F/2-12 yrs/$10,000; 70-300 lbs
– F/ 8-30 yrs/$50,000; >300 lbs – F/15-60
yrs/$200,000
CULTIVATION: 1-2 plants (1st offense) – M/6
mths/$500; 1-2 plants (2nd offense) – M/2
yrs/$2,000; 3-10 plants – F/3 yrs/$10,000;
11-25 plants – F/5 yrs/$100,000; >25 plants
– F/ 15 yrs/$500,000
CULTIVATION: <10 plants – F/16 yrs/$5,000; 10-19 plants- F/2-12
yrs/$50,000; 20-99 plants – F/2-15
yrs/$100,000; 100-499 plants – F/8-30
yrs/$200,000; >500 plants – F/15-60
yrs/$500,000
TEXAS:
POSSESSION: <2 oz – M/180 days/$2,000;
2-4 oz – M/1 yr/$4,000; 4 oz-5 lbs – F/MMS
180 days-2 yrs/$10,000; 5-50 lbs – F/MMS
2-10 yrs/$10,000; 50-2,000 lbs – F/MMS
2-20 yrs/$10,000; >2,000 lbs – F/MMS 5-99
yrs/$50,000
SALE: <7g no remuneration – M/180
days/$2,000; <7g – M/1 yr/$4,000; 7g-5 lbs
– F/MMS 180 days-2 yrs/$10,000; 5-50 lbs –
F/MMS 2-20 yrs/$10,000; 50-2,000 lbs – F/
MMS 5-99 yrs/$10,000; >2000 lbs – F/MMS
10-99 yrs/$100,000; to a minor – F/ MMS
2-20 yrs/$10,000
UTAH:
POSSESSION: <1 oz – M/6 mths/$1,000;
1 oz-1 lb – M/1 yr/$2,500; 1-100 lbs
– F/5 yrs/$5,000; >100 lbs – F/1-15
yrs/$10,000
VIRGINIA:
POSSESSION: <1/2 oz (1st offense) – M/30
days/$500; <1/2 oz – (second offense) –
M/1 yr/ $2,500:
SALE: ½ oz- 5 lbs – F/MMS 1-10 yrs/$2,500;
5 lbs-100 kg – F/MMS 5-30 yrs/$1,000;
>100 kg – F/MMS 20 yrs-life/$100,000;
to a minor 3 yrs younger – F/MMS 2-50
yrs/$100,000
PARAPHERNALIA: sale or possession for sale
– M/1 yr/$2,500; to a minor – F/1 yr/$2,500
WASHINGTON:
POSSESSION: <1 oz (private) – no penalty;
<1 oz (public) – civil penalty/$100; 1 oz-40
g – M/MMS 24 hours-90 days/$1,000; >40g
– F/5yrs/$10,000
SALE: any amount – F/5 yrs/$10,000; to a
minor – F/10 yrs/$10,000
CULTIVATION: any amount – F/5
yrs/$10,000
WEST VIRGINIA:
SALE: any amount – F/5 yrs/$5,000
POSSESSION: any amount – M/90 days-6
mths/$1,000
PARAPHERNALIA: possession – M/6
mths/$1,000; sale – M/1 yr/$2,5000; to a
minor – F/5 yrs/$5,000
SALE: any amount – F/MMS 1-5
yrs/$15,000; trafficking – F/MMS 1-5
yrs/$15,000; to a minor – F/MMS 2 yrs
VERMONT:
POSSESSION: <1 oz (1st offense) – civil
violation/$200; <1 oz (2nd offense) – civil
violation/$300; <1 oz (3rd offense) – civil
violation/$500; 1-2 oz (1st offense) M/6
mths/$500; 1-2 oz (2nd offense) – M/2
yrs/$2,000; 2oz-1lb – F/3 yrs/$10,000; 1-10
WISCONSIN:
POSSESSION: any amount (1st offense –
M/6 months/$1,000; any amount (2nd
offense) – F/ 3.5 yrs/$10,000
SALE: <200 g – F/3.5 yrs/$10,000; 2001,000 g – F/6 yrs/$10,000; 1,000-2,5000g
– F/10 yrs/$25,000; 2,500-10,000g – F/12.5
36
yrs/$25,000; >10,000g –G/15 yrs/$50,000
WYOMING:
POSSESSION: persons under influence –
M/6 mths/$750; <3 oz – M/12 mths/$1,000;
>3 oz – F/5 yrs/$10,000
SALE: any amount – F/10 yrs/$10,000
CULTIVATION: any amount – M/6
mts/$1,000
Daily Journal Articles
Daily Journal, January 8, 1996
(Excerpt)
Daily Journal, September 2, 2003
(Excerpt from Bruce’s
Campaign For Governer)
When Bruce M. Margolin graduated from
law school in 1967, the time was right for a criminal
defense practice specializing in drug charges.
“It was the advent of middle-class hippies
getting busted for marijuana and I started getting
hundreds of cases,” says Margolin, who still practices in
West Hollywood just off the Sunset Strip, saw that the
law was so unfair and unjust; putting these young kids
in jail along with the murderers, robbers, and rapists
and I decided that they needed a defense beyond the
courts.”
“The feedback I got from representing that
kind of defendant was powerful and spiritually
awakening.”
Another plus for his practice was the Supreme
Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio (81 S.Ct. 1684).
“I was very up on constitutional law, “says
Margolin, who during his first three years in practice
handled as many as four cases a day regarding search
and seizure issues. “Police officers often didn’t know
the new case laws, and the courts almost always
granted dismissals.”
Margolin’s plan includes using the state attorney general’s office to mount a challenge to federal
drug laws, using a state’s rights argument. Next up
would be to take a careful look at other drugs to see
whether they should be decriminalized. Drug abusers
would be funneled through drug court-type rehabilitation programs, (instead of incarceration). “We have
to look at all drug laws and evaluate whether we are
getting the right effect”.
He stresses that he isn’t promoting marijuana,
just a change in the laws and an end to the marijuana
prohibition.
“Criminal enforcement of drug laws is expensive, and the money could be better spent elsewhere,” Margolin said. “For instance, enforcement dollars could go toward a school program that, as early
as third grade, educates children about the consequences of criminal actions, including drug laws.”
“In the meantime, marijuana is potentially
the largest cash crop in California,” says Margolin. “If it
were legalized, the states sales tax alone would bring
in a tremendous amount of tax revenue
37
More About Bruce
More About Bruce
L.a. Yoga Magazine, 2003
campaign to put together, despite the campaign
he’s been running for 30 years - to reform unjust
drug laws.
Margolin is the criminal defense attorney
who handled the Timothy Leary case. His relationship to Leary stemmed from his friendship
with Ram Dass, with whom Margolin traveled in
India in the 1970’s. Like Ram Dass, Margolin gave
up his successful professional practice and came
back from India re-incarnated, so to speak, as a
man with a mission.
Margolin’s platform is built on individual
rights, prison reform, and legalization of marijuana. “Californians,” says Margolin, “are tired of seeing
people incarcerated over this benign,
mislabeled, mis-scheduled, and misunderstood medicinal herb... the
drug war is a waste of tax dollars.”
Those dollars should be spent on
rehabilitation and education,
he believes. Drug laws and the
enforcement of them, including maintaining non-violent
offenders in prison, costs
billions. And billions more,
Margolin believes, could
become State income,
instead of income for
drug dealers, if marijuana was taxed.
“This is an issue
no one wants to
touch,” Margolin
says, “not even
my friend Jerry
Brown when he was Governor in the 70’s.” “Why should you
be elected Governor?” I ask him.
“My whole life has been dedicated to service...
and I know how to get things done.
It may not be a movement, but yoga and
a new take on how to govern has been quietly
sneaking into politics lately.
Win or lose, Attorney Bruce Margolin, a yoga practitioner for 30 years, is making a case for issues
few serious politicians are even willing to talk
about. And Mr. Margolin, despite the twinkle in
his eye and the chaos in his West Hollywood law
office, is very serious indeed. A fiscal conservative
and a social liberal, he puts individual rights and
human rights at the top of his political agenda,
meditation and yoga class at the end of his day.
The candidate’s yoga
practice today still mainly focuses on meditation, which he does
nightly and before all meals. He
is a longtime student of Mas Vidal
and he also practices at Yoga Works.
One of the things Margolin
would do, given his knowledge of Constitutional law, is to help turn California into a haven
for the Billion Dollar Holistic Healthcare industry.
Phones ring, interns and assistants rush in
and out. Suddenly, with his name on the ballot,
there are interviews, press arrangements, and a
By Bob Bellenoff
38
LA Weekly: Dreams Of Legal Weed
October 22-28, 2010
Dreams Of Legal Weed
By: David Futch (Excerpt)
Barely on the legal side of 21, The Kid was facing a
felony conviction, four months in jail, thousands
of dollars in fines, expulsion from his upscale
university, severely teed-off parental units, and
a pouty girlfriend. And The Kid’s lawyer wasn’t
just anybody, his name is synonymous with fighting weed busts in California: Bruce Margolin. All
this for selling a 10-Pack of marijuana plants to
an undercover LAPD officer?
As for The Kid, his future was being decided this
day in a San Fernando Valley courthouse by Superior Court Judge, Lloyd Nash, who has a reputation for handing out serious jail time for the
same offense that might get you probation on
L.A.’s Westside.
Bruce Margolin
Dean Of Weed Defense Attorney
western School of Law. His first reefer client paid
him $25, Margolin got him off on illegal search
and seizure.
The Kid was scared. His parents were terrified.
So they asked around, which is how they came to
write a check to hire Southern California’s undisputed champ of marijuana defense.
Margolin, working in a converted, 1920’s era
house just off Sunset Blvd., squeezed in between
Mirabelle restaurant and another house from the
same era. One of his most notable clients was
Timothy Leary, the late Harvard professor-turned
psychedelic guru, who was busted in Santa Ana
in 1973 for possessing two ounces of pot.
Bruce Martin Margolin: State Bar of California
membership No. 39755, was born in Cleveland in
the midst of World War Two. By war’s end, Margolin’s dad, a U.S. Marine Drill Instructor, moved
to California and started an ice plant and later a
paint business in the San Fernando Valley.
Leary thought his sentence was unfair and jail
wasn’t to his liking. So he decided to escape. He
climbed a fence, shimmied over power lines,
shaved his head, and with the help of the radical
Weathermen, flew to Algeria to join Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver in exile. Leary still felt like a
prisoner. He was captured in Kabul, Afghanistan,
and extradited to California to face trial.
Margolin, 69, looks like a slim, shorter, version
of Mr. French, the quintessential 1960’s sitcom
butler, but, back in 1967, when the LAPD chief,
Ed Davis, vowed to preserve law and order from
the throngs of pot smoking hippies roaming and
ruling Sunset Boulevard.
Margolin took the Leary escape case. In a novel
defense, he set about trying to convince the jury
Margolin was a 25-year-old graduate of South-
39
LA Weekly – October 22-28, 2010
(cont’d)
yer whose shingle is topped with a rendering of a
marijuana leaf.
that, if an unconscious prisoner were unable to
understand he was committing a criminal act,
then the same should hold true for his client.
Margolin adds: “Let people come out of the closet
and deal with their drug problems in a sensible
way; treatment, for example. There seems to be
no money for treatment but plenty for incarceration.”
Leary was not guilty of fleeing jail, Margolin explained, because he was in the grip of a “super
conscious” state brought on by LSD flashbacks.
While The Kid waits his turn in the courtroom,
Margolin pays a visit to Assistant D.A., Jeff Boxer,
who’s prosecuting a case 2 floors up. He strides
into the courtroom, past the rail, and sits on the
edge of a chair at the prosecutor’s table. Margolin
does most of the whispering, Boxer, most of the
nodding.
Margolin went on to defend hundreds just like
The Kid he’s defending today, eventually becoming the oft-quoted L.A. director of NORML, the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
“Unfortunately, this kid is not holding good cards.
He sold pot to a cop, I just want to get him in and
out of here and get his life going.” - Margolin
A couple minutes, tops, and Margolin in huddling with The Kid, his parents, and girlfriend,
advising them he can dodge jail time and a felony conviction. He can have his record expunged.
When judge Nash’s clerk calls The Kid’s name, everything goes pretty much the way Margolin had
outlined. And then Margolin makes his move.
In California, circa 2009, 1,639 state prison inmates were behind bars primarily for pot possession with intent for sale, possessing hashish,
selling pot or other marijuana related offenses,
according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The yearly cost to
taxpayers: 85 million, mostly for room and board.
The cost to those inmates, of course, is much
higher. Eighty-five million dollars isn’t a ton of
money in Governmentland, which is not what
bothers Margolin. The life stories get to him. Why
should this kid have a felony conviction for selling 10 pot seedlings? Let The Kid go back to college and grow up.
“One final thing your honor,” Margolin says. He
asks for a judicial allowance to let The Kid continue to smoke marijuana, due to a medical condition. “What kind of condition?” Nash asks, sitting
straight up, leaning forward and looking flushed.
“Agoraphobic Anxiety.”
Nash’s voice rises by at least 10 decibels. “If you
can produce a doctor who will testify to your client’s condition, I will think about it. Gavel down.
Outside the hallway, The Kid shakes Margolin’s
hand. “This is the best that could be expected.
Thanks”
Out in the real world, beyond this crowded San
Fernando Courthouse, most Southern Californians consider pot on par with alcohol: Fine to
take a few hits, just don’t overdo, and for heaven
sake don’t drive when you partake. But, Margolin
says justice is holding the line even as social attitudes about pot become more permissive.
Margolin is punching numbers in his Blackberry while he rushes to get to his car and his next
client. “He got very lucky,” Margolin says of The
Kid.
“Pursuing these cases is a burden on the system,
people’s lives are ruined. In some cases, California’s 3rd Strike rule has sent people to jail for life
for felony possession of marijuana,” says the law-
40
mg Magazine: Bruce Margolin is Just Getting Startenforcement against not just the medical marijuana
d!
industry as it currently exists, but against a citizenry
stuck within Catch 22-like grey areas of the law that
even the lawyers and prosecutors are unable to
define prior to a prosecution.
One criminal defense attorney whose articulation
on the subject is matched only by his singular 46year career as the dean of cannabis law is criminal
defense attorney Bruce Margolin, author of the
regularly updated The Margolin Guide to Marijuana
Laws (available for download from his website).
BRUCE
MARGOLIN
73-years-young, with the energy of someone half
his age, Margolin fights an unrelenting daily battle
to keep his clients out of jail. Juggling 25-50 cases
at a time out of a West Hollywood bungalow he’s
inhabited for over 40 years, he and his associates
and staff field a half dozen calls a day from citizens
and businesses often desperate for help. Time
is always of the essence, and a conversation
with Margolin is often punctuated by incessant
interruptions as he takes calls from clients or
colleagues during exhausting days spent traveling
from courthouse to courthouse.
IS JUST
GETTING
STARTED!
But as hectic as Margolin’s law practice is, he also
finds time to devote to his longtime role as director
of the Los Angeles chapter of NORML, the procannabis lobbying group founded in 1973. Margolin
had started his own organization a few years earlier,
but joined forces with the nationally-focused
organization where he quickly became a fixture. It’s
all part of the story of his initiation into the cruel
realities of cannabis law as a “young pup” lawyer
starting out in Los Angeles.
The indefatigable dean of cannabis law is keen
to educate the public on the continuing toll of
human suffering wrought by unjust marijuana
laws and why the 2016 initiatives are so vital.
Article by Tom Hymes
August 2015
For cannabis advocates, these may be the best of
times and the worst of times. The mile high view
reveals an industry gaining steady ground in terms
of legitimacy, revenue, professionalism and investor
interest, with states falling over themselves to
embrace cannabinoids in one form or another. At
ground level, however, it’s often a different story.
Throughout the nation, people continue to be
arrested by the thousands for mere possession, with
thousands more facing felony charges for cultivation,
distribution for sale, operating illegal dispensaries
and other crimes. But even in cannabis-loving state
like California, a de facto war is being waged by law
41
“The reason I got involved not just with defending
marijuana cases but also changing the laws
happened when I first became a lawyer in 1967 at
the age of 25,” he told me as we drove from his home
in Beverly Hills to the Ventura County courthouse
where two cases awaited him. “I got a case involving
about 25 kids who came to California and had one of
these hippie houses in Hollywood. We didn’t worry
about conflicts back then, but took everyone on and
charged them $25 each. I remember standing in
court downtown with the 25 of them all in a row, and
it was great. But at the end of the day, one of them
had to take the heat for the rest, and when it came
time for sentencing I told the judge, ‘Your honor, my
understanding of the law is that under the American
Bar Association standards regarding punishment,
the court should consider the intended wrong in
order to punish. In my mind, there is no intended
wrong with people involved with marijuana. They
didn’t intend to hurt anybody, didn’t try to coerce
anyone or take advantage of anybody. There is no
basis to punish them, your honor, so how can you
justify punishing this young man?’
“‘Counsel, he broke the law.’
“So at that point I realized we had to do more than
just be in the courtroom
fighting these cases; we had
to go outside the courtroom
and change the law. And
that’s how I got involved with
the politics of pot, and I have
been involved ever since.”
Margolin has worked more
than marijuana busts over
the years, including a few
murder cases here and there,
and has had his share of
celebrity clients, including
Timothy Leary, Christian
Brando and Linda Lovelace;
he has even run for political
office several times over the
years, including for governor
in the 2003 California recall
election and for Congress in
2012, efforts that resulted
in respectable showings
for Margolin that proved
the viability of running on
a marijuana legalization
platform. At the end of the day, however, it’s the nuts
and bolts of cannabis law, as well as the troubling
legal situation in Los Angeles and beyond, that
consumes the man, as it would any civil libertarian.
“Anyone who’s involved in providing marijuana
or edibles or any other products to a dispensary
is currently in jeopardy of being prosecuted for a
number of reasons,” he says when asked about the
state of enforcement in California. “They will have
to prove that they are a member of the collective—
as collective members, they can provide products
go the dispensary for purposes of aiding other
collective members—but the Achilles’ heel for them
is that it must be done for no profit, and profit is not
defined by any of the court cases.”
Pausing to let that sink in, he continues, “There’s only
one case that refers to it that I’m aware of, People
v Mentch (2008), which says that profit is a matter
for the jury to decide. Generally, you look up rules
regarding profit in the dictionary, where it says that
profit is monies left over after overhead costs and
operating expenses have been accounted for. That
means defendants have
to prove overhead costs
and operating expenses,
and also why the amounts
they charge for product is
relevant to what they charge.
Unfortunately, we find many
dispensaries that request
arbitrary amounts for what
they call ‘donations,’ which
is the same as a sale. These
amounts are also often based
upon arbitrary numbers
rather than an accurate
accounting that justifies the
money requested. Therefore,
even the dispensaries and coops are in jeopardy of having
to prove that what they
charge is relevant to what
their overhead costs are.”
It gets worse, adds Margolin
“We don’t have any clear
indication how to present
these defenses to the
courtroom. California
Attorney General Kamala Harris had proposed to
provide guidelines as required under Prop 215—
which Jerry Brown had done after its passage in
1996—but in 2010 she sent a letter to the legislature
explaining that she could not come out with
guidelines because she is unsure what the law is
because of its lack of clarity in areas pertaining to
profit, the operation of dispensaries and concerns
about edibles. So all these things are left in a grey
area that is very detrimental to people involved in
the industry, as well as to patients and collectives
42
MG Magazine – August 2015
(cont’d)
in any collective or co-op, and also the place has to
be closed down. That’s what’s happening, and in East
L.A. they’re being prosecuted in one courthouse and
the case load is unbelievable. It’s very burdensome
to the court and very burdensome to the people
being brought before the court.”
that have to suffer the consequences of potentially
being arrested and having to prove their defense in
court, which can be very cumbersome and difficult,
especially in this area of profit.”
Margolin adds that while many people assume that
only illegal dispensaries are being targeted—and not
the so-called “pre-ICO” dispensaries grandfathered
in following passage of Proposition D in 2013—
he cautions that the actual situation is far more
nuanced. “When it first passed,” he explained, “the
city put up on their website a list of names they
considered to be compliant with Proposition D. That
has been taken down, and when you ask the city
attorney about whether they consider a specific
dispensary to be legitimate, they say they don’t
know, it’s up to the court. Well, how do you get
the court to decide that unless you prosecute it?
So they’re all in jeopardy of being in trouble; all in
jeopardy of being taken down.
“It’s particularly bad for all of these people who
provide dispensaries with products, including
marijuana, because they don’t know if they are
compliant or not, they can’t really determine that.
And of course, there is also a lot of misinformation
about the laws. Anyone who works at a dispensary,
any landlord, any real estate agent providing the
property, they are all subject to prosecution and do
get prosecuted regularly. I am representing about
20 of these cases right now, including for landlords
who didn’t have any idea that the businesses were
not legitimate; they all appeared to be legitimate,
but there is no way to determine if they are or not
in advance of being prosecuted. It’s very unjust and
a violation of due process, but there has not been
any case so far that I know of that has resulted in
a dismissal by the court under Proposition D, and
there are no cases that I know of that have gone
to trial and been successful in defeating the law,
because the law doesn’t require any intent. Just
doing the act is all that’s required; you don’t have to
have intended to break the law.
The authorities appear to be on a war path. He
continues, ominously, “I went to a case last week
involving Proposition D and spoke with the city
attorney, and they said that once they clean up the
numerous illegal dispensaries that still exist, which
still amount to about 250, they’re going to go after
the ones supposedly complying under Proposition
D, to see if they’re obeying all the miscellaneous
requirements, in particular what they call the live
scans.” Live scan is a form of digital fingerprinting
required of all dispensary managers under Prop D.
The situation is further compounded by the fact that
California offers a patchwork of conflicting cannabis
laws. “Each county and city has their own attitude
about these cases,” says Margolin, “and California
cities and counties can decide for themselves what
sorts of laws they want to have regarding medical
marijuana; they have complete autonomy to strike
down any provisions they don’t want to comply with.
For example, in Fresno County, they have a law that
says you can’t grow marijuana there, period. There
are other counties that have restricted dispensaries
and co-ops, disallowing them entirely. In L.A. County,
the city council put it to a vote that resulted in the
passage of Proposition D, which limited dispensaries
at that time to those that existed before 2007, and
with other qualifications.”
We shift topic from enforcement to politics, in
particular next year’s all-important cannabis
initiatives, about which Margolin, who is not a
fan of Proposition D, has concerns related to the
previous vote. Concerns, he adds, that are shared
by California’s popular Lieutenant Governor, Gavin
Newsom.
“I spoke to Lieutenant Governor Newsom about a
month ago and his concerns are my concerns, that
we will have too many cannabis initiatives on the
ballot, which could water down the vote so that
none of them gets over 50 percent,” he explains.
“We could be in the same position we were with
Proposition D; vote for all of them or we could wind
“Typically,” he adds, “the fine in these cases is $1000
plus penalty assessments of $4000, in addition to
terms and conditions that say you can’t participate
43
up with none of them. But all of them might not be
that good; we have to be careful about big Pharma
or other big organization coming in with a lot of
money to support a particular initiative that may not
be in the best interest of the consumer. We want a
free market here.”
He’s also concerned about protecting what he calls
California’s “cottage industry for thousands and
thousands of people for 30-40 years at least, so I
am anxious to make sure that the initiative includes
inexpensive licensing. For instance, with the CHHI
initiative, I think it costs something like $50 to get a
license to be a provider.”
CHHI is the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative
2016 (cchi2016.org), originally started by the late
Jack Herer, which “calls for 99 plants per patient and
up to 12 pounds of flower, and also includes the
destruction of cannabis-related arrest records and
the release of prisoners.”
He wants to be able to support other cannabis
initiatives as well, including the one by Reform
California (reformca.com), a coalition of
organizations spearheaded by Dale Sky Jones.
The problem, he says, is that they have issued no
language, basically telling the voters to trust them.
He adds that Reform California doesn’t seem to think
that reforms such as releasing cannabis prisoners
will be palatable to the voters. “But I think it will
be,” he insists. “We already have laws in place for
misdemeanor possession of cannabis that call for
the destruction of arrest records after two years
following probation, so it’s not outside the realm
of possibility. I don’t think releasing the prisoners is
such a terrible thing. Why should people remain in
jail for a crime that is no longer a crime?”
In the meantime, he notes, “California legislators
are scrambling to put in place regulations that will
satisfy the federal government, because the feds
view on medical and other marijuana laws is that
the state’s must regulate them so there’s some
control over the use, possession and in particular
the transportation from state to state, which they
feel they have a vested interest to prevent. My
impression is that they are trying to get these
regulations in place at the behest of Lieutenant
Governor Newsom, because he’s probably putting
in their ear the idea that we’re going to pass
legalization in 2016, and he wants to have things
ready to rock ‘n’ roll so we can comfortably deal with
it when it happens.
Margolin has a million other things he wants to
talk about—from reasonable oversight of edibles
to ensuring that drivers are not unfairly targeted
for marijuana DUIs that have no basis in science,
resulting in convictions for people who are not
driving impaired, and he certainly maintains a
laser-like focus on next year’s elections, which he
believes will be pivotal. There are others who fight
on the front lines in Sacramento and Washington,
D.C., whose expertise is in the schmoozing and
negotiating that comes with high-level lobbying.
But he sees his role as equally imperative, indeed, as
the essential ingredient that could solely determine
whether California truly lights the way for the rest
of the country when it comes to legalized cannabis
laws that make sense at every level of society and for
all who want to participate.
It’s still all about educating the public about what’s
truly at stake if the laws governing the use and sale
of cannabis are not either eviscerated or improved. “I
have my finger on the heartbeat of all the cases that
are coming down and our concerns we have about
legalization—and I myself, along with the judges,
the appellate courts and everybody else, am left in a
confused state because the laws are so unclear and
have not been defined in many areas.”
His basic message to the populace remains
consistent and compelling: “I think they have to first
understand that cannabis is not legal, and that we
are still incurring incarcerations, and they have to
get into it. Two, they need to understand the same
party line I have been repeating for 46 years; the
irrationality of the laws, the unfairness and injustice,
the waste of resources. We need to keep hammering
away at those things until the masses absorb it,
begin to understand it and then accept it. I think the
tide is certainly turning, with polls indicating that 55
percent for legalization, but that’s not a safe enough
margin for me.”
And the band played on…
44
Law Office Of
Bruce Margolin
Victory List
*THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ONLY A FEW EXAMPLES OF RECENT SUCCESSES*
These cases represent some of our many successes. The following list of cases involve mostly marijuana
and drugs. Other successes involving other types of criminal offenses may not be listed.
LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE M. MARGOLIN
(Formally Margolin Law Office Inc.)
8749 Holloway Drive, West Hollywood, CA 90069
Tel. (310) 652-0991 Fax (310) 652-1501
www.1800420laws.com
*Watch for Opening of our new offices and locations in Los Angeles & in Northern CA,
45
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA FOR SALE (H&S 11359)
People V. K.V. [CCB] –
Possession Of Marijuana
For Sale (H&S 11359)
Case No. 14-086
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): HEALTH & SAFETY CODE (H&S ) 11359 – DISMISSED
Officers had a search warrant to investigate a dispensary that was in
clear violation of Proposition D. Officers recovered 12 pounds of green
marijuana buds along with different edibles and over $40,000. The owner of
the dispensary was arrested.
D.A, Agreed To Reduce
Offense To A Wobbler, Health
& Safety Code (H&S)11366,
Which Will Be Reduced To
A Misdemeanor After 18
Months And Expunged.
People V. Z.H.
[Van Nuys] – Possession
Of Marijuana For Sale
(H&S 11359)
Case No. 15-022
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): HEALTH & SAFETY CODE (H&S ) 11359 – DISMISSED
Officers were issued a search warrant for an illegal medical marijuana
business and recovered 52 gross pounds of marijuana in addition to
concentrated cannabis, edibles containing cannabis, scales, incriminating
documents, cell phones, electronic equipment and $4,400. The manager of
the business was arrested for operating an illegal marijuana business that
was not granted immunity under Proposition D.
11359 Was Dismissed And
The D.A, Agreed To A
Wobbler, Health & Safety
Code (H&S) 11366. Defendant
To Complete 10 Days Of
Community Labor And
Placed On Summary (NonReporting) Probation For 18
Months. The Case Will Be
Reduced To A Misdemeanor
And Expunged.
People V. C.V.
[Van Nuys] – Possession
Of Marijuana For Sale
(H&S 11359)
Case No. 15-098
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): HEALTH & SAFETY CODE (H&S ) 11359 – DISMISSED
A team of officers entered a business that did not correspond with the
limited immunity guidelines under Proposition D. They recovered several
glass jars with marijuana, $200 in cash, numerous plastic vials, brown paper
bags and four three-foot marijuana plants. The defendant was found
behind the counter, taken into custody and charged with possession of
marijuana for sale (H&S 11359).
The Original Charge
Was Dismissed And The
Defendant Instead Plead To
Health & Safety Code (H&S)
11366 As A Misdemeanor.
The Charge Will Be Dismissed
And Eventually Expunged.
Summary Probation. 20 Days
Community Service.
People V. M.J. [Torrance] – Possession Of
Marijuana For Sale (H&S
1135)Transportation/Sale
Of Marijuana (H&S 11360)
Case No. 13-088
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): HEALTH & SAFETY CODE (H&S ) 11360(a) and HEALTH
& SAFETY CODE (H&S ) 11359
Defendant was pulled over by police for speeding. Police smelled marijuana
coming from the cabin of the vehicle and the defendant consented to
a search. Police obtained 2 very large duct taped packages containing
marijuana with a gross weight of 5 pounds. The defendant admitted to
having the intent to sell the marijuana to a dispensary.
D.A. Agreed To Probation,
Reduction To Misdemeanor
Health & Safety Code (H&S )
11357, Community Service.
People V. K.G.
[Van Nuys] – Possession
Of Marijuana For Sale
(H&S 11359)
Case No. 14-036
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): Health & Safety Code 11359
Police came to the defendant’s home due to a domestic case against his
girlfriend. The officers found trash in the defendant’s truck pertaining to
marijuana grow. After searching the defendant’s home, the officers found
marijuana, a scale, and receipts from a dispensary.
CASE DISMISSED.
PROPOSITION D VIOLATION
People V. J.O. [East
Case No. 15-004
LA] –Unlawful Dispensary ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): MC 45.19.6.2(a), MC 12.21A1(a), and MC 45.19.6.2(a)
Operation
– DISMISSED
Officers conducted an investigation on an illegal marijuana dispensary. The
defendant was a volunteer and was managing the dispensary at the time
in light of the manager’s absence.
46
The Defendant Was Granted
Deferred Entry Of Judgment
For 12 Months As To All
Counts. Upon Successful
Completion, The Charges Will
Be Dismissed.
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
TRANSPORTATION OF MARIJUANA- (H&S) 11360
People V. J.A. [CCB] –
Transportation/Sale Of
Marijuana (H&S 11360)
Case No. 13-153
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11360
Officers stopped the driver after recognizing that the vehicle had a
misdemeanor warrant. Upon arrest, the officers observed the defendant
grabbing a large bag full of marijuana along with $5200.00 in cash. Officers
found two more clear plastic bags containing 3.26 pounds of marijuana
and a medicine bottle filled with 10.51gg of marijuana upon further search.
The defendant was then taken into custody and booked as charged.
3 Years Probation And 30
Hours Of Community Service.
No Time.
People V. Z.U. [LAX] –
Transportation/Sale Of
Marijuana (H&S 11360)
Possession Of Marijuana
For Sale (H&S 11359)
Case No. 13-157
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11360(a) and H&S 11359
Defendant was found guilty of attempting to ship a parcel containing
12 plastic containers filled with wax. He had illegally transported the
concentrated cannabis to the Post Office and illegally distributed it by
mailing the parcel. He was also found guilty of possessing wax for the
purpose of sales.
Charges Reduced To
A Misdemeanor And
Expunged. Formal Probation
Was Reduced To Informal
Probation Upon Successful
Completion Of 45 Days
Community Service.
People V. B.G. [Pasadena] – Possession Of
Concentrated Cannabis
(H&S 11357(A)) Transportation/Sale Of Concentrated
Cannabis (H&S 11351)
Case No. 13-077 ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) and H&S 11360(a)–
DISMISSED
During a routine license plate check, officers found a warrant to the
defendant. The vehicle was stopped and the warrant was confirmed. The
defendant was also found to have had a suspended license The vehicle
was impounded and the defendant was arrested. In addition, the officers
retrieved concentrated cannabis in the defendant’s backpack. Defendant
was charged with possession, as well as a felony for transportation,
importation, and sale of hashish.
Case Dismissed.
People V. O.G. [Burbank] – Transportation/
Sale Of Marijuana (H&S
11360) Possession Of Marijuana for Sale (H&S 11359)
Case No. 14-168
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11359 and H&S 11360(a)
Defendant was pulled over after driving over the speed limit. Officers
smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the car, but the defendant
showed proof of his medical marijuana card. The officer searched the
vehicle and found $435 in cash, four different cell phones and six glass jars
carrying 2.5 ounces of marijuana. The defendant was charged with a felony
for the transportation and possession of marijuana for sale.
When Defendant Provides
Proof Of 15 Days Paws
Program, Charges Will Be
Reduced To A Misdemeanor
And To Summary Probation.
People V. E.Y. [Compton] – Transportation/
Sale Of Marijuana (H&S
11360) Possession Of
Marijuana For Sale (H&S
11359)
Case No. 14-024
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11360(a) and H&S 11359 – DISMISSED
Officers entered the defendant’s motel room after receiving information
from the defendant’s friend. In the hotel room, officers discovered a large
amount of marijuana inside a duffel bag, a multicolored bag and inside
a plastic bin. In the same motel, but another room, officers discovered
marijuana in large vacuum sealed plastic bags, a large scale, a vacuumsealing machine, bubble wrap, large rolls of cellophane wrap, dryer sheets,
and a heat sealer. The defendant was arrested for possessing marijuana for
the purpose of sales.
Original Charges Dismissed.
30 Days Of Community
Service. Plea Bargain To H&S
11366 – Maintaining A Place
Where Marijuana Is Used
Or Sold. Charge Eligible To
Be Reduced And Subject To
Dismissal.
People V. M.Z. [LAX] –
Possession Of Marijuana
For Sale (H&S 11359)
Transportation/Sale Of
Marijuana (H&S 11360)
Possession Of Controlled
Substance (H&S 11377(A))
Case No. 14-048
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11359, H&S 11360(a) and H&S 11377(a)
The defendant was found to have illegally transported three parcels
of narcotics through two Post Offices and one FedEx Office. Several
incriminating text messages were found that insinuated the suspect was in
California to buy marijuana and to send it back home to New York. Officers
retrieved many bundles of marijuana and several vials of concentrated
cannabis. The defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana and
concentrated cannabis for the purpose of sales.
Plea Agreement Convicted
Of H&S 11377(A) And Other
Charges Dismissed. Charge
Can Be Reduced To A
Misdemeanor In 18 Months
And Subject To Dismissal.
Defendant Must Complete 60
Days Of Community Service
Prior To Dismissal. Defendant
Permitted To Complete
Probation In New York.
47
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
People V. J.G. [LAX] –
Transportation/Sale Of
Marijuana (H&S 11360)
Possession Of Marijuana
For Sale (H&S 11359)
Case No. 14-169
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11360(a) and H&S 11359– DISMISSED
After observing an advertisement on “Craiglist.com” for the sales of
marijuana extract, an officer contacted the seller and agreed to meet for
the sale of three grams of “wax”. Upon completion of the transaction at
a local coffee shop, officers arrested the defendant. Upon search of his
residence, officers retrieved bags of marijuana totaling over an ounce,
concentrated cannabis, as well as several items used for the extraction of
concentrated cannabis.
Plea Agreement To Wobbler,
H&S 11366. D.A, Agreed To
“Postponed Sentencing” In
Which The Defendant Had
Four Months To Complete 45
Days Of Community Service.
Charge To Be A Misdemeanor
Upon Completion Of 45 Days
Community Service And
Expunged.
People V. O.V. [CCB]
– Transportation/Sale Of
Marijuana (H&S 11360)
Possession Of A Firearm
(PC 28800(A)(1))
Case No. 14-084
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11360(a) and PC 29800(a)(1) – DISMISSED
Officers arrived to execute a search warrant and saw the defendant leaving
the property with two other men. Upon approaching the car, the officers
observed a strong odor of marijuana and several bags of marijuana strewn
about the car. Officers also recovered $2,670.00 from the defendant. Inside
the defendant’s home, officers found two food saver vacuum sealed plastic
bags containing two pounds of marijuana, and an additional $1,270.00.
D.a Agreed To Dismiss And
Plea Bargain. Convicted
Of A Wobbler, H&S 11366,
And Ordered To Perform
100 Hours Community
Labor. Upon Completion
Charge Will Be Reduced To
Misdemeanor And Subject
To Dismissal. Defendant Can
Continue To Use Marijuana
For His Medical Needs.
People V. S.F. [San Fernando] – Transportation/
Sale Of Marijuana (H&S
11360)
Case No. 14-023
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11360(a)
After conducting a traffic stop, the officer noticed that the driver had a
strong odor of marijuana emitting from his vehicle. After conducting a full
inspection of the vehicle, the officer retrieved 80 pounds of marijuana
inside four large trash bags. The defendant did not have a medical
recommendation.
40 Days Community Labor.
Upon Completion Of The
Probation Period, Charge Will
Be Reduced To Wobbler H&S
11366, A Misdemeanor And
Expunged
CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA (H&S 11358)
People V. M.A. [LAX]
– Possession Of Concentrated Cannabis (H&S
11357(A)) Possession Of
Marijuana For Sale (H&S
11359) Cultivation Of
Marijuana (H&S 11358)
Case No. 13-092
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a), H&S 11358 and H&S 11359
Officers received an anonymous phone call from a neighbor complaining
about the smell of marijuana. As the cops arrived on the scene, the
defendant ’s roommate answered the door, allowed the officers to enter
the home and gave consent to search the backyard. The officers found an
indoor grow operation with 90 mature marijuana plants and an outdoor
grow operation with 135 mature marijuana plants. Officers also found 40
additional pounds of dried marijuana and several ounces of concentrated
cannabis.
D.a Agreed To Dismiss The
Felonies 11358 & 11359.
Defendant Plead To The
Possession Of Concentrated
(Now A Misdemeanor)
Cannabis (H&S 11357(A)),
Charges Of H&S. 45 Days
Community Service.
People V. A.l. [Rancho
Cucamonga] – Cultivation (H&S 11358) Possession Of Marijuana For Sale
(H&S 11359) Utility Theft
(PC 498(D))
Case No. 11-143
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11358, H&S 11359, and PC 498(d) – DISMISSED
Officers received information from a citizen informant that residents of
a home were growing marijuana. Upon investigating the house, officers
found five rooms filled with two to three foot tall marijuana plants,
mature and beginning to produce buds. Officers approximated that there
were about 740 plants inside the house. Wiring had been installed in order
to bypass the electrical meter, resulting in electricity theft at an estimated
value of $10,000.
Original Charges Dismissed.
Pleas Agreement Of A
Wobbler, H&S 11366,
Maintaining A Place For
Unlawful Sale Of Controlled
Substance. Defendant
Subject To Pay Restitution To
California Edison. Charge Is
Eligible To Be Reduced To A
Misdemeanor And Dismissed
Subject To Satisfactory
Probation Period Of 18
Months.
48
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
People V. J.T.
[West Covina] – Cultivation Of Marijuana (H&S
11358) Possession Of
Marijuana For Sale (H&S
11359)
Case No. 14-108
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11359 and H&S 11358
An officer was dispatched to a location that had been experiencing
high burglary rates. After observing the defendant suspiciously leaving
a warehouse, officers approached him to ask a few questions. The
defendant stated that he was operating a skateboard business within the
warehouse but officers found that he was cultivating marijuana inside
the establishment. About 79 marijuana plants were recovered from
the location in addition to marijuana growing equipment. The defendant
was arrested for the cultivation of marijuana and unlawful business of a
prohibited marijuana dispensary.
H&S 11359 Dismissed. As
To Count 2, H&S 11358,
Defendant Received Deferred
Entry Of Judgment And The
Charge Is To Be Reduced
To A Misdemeanor After
Satisfactory Completion
Of 18 Month Probationary
Period And Subject To
Dismissal.
People V. T.H. [Ventura] – Cultivation Of
Marijuana (H&S 11358)
Possession Of Marijuana
For Sale (H&S 11359)
Case No. 15-033
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11359 and H&S 11358
Upon investigation, a suspect admitted that he sells marijuana and gives
the money to his friend. After obtaining a search warrant and searching
the residence of that friend, detectives found multiple bags of marijuana
packaged for sale as well as marijuana plants. The defendant did
not have a Proposition 215 card and was not a member of a collective or
cooperative.
H&S 11359 Count Dismissed.
Defendant Plead To H&S
11358 And Sentenced To 30
Days In Jail And Probation.
Defendant 3 Days In Custody
People V. G.J.
[Van Nuys] – Cultivation
Of Marijuana (H&S 11358)
Electricity Theft (Pc 496)
Case No. 13-016
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11358 and PC 496
After conducting surveillance on the defendant’s residence, the officers
had enough probable cause to believe that the defendant was cultivating
marijuana through indoor hydroponic systems to avoid the electrical meter.
The officers recovered 183 marijuana plants, different grow lights, plastic
bottles containing nutrients, canisters, a propane generator and marijuana
samples packed separately.
Summary Probation On
The Condition That The
Defendant Performs 30 Days
Of Community Service. No
Jail Time.
People V. A.L.
[Rancho Cucamonga]
– Cultivation Of Marijuana
(H&S 11358) Possession Of
Marijuana For Sale (H&S
11359)
Case No. 11-143
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11358 and H&S 11359
Officers received information from a citizen informant that residents were
possibly growing marijuana inside the house. Upon investigation of the
house, officers found that five rooms of the house were filled with two to
three foot tall marijuana plants, mature and beginning to produce buds.
Officers approximated that there were about 740 plants inside the house.
Wiring had been installed in order to bypass the electrical meter, resulting
in electricity theft at an estimated value of $10,000.00.
Defendant Subject To Pay
Restitution To California
Edison, Charges Reduced
To A Misdemeanor Subject
To Satisfactory Probation
Period Of 18 Months, Then
Dismissed.
People V. J.T.
[West Covina] – Cultivation Of Marijuana (H&S
11358) Possession Of
Marijuana For Sale (H&S
11359)
Case No. 14-108
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11359 and H&S 11358
An officer was dispatched at a location that had been experiencing
high burglary rates. After observing the defendant suspiciously leaving
a warehouse, officers came forward to ask a few questions. The
defendant stated that he was operating a skateboard business within the
warehouse but officers found that he was cultivating marijuana inside
the establishment. About 79 marijuana plants were recovered from
the location alongside marijuana growing equipment. The defendant
was arrested for the cultivation of marijuana and unlawful business of a
prohibited marijuana dispensary.
Defendant Granted Deferred
Entry Of Judgment For Count
1- H&S 11358 (Possession
Of Marijuana For Sale).
Cultivation Count To Be
Dismissed After 18 Month
Probationary Period.
49
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
MARIJUANA OFFENSES
People V. N.F
[Santa Monica] –
Possession Of Marijuana
Inside Of A Vehicle (CVC
23222(B))
Case No. 14-067
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): CVC 23222(b) – DISMISSED
Officers found the defendant parked illegally. Upon further observation of
the vehicle, police found that the defendant had expired registration tabs
and noticed that the smell of marijuana emitted from inside the vehicle.
Officers recovered three clear plastic bags of marijuana (approximately
12gg) after searching the vehicle. Further records showed that the
defendant was on probation.
Case Dismissed.
People V. K.J.
[Santa Monica] –
Possession Of Marijuana
Less Than An Ounce (H&S
11357)
Case No. 13-078
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(b) – DISMISSED
Defendant was charged with an infraction for the possession of marijuana
of less than an ounce and an expired medical recommendation. Defendant
was caught with marijuana while camping in Malibu. The park rangers
claimed they approached the defendant and group of friends because of
the noise level and then smelled the marijuana.
Case Dismissed.
FELONY MANUFACTUTING / POSESSION OF CONCENTRATED
CANNABIS (H&S 11357(A))
People V. B.J. [San
Bernadino] – Narcotic &
Drug Manufacturing (H&S
11379.6) Possession Of
Concentrate Possession
Of Concentrated Cannabis (H&S 11357) Arson (PC
452(B))
Case No. 13-104
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11379.6(a), PC 452(b), and H&S 11357
Defendants were manufacturing hash oil. While the defendants were in the
process of making the hash oil, the house caught fire and caused significant
damage to the structure. The defendants fled the scene. The defendant
had a previous outstanding warrant for 7 months. He was found in a foreign
country, extradited back with a $1,000,000 bail, and was facing multiple
years in state prison.
Charges Of 11379.6(A)
And H&S 11358 Dismissed,
Defendant Plead To Arson
(452(B)), 60 Days In County
Jail, ( Half Time To Be Served)
Probation
People V. B.G. [Pasadena] – Possession Of Concentrated Cannabis (H&S
11357) Possession Of
A Controlled Substance
(H&S 11377)Driving On A
Suspended License (VC
14601)
Case No. 13-077
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a), VC 14601, H&S 11350 – DISMISSED
Defendant had a warrant for her arrest for petty theft. She was pulled over
and had her person, vehicle, and passenger searched. The officers found
concentrated cannabis and cocaine.
Case Dismissed
People V. S.M.
[West Covina] – Possession Of Concentrated
Cannabis (H&S 11357)
Case No. 14-028
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) – DISMISSED
Officers found the defendant in possession of less than an ounce of
marijuana on federal land. Upon inspection of his vehicle, officers found a
small plastic container filled with concentrated cannabis. The defendant
was cited for possession of concentrated cannabis and released.
Case Dismissed After
Defendant Attended 10
Narcotics Anonymous
Meetings. Defendant Did Not
Have To Enter A Guilty Plea.
People V. R.O. [Burbank] – Possession Of
Concentrated Cannabis
(H&S 11357)
Case No. 13-109
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) – DISMISSED
Officers pulled over the defendant after observing him on the phone while
operating a vehicle. There was a strong odor of marijuana coming from the
car and the defendant admitted he was in possession of three prescription
bottles and a small clear plastic container containing concentrated
cannabis.
Case Dismissed.
People V. S.J [Westminster] – Possession Of
Concentrated Cannabis
(H&S 11357)
Case No. 13-051
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) – DISMISSED
After conducting a traffic stop, the defendant was found to be in
possession of marijuana and concentrated cannabis. The defendant
made several incriminating statements and had an expired medical
recommendation.
Case Dismissed.
50
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
People V. M.A. [Bellflower] – Possession Of
Concentrated Cannabis
(H&S 11357)
Case No. 14-037
Case Dismissed.
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) – DISMISSED
The Defendant’s vehicle was stopped after he was observed driving around
in the courthouse parking structure. The defendant was found to be in
possession of marijuana and two small containers containing .7876 grams of
concentrated cannabis.
People V. D.H. [Glendale] – Possession Of
Concentrated Cannabis
(H&S 11357)
Case No. 15-008
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) – DISMISSED
An officer spotted two men looking at him in a park as one of the men
placed a small white bag in his cargo pocket. When the officer approached
him and asked what he put in his pocket, the defendant insisted that it was
nothing. After the officer asked him to show him what was in the bag, the
defendant pulled out a three zip lock baggies containing marijuana and
two small containers of concentrated cannabis
Case Dismissed.
People V. S.M.
[West Covina] – Possession Of Concentrated
Cannabis (H&S 11357)
Case No. 14-028
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) – DISMISSED
Officers found the defendant in possession of less than an ounce of
marijuana on federal land. Upon inspection of his vehicle, officers found a
small plastic container filed with concentrated cannabis.
Case Dismissed If Defendant
Attends 10 Narcotics
Anonymous Meetings.
People V. R.O. [Burbank] – Possession Of
Concentrated Cannabis
(H&S 11357)
Case No. 13-109
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) – DISMISSED
Officers pulled over the defendant after observing him on the phone while
operating a vehicle. The strong odor of marijuana emitted from the car and
the defendant admitted he was in possession of three RX bottles and a
small clear plastic container containing concentrated cannabis.
Case Dismissed.
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (VC 23152(a)) (VC 23152(e))
People V. D.B. [LAX]Driving Under The Influence (VC 23152(A))
Case No. 15-077
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): VC 23152(a)
Officers received a call regarding a major traffic collision. When arriving at
the scene, the car was abandoned. After discovering who the driver of the
vehicle was, the officers went to the defendant’s residence where he was
found. The defendant had red and watery eyes, unsteady feet, and the
strong distinct smell of alcohol emitted from his breath. The defendant also
failed to perform the Field Sobriety Test, thus he was arrested fro driving
under the influence. In addition, the defendant was already on probation
from a previous arrest.
Judge Agreed To Reinstate
The Defendant’s Probation
People V. Z.T.
[Van Nuys] – Driving
Under The Influence Of
Marijuana (VC 23152(E))
Case No. 15-081
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): VC 23152(e) – DISMISSED
The defendant was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana;
he admitted to smoking within an hour of operating a vehicle. The officer
claimed that smoke was emitting from the vehicle and drug tests revealed
that the defendant had a high level of THC-COOH in his system.
Original Charge Dismissed.
Defendant Plead To VC
23109(C), An Exhibition Of
Speed. License Suspension
Was Not Imposed. Defendant
Placed On Summary Probation For 24 Months. And Ordered To Pay A Fine Of $300.
People V. V.C. [Burbank] – Driving Under
The Influence Of Marijuana (VC 23152(E))
Case No. 13-066
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11357(a) and V.C. 23152(e) - DISMISSED
Defendant was sitting in the car with two of his friends smoking while
in the vehicle. Cops pulled up and knocked on driver side window as
the windows rolled down “billows of smoke enimated from the vehicle”
defendant was subject to field sobriety tests, defendant was taken into
custody, cops drew blood.
11357(A) Dismissed; Plea Of
Wreckless Driving.
51
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
People V. D.M. [Metro] – Driving Under The
Influence (VC 23152(A)
And VC 23152(B))
Case No. 14-130
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b)
Defendant was seen swerving between lanes on the US-101. Cops pulled
over the vehicle and subjected the defendant to a sobriety test. The
defendant was evidently under the influence of alcohol and chose a breath
test with the results of .09/.09 BAC.
Reduced To Wreckless
Driving.
People V. D.S. [Metro] – Driving Under The
Influence (VC 23152(A))
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): VC 23152(a) and H&S 11357(a)
Defendant was observed failing to stop in a parking lot. The defendant was
stopped and when approached, the smell of burnt marijuana emitted from
the person. Officer also noticed that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot
and watery and balance was impaired when asked to step out of the
vehicle. The defendant failed to complete the SFST. Marijuana was found
on his person. The defendant was charged with DUI and possession of a
controlled substance.
Reduced To Wet And Reckless
Driving, 12 Hour Class Instead
Of 3 Month Class, Probation,
$1,200 Fine Instead Of $5,000,
No Loss Of License.
People V. I.G. [Metro] – Driving Under The
Influence (VC 23152(A)(B))
Case No. 13-001
All Charges Dismissed; Plea
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): VC 23152(a)(b) and VC 14601.1(a) - DISMISSED
Of Reckless Driving.
Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol with a
.09% blood alcohol concentration. Cop followed defendant after speeding
over 90 miles per hour. Defendant’s license had already been suspended
due to a prior violation. Defendant claimed he was driving without a license
because his friend, who rented the car, had been drinking. Sobriety tests
confirmed that defendant was under the influence of alcohol.
People V. C.F. [Torrance] – Driving Under The Influence (VC
23152(A)(B))
Case No. 15-105
Defendant Placed On
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b)
Summary Probation.
Officers responded to a call regarding suspicious activity; upon arrival, the
No Time.
officers saw a car with major traffic collision damage. The driver stated that
he was driving home from a friend’s house when he fell asleep and crashed
the vehicle. The driver had bloodshot eyes and the strong odor of alcohol
emitted from his breath. After conducting a field sobriety test, the officers
concluded that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol
with a BAC of .08% and .09%. Defendant was under 21.
People V. D.C. [Ventura] – Driving Under The
Influence Of Any Drug
(VC 23152(E)) Possession
Of Marijuana While Driving (VC 23222(B))
Case No. 15-011
No Time. Probation
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): VC 23152(e) and VC 23222(b)
Completed Upon
Officers conducted a DUI investigation on the defendant and noticed the
Termination Of DUI Program
driver had an unsteady walk. The defendant stated that he had smoked
a “bowl” of marijuana four hours before. There were also symptoms of
intoxication such as slurred speech and red and watery eyes. The defendant
had failed to complete the sobriety test. After searching the vehicle, the
officers found a plastic jar containing a quarter sized marijuana bud and a
plastic bag containing a marijuana cigarette.
POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES FOR SALE (H&S 11351)
People V. D.J.
[Downey] – Possession
Of A Controlled Substance For Sale (H&S
11351)
Case No. 13-112
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11351
The defendant was pulled over for having a broken break light. When
the officers pulled the defendant out of the car and conducted an
extensive search of the defendant and his vehicle, the officers found
methamphetamine paraphernalia.
No Jail Time. Drug Program
Involving 20 N.A. Meetings
And After 6 Months
Defendant Can Return For
Dismissal.
People V. T.J. [CCB] –
Possession Of A Controlled Substance For Sale
(H&S 11351)
Case No. 12-170
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11351 -DISMISSED
Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in which the co defendant made
arrangements to sell 1000 hits of Ecstasy to a wired informant. The police
set up the sale and the informant was wired. Defendant claimed that he
was unaware of the arrangement even though he was the driver.
Case Dismissed.
52
NOTES
BUSTED? QUESTION? CONCERNS?
Call our office to order printed copies of this guide and/or you can download a
free copy in pdf format from my website
The Law Office Of
BRUCE M. MARGOLIN
State And Federal Criminal Defense
Est. 1967
8749 Holloway Drive
At The Sunset Strip
West Hollywood, CA. 90069
Phone: 310-652-0991 or 1-800-420-LAWS
Fax: 310-652-1501
Email: bmargolin@margolinlawoffice.com
or Margolinlawoffice@gmail.com
Website: 420LAWS.COM
*Watch for Opening of our new office locations in Los Angeles & in Northern CA,
Mr. Margolin is available to represent clients throughout
California and in all 50 states (pro hoc vice)
2016 Edition “Copyright 2016” All Rights Reserved
Law Office Of Bruce Margolin Victory List (cont.)
People V. P.A. [Riverside] – Possession Of
Controlled Substance For
Sale (H&S 11351)
Case No. 15-024
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11351– DISMISSED
An officer asked the defendant if he could speak with her and verify that
she did not have anything illegal inside of her bag. After detaining her and
searching her person, officers retrieved a small bindle of heroin from her
bag and an additional two bindles from her right front pocket. Officers then
transported the defendant to her residence, searched her home and found
additional heroin and items consistent with drug sales. The defendant
was charged with possessing heroin for sale and for the transportation of
heroin.
Case Dismissed. Motion
To Suppress Was Granted.
People Filed Appeal And
It Was Granted. We Are
Appealing Again.
People V. D.G. [Lancaster] – Manufacturing
A Controlled Substance
(H&S 11379.6)
Possession Of Marijuana For Sale
(H&S 11359) Cultivation Of
Marijuana (H&S 11358)
Case No. 14-132
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11379.6, H&S 11359, and H&S 11358
Officers conducted a search warrant at a specified location and
immediately detained those who were inside. The officers retrieved
marijuana inside of a large plastic container along with 72 mature plants.
There were also high intensity lights and circulating fans within the
establishment. Upon further investigation, the officers also discovered
equipment used to manufacture concentrated cannabis. Several text
messages revealed that the owners of the home were selling the marijuana
and concentrated cannabis.
Count 11379.6 H&S
Dismissed. Probation And
County Time.
People V. D.D. [LAX] –
Possessing A Controlled
Substance (H&S 11377)
Case No. 15-094
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): H&S 11377
Officers responded to a complaint regarding outside disturbances from
a neighbor. Upon closer inspection of the neighbor’s residence, officers
found a substance resembling methamphetamine on the floor. The
defendant also had two prior arrests and one prior warrant before the
arrest.
Good Behavior For 6 Months
And Then The Charge Will Be
Dismissed.
PROBATION VIOLATION
People V. E.L. [Pasadena] – Probation Violation
Case No. 14-052
ORIGINAL CHARGE(S): Probation Violation
Defendant had six priors all in LA County and faced multiple years in prison.
Officers negotiated with the D.A.to strike all priors if the defendant did not
violate the terms of his probation. While on probation the defendant tested
positive for drugs, potentially resulting in a two year prison sentence.
Judge Agreed Not Impose
The Two Year Prison Sentence
And Reinstated Probation
On The Same Terms And
Conditions.
People V. D.H. [Bakers- Case No. 13-055
field] – Probation ViolaORIGINAL CHARGE(S): Probation Violation
tion/ Use Of Marijuana
Defendant was previously on probation and, as a term of probation,
required to complete a drug program in which he were to give up his use
of medical marijuana. Defendant was forced to live in constant pain due to
past injuries. The case was taken to court in order to allow the defendant to
use medical marijuana during his probation sentence.
Judge Found That Defendant
May Continue Use Of Medical
Marijuana And That Testing
Positive For THC Was Not A
Violation Of His Probation.
MISCELLANEOUS
People V. M.C.-[Santa
Rosa]Possession For Sale
And Cultivation
Case No. 14-142
Original Changes: Possession for Sale, Cultivation While Armed.
Armed with a search warrant, police arrested the defendant, as well as two
others on his property in the Santa Rosa Mountains with; 472 pounds of
hanging marijuana drying buds, 82 pounds of hanging drying marijuana
(which would have yielded 280s of processed marijuana bud (43%), 99
growing marijuana plants (weighing 79 pounds of processed bud (14%), 99
plants, mostly harvested, within1243 Square feet, 86 marijuana plants indoor
a 1083 square feet of canopy, a 44 magnum loaded firearm, 17 rounds,
a 24 caliber Beretta, .308 caliber rifle, a Remington shotgun. Recorded
conversation of the party admitting distribution throughout California,
including Los Angeles.
53
All Felony Charges Dismissed.
Plea Misdemeanor Possession
Of Marijuana. No Time.
No Fine. Defendant May
Continue To Use Marijuana
While On Summary
Probation. And Returned Of
The Seized Money Of Over
$5000 And The Guns.
NOTES
BUSTED? QUESTION? CONCERNS?
Call our office to order printed copies of this guide and/or you can download a
free copy in pdf format from my website
The Law Office Of
BRUCE M. MARGOLIN
State And Federal Criminal Defense
Est. 1967
8749 Holloway Drive
At The Sunset Strip
West Hollywood, CA. 90069
Phone: 310-652-0991 or 1-800-420-LAWS
Fax: 310-652-1501
Email: bmargolin@margolinlawoffice.com
or Margolinlawoffice@gmail.com
Website: 420LAWS.COM
*Watch for Opening of our new office locations in Los Angeles & in Northern CA,
Mr. Margolin is available to represent clients throughout
California and in all 50 states (pro hoc vice)
2016 Edition “Copyright 2016” All Rights Reserved