[OG Dave]

Perhaps it's best that all of SB 420 stay unconstitutional.

It seems to serve the Attorney General and local governments more by allowing/requiring them to implement restrictions and establish limits which means less access and fewer protections for us.

Kelly Case Sees Oral Argument | California NORML

Kelly Case Sees Oral Argument
Posted November 4th, 2009 by canorml_admin

Berkeley, Nov. 3rd - In a remarkable turn of events, both sides at today's California Supreme Court Hearing on the Kelly case agreed that the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Health and Safety Code 11362.77 are unconstitutional when applied to limit patients' right to a compassionate use defense under Prop. 215. Instead, they discussed how the Kelly decision could be recast so as not to invalidate 11362.77 when used for other purposes: for example, to protect card-holding patients from arrest when they are within the limits.

Michael Johnsen from the Attorney General's Office admitted that their "position had evolved" since the Kelly case was first argued, when they had tried to claim that the limits in 11362.77 were constitutional. Asked by the court why they should even be hearing the case in that event, Johnsen said that the court should narrow the Appellate Court decision so as to not throw out 11362.77 altogether.

"I have never had the pleasure of getting up in an appellate argument and saying I agree with everything my opponent said," remarked defense attorney Gerald Uelmen.

Patrick Kelly was originally charged with growing 7 plants and 12 ounces, an amount above the SB 420 limits. His defense argued that he could not be convicted for exceeding the limits, because Prop. 215 guarantees patients the right to have whatever amount is reasonably related to their medical needs. The Appellate Court agreed that the limits were an unconstitutional amendment to Prop. 215, and struck down the entirety of H&SC 11362.77 as unconstitutional.

Today, both sides agreed that 11362.77 was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly's case, but that it should be preserved in other situations, where it provides useful guidelines for arrest. The court's final decision will be forthcoming in 90 days.

- D. Gieringer, Cal NORML


SB 420 Text: SB 420 Senate Bill - CHAPTERED

[DankJews]

I Always Knew Prop215 & SB420 Were Somewhat Written Unconstitutional As Well As Many Implemented Opposition On Cannabis.

.:Stay Medicated:.

[SoCalSkunk]

Originally Posted by OG Dave

Today, both sides agreed that 11362.77 was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly's case, but that it should be preserved in other situations, where it provides useful guidelines for arrest. The court's final decision will be forthcoming in 90 days.

- D. Gieringer, Cal NORML


SB 420 Text: SB 420 Senate Bill - CHAPTERED

I don't like the last part. It sounds like a total flip-flop spin doctor thing.
"It's unconstitutional as applied to Kelly's case but should be preserved in other situations, where it provides useful guidelines for arrest." WTF is that all about? Well actually I get what they are saying. Why can't they raise the plant/weight limit just by a couple each at least and then make it easier and cheaper for people who have serious or terminal illnesses to have more.

So if I have only 2 or 3 more plants and 4 or 6 more ounces then 11362.77 allows will it be unconstitutional for me or the next person??? Another one of them slippery slopes90 more days....

[h.h.]

The limits are being struck down. They still want to sell protection. They're taking over for the cartels.

[mikesong]

Does anyone know what makes Kelly's case different in terms of why the plant limits should not apply to him but might be applicable to others? I apologize for not having done the research myself, but if someone more knowledgeable than me has, I'd love to know the answer.