CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, Petitioner v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent;
FELIX KHA, Real Party in Interest
2
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, John R. Shaw, Magdalena Lona-Wiant and
Douglas C. Holland for Petitioner.
No appearance by Respondent.
Joseph D. Elford for Real Party in Interest.
Jones & Mayer, Martin J. Mayer and Krista MacNevin Jee for the
California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California Police Chiefs’ Association,.... for Attorney General Bill Lockyer as Amicus Curiae in support of Respondent and Real Party in Interest.
We confront here the facially anomalous request that we approve state
confiscation of a substance which is legal in the circumstances under which it was possessed. This request is terra incognita, as will be most of the many confusing aspects of the current tension between California marijuana laws and those of the federal government. Our conclusions are therefore more a matter of analytical accouchement than precedential accretion. But we are convinced by the Attorney General’s argument that governmental subdivisions of the state are bound by the state’s laws in this instance
and must return materials the state considers legally possessed. We are persuaded due process will allow nothing less. Accordingly, we deny the City’s petition.
3
During a traffic stop, Garden Grove police seized about a third of an ounce
of marijuana from real party in interest Felix Kha. However, because Kha had a doctor’s approval to use marijuana for medical reasons, the prosecutor dismissed the drug charge he was facing. The trial court then granted Kha’s motion for return of property and ordered the Garden Grove Police Department to give him back his marijuana. Petitioner,
the City of Garden Grove, seeks a writ of mandate compelling the trial court to reverse its order. It does not contest the dismissal of the underlying drug charge, nor does it....
GARY ROSS, Plaintiff and Appellant (S138130) Ct.App. 3 C043392
RAGINGWIRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
Sacramento County Super. Ct. No. 02AS05476
Quote:
The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, added
by initiative, Prop. 215, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996)) gives a person who uses marijuana for medical purposes on a physician’s recommendation a defense to certain state criminal charges involving the drug, including possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357; see id., § 11362.5, subd. (d)). Federal law, however, continues to prohibit the drug’s possession, even by medical users. (21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 844(a)); see Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 26-29; United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 491-495.)
Plaintiff, whose physician recommended he use marijuana to treat chronic
pain, was fired when a preemployment drug test required of new employees
revealed his marijuana use. The lower courts held plaintiff could not on that basis state a cause of action against his employer for disability-based discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.; see id., § 12940, subd. (a); hereafter the FEHA) or for wrongful termination...
- 1 -
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General State of California
GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION
OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE August 2008
In 1996, California voters approved an initiative that exempted certain patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In 2003, the Legislature enacted additional legislation relating to medical marijuana. One of those statutes requires the Attorney General to adopt “guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.81(d). To fulfill this mandate, this Office is issuing the following guidelines to (1) ensure that marijuana grown for medical purposes remains secure and does not find its way to non-patients or illicit
markets, (2) help law enforcement agencies perform their duties effectively and in accordance with California law, and (3) help patients and primary caregivers understand how they may cultivate, transport, possess, and use medical marijuana under California law.
I.
SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW
A.
California Penal Provisions Relating to Marijuana.The possession, sale, cultivation, or transportation of marijuana is ordinarily a crime under California law. (See, e.g., § 11357 [possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor]; § 11358 [cultivation of marijuana is a felony]; Veh. Code, § 23222 [possession of less than 1 oz. of marijuana while driving is a misdemeanor]; § 11359 [possession with intent to sell any amount of marijuana is a felony]; § 11360 [transporting, selling, or giving away marijuana in California is a felony; under 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor]; § 11361...
California Department of Public Health Food and Drug Branch LABELING
All ingredients in the finished food product must be listed on the label by their “common” or “usual” name. Products with unusual or non-English names may not be acceptable. A good reference to determine if a name is “common” or “usual” is a standard dictionary. The ingredient list must be in descending order of predominance by weight (i.e. the ingredient in the largest amount is listed first; followed by ingredient in the next largest amount, etc.). Label designations have been established by Federal regulation.A summary of labeling requirements is available on the FDB webpage. Complete labeling requirements may be found in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 101...
07-01-2009, 10:10 AM
Linear Mode
