PROTECTING PATIENT CULTIVATORS

[Blue Dot]

Your 5th amendment rights protect you at all times even if you are not under investigation. Consider if you were being questioned in relation to a death and the police know it wasn't you and they think they know who did it. You still have the right to invoke your 5th amendment right at any time. The 5th Amendment protects you from any coercion from governmental officers or representatives. Thats right, from your PO, from the child's services rep, from the postal inspector, from the DA, it protects you.

I actually kinda agree with your therorization about the 5th because it obviously has been expounded upon from the time it was created so long ago yet my point was that there really is no right to "self-incrimination" for a grower if it's the LAPD that ends up with that information because LAPD is state employee and they must follow state law and if it's legal to grow under state 215 then it's not "incriminating". It would only be incriminating if it were illegal to grow MMJ.

Sure, LAPD could easily use that info for their means and bust you because they don't like you but that would be illegal for the LAPD to do and just because they do shit like that all the time and aren't held accountable isn't a legal basis for the ordinance not to be passed based on the 5th.

The author basically admits this:

I caution PLUM Committee members that, “Requiring the patients’ association to disclose the names and addresses of members who supply medicine is unnecessary and places the patient-cultivator at undue legal risk from inappropriate law enforcement activity, rogue police officers...

The 5th isn't a legal basis against "inappropriate law enforcement activity, rogue police officers".

In theory, the 5th would actually only be legal basis against "appropriate law enforcement activity, and non-rogue police officers".

 

[zenoonez]

I actually kinda agree with your therorization about the 5th because it obviously has been expounded upon from the time it was created so long ago yet my point was that there really is no right to "self-incrimination" for a grower if it's the LAPD that ends up with that information because LAPD is state employee and they must follow state law and if it's legal to grow under state 215 then it's not "incriminating". It would only be incriminating if it were illegal to grow MMJ.

It is against federal law and again, your 5th amendment rights protect you pretty much in a blanket way. What I mean is, in the process of talking to any government official you may say something which may be incriminating which can be used against you. In such a legal circumstance the only information you should ever give to a government official is what is required to get what you want. What I mean is that if you need a license and you only need to provide three pieces of information, only provide those three. In this situation, the government is requiring the giving over of incriminating information either way you look at it. Regardless of whether state law provides the protection from state law enforcement officials which it doesn't seem to. The federal government still has the right and ability to pursue you and now through the information collected by a state agency they can find every person who is part of a co-op. It would take little to get them to hand that information over to the federal government. Remember that federal laws > state laws. So it is a no no.

You edited your post damn you

Sure, LAPD could easily use that info for their means and bust you because they don't like you but that would be illegal for the LAPD to do and just because they do shit like that all the time and aren't held accountable isn't a legal basis for the ordinance not to be passed based on the 5th.

The author basically admits this:


The 5th isn't a legal basis against "inappropriate law enforcement activity, rogue police officers".

In theory, the 5th would actually only be legal basis against "appropriate law enforcement activity, and non-rogue police officers".

It doesn't matter if you would be the targeted by rogue cops or not. Even throwing out the fact that it is a federal crime your 5th amendment protects you.

"One of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth."
~ Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17

Even if you are innocent and you tell the truth your statements "may provide the government with incriminating evidence" therefore the protections of the 5th amendment extend to those who are innocent of any wrong doing in the same manner that they apply to those who may be guilty. The 5th amendment as it now exists is a right to not talk to the police or any other governmental official.

 

[johnnyla]

how is it even legal for the police to ask for patient/cultivator information when medical information is heavily protected by federal law?

since the marijuana prohibionists like to hide behind fed law so much i wonder why they aren't worried about violating Federally protected Medical Privacy information???

Maybe Blue Cop has an answer for that?

 

[zenoonez]

how is it even legal for the police to ask for patient/cultivator information when medical information is heavily protected by federal law?

since the marijuana prohibionists like to hide behind fed law so much i wonder why they aren't worried about violating Federally protected Medical Privacy information???

Maybe Blue Cop has an answer for that?

They can ask until you invoke your 5th amendment right. The point is that they can ask but they can't require it because it would be requiring you to self incriminate. I understand their desire to make sure people aren't getting bad bud but until the federal government changes its stance on mj that sort of requirement simply isn't appropriate. Furthermore, as I understand it, such a requirement is not provided for in the local or state law either? Nah, protest that, don't sign up, have your own event.

 

[Pythagllio]

5th doesn't work so well if they grant you transactional immunity.

 

[PharmaCan]

When a collective remits sales tax to the state that is self-incrimination that are are selling a fed controlled substance but that is not enough to stop collectives from being forced to remit sales tax so obviously the Fifth Amendment is not enough.

Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Playing the devil's advocate is one thing. Constantly making stupid statements just so you can disagree is, well, stupid.

5th doesn't work so well if they grant you transactional immunity.

But I don't think the state can give you immunity on federal charges??? Regardless, if given immunity, it would have to be some kind of ongoing immunity because your grow would be an ongoing crime, not a past one that is over and done with.

Blue Dot may well be the stupidest asshole I've ever encountered. He may even believe his own bullshit! Sheesh, even Calvina Fay is more intelligent that BD.

ROFL - I don't even know who Calvina Fay is but I'll still have to agree with you on this one.

PC

 

[zenoonez]

5th doesn't work so well if they grant you transactional immunity.

They can grant you immunity on any charge and you may still plead the 5th. The only way I would talk is if they gave me unconditional immunity meaning that I could say that I killed someone, raped someone, trafficked narcotics, etc. and they couldn't charge me. You have the right not to talk to the police or government officials.

 

[nephilthim]

yea i think blue dot would drink jim jones purple kool aid if the law told him.
1st off the a.g. are "guidelines"so wonderful counties piss on patient rights visa a vis s.b.420 guidelines, which is unconstitutional(s.b. 420 being an illegal modification of a state ballot inititive) furthermore your medical recommend is private medical knowledge not to be disseminated to anyone let alone a public official, exception being a court order.

 

[johnnyla]

i can't wait to see what they decide tmrw.

if they get what they want every collective in LA county, even the grandfathered ones, will be required to get an MMJ permit after submitting plans to three different county departments. i wonder how long it's going to take them to process those?

fuck LA County.

 

[Blue Dot]

furthermore your medical recommend is private medical knowledge not to be disseminated to anyone let alone a public official, exception being a court order.

But your medical info is not being diseminated. If you are a caregiver growing for a patient YOU don't have any medical info, it's only your patient that has medical info and the city/LAPD is NOT asking for that info. They are only asking info about you so no doctor/patient confientiality or HIPAA breach.

 

[zenoonez]

But your medical info is not being diseminated. If you are a caregiver growing for a patient YOU don't have any medical info, it's only your patient that has medical info and the city/LAPD is NOT asking for that info. They are only asking info about you so no doctor/patient confientiality or HIPAA breach.

5th Amendment baby!

 

[bud toker]

The effect this will have,larger growers will turn back to the black market to sell their buds making it harder for collectives to get bud.

 

[Blue Dot]

The effect this will have,larger growers will turn back to the black market to sell their buds making it harder for collectives to get bud.

The collectives could always just grow it for themselves within their closed-circuit.

Nah, too much work.

 

[johnnyla]

The collectives could always just grow it for themselves within their closed-circuit.

Nah, too much work.

ummm that's what they are doing now. everyone who sells to them is a patient collective member. hence the closed loop.

i don't even know why i'm arguing with you.

do you even live in California? are you an adult? are you a cop?

 

[Blue Dot]

do you even live in California? are you an adult? are you a cop?

yes, yes and yes. I'm actually Bonnie Dumanis posting under an assumed name and I'm finally coming out of the closet here on icmag.

 

[nephilthim]

if you are a patient and a caregiver it is a breach of your right to privacy to divulge medical info without your consent. damn you people blue dot isn't a cop hes buffalo bob from silence of the lambs now tuck your sack in and run along blue dot you you perpetual naysaying tool lol.

 

[Moldy Dreads]

Unnecessary?

'Um what part of Jerry's guidelines don't they understand??

I guess Bonnie Dumanis, I mean Blue Dot, views Jerry's Book as a Bible?
I guess SD better follow it word fer werd. WORD!

 

[Hydro-Soil]

This is a HEALTH issue, not law enforcement issue. Name me one farmers collective that is required to submit their growers information to the local law enforcement.


I'm all in favor of keeping records of which meds come from which growers, for quality control purposes, but that's the extent of it. This is a HEALTH issue, not law enforcement.

 

[Blue Dot]

I'm all in favor of keeping records of which meds come from which growers, for quality control purposes, but that's the extent of it. .

Would you have growers inspected by the health dept? Or would it be the Ag Dept. I think it should be the Ag dept just like the Farmers for the farmer market you spoke of because it's the Ag dept that enforces pesticide use not the health dept.

I could agree with that but I still think a lot of people in this thread that disagree with the LAPD knowing would also disagree with the health dept or any inspection.

 

[Pythagllio]

They can grant you immunity on any charge and you may still plead the 5th. The only way I would talk is if they gave me unconditional immunity meaning that I could say that I killed someone, raped someone, trafficked narcotics, etc. and they couldn't charge me. You have the right not to talk to the police or government officials.

If they grant you transactional immunity and you can certainly refuse to testify on point. Just take your toothbrush with you to court because you're going to jail for contempt.