US Court Slams LAPD For Illegally Seizing MMJ Profits

[zenoonez]

With all due respect Babba, this was an LA dispensary, not a Norcal one.

I could easily see how this could happen in norcal, especially with an outdoor crop, but in LA the dipensaries don't harvest nothin', they just buy from vendors so these guys were able to procure 209 lbs continuously from mostly indoor grows (which is a highly commendable feat in itself) because i think it's highly unlikely a majority of that 209 was outdoor. LA customers just seem to buy more indoor then outdoor IMO.

Assuming that the OP is correct about the case, who gives a shit? The warrant was given on false pretenses PERIOD. Which means they didn't have any right to go in there and search and seize shit. If the LAPD wants to go after dispensaries, let them go after those that aren't operating within the state laws. And if they think they have some magic bullet like they seemed to believe, they either have failed to show it or it was a lot more disappointing than any of us thought. Oh and maybe they should make sure they get their warrants straight and secure before they spend our public dollars to raid places that most American's believe have a right to exist. One of these days they will issue one of their willy nilly warrants on a real bad person and they will have to watch him walk based upon the technicality that they didn't have proper and correct information to justify their search.

 

[Blue Dot]

. And if they think they have some magic bullet like they seemed to believe, they either have failed to show it or it was a lot more disappointing than any of us thought..

They haven't really gone after dispensaries because your city TOLERATED it.

Then the dispensaries took a mile when you gave them an inch and now since it won't be tolerated they will go after the dispensaries.

 

[kmk420kali]

They haven't really gone after dispensaries because your city TOLERATED it.

Then the dispensaries took a mile when you gave them an inch and now since it won't be tolerated they will go after the dispensaries.

Have fun buying your meds from "Beto"...down at the Park--

 

[fatigues]

Okay. For starters, the full text decision of the court may be read here.

The case comes down to this: the LAPD mislead, and in a rather egregious way, the state magistrate who signed the original search warrant.

From that violation of the dispensary's (the "UMCC"s) rights, all else flows.

The money was obtained as evidence seized in an illegal search. The evidence used to obtain the warrant was flagrantly defective and misleading. The LAPD’s search was illegal.

Because the search was illegal, the evidence obtained from that illegal search is suppressed and cannot be used as evidence. Ordinarily, the money would have been ordered to be returned under state law.

In order to get that order for a return of money under state law, UMCC applied to the state court in California to get its money back. In connection with that proceeding, the UMCC had one of its officers swear an affidavit in support of the motion.

The state court would have ordered the return of the money, except the LAPD persuaded the US Attorney to ask for the money in Federal court under federal forfeiture law.

Whilst the state court was busy ordering the money to be returned, the US Attorney got the money and applied to Federal Court to approve its seizure and forfeiture under Federal law.

UMCC THEN got involved in Federal Court and asked for its money back there, too. UMCC brought a motion for summary judgment. This motion required UMCC to prove that there was no triable issue on the forfeiture case. UMCC had to persuade the Federal Court that the Federal Government’s case was hopeless because it had no evidence it could rely upon to tie the money to drugs.

UMCC's case comes down to this: the Federal government has no chain of evidence to establish that the money was subject to forfeiture as being the proceeds of illegal (under federal law) drug activity. The only evidence the US Attorney has that the money is drug money is inextricably linked to the illegal search warrant and the violation of UMCC's fourth amendment rights by the LAPD. The entire evidence chain is tainted and as a plaintiff, they have to be able to prove their case They can’t and never will be able to. The Feds must give the money up right now.

So far, this is nothing new, but then it gets mildly interesting. The Feds argue: “But we do have evidence. We have the evidence that UMCC presented in the initial State Court proceeding to get its money back. That affidavit of UMCC's officer? We can rely on that as evidence establishing the money came from the sale of marijuana. We don’t have to rely upon the search warrant evidence – we have UMCC’s own evidence the money came from drugs."

And to be fair, UMCC admitted exactly that in its affidavit filed in state court.

The question then becomes: can the Federal Government use that affidavit, or was that affidavit tainted by the illegal search too?

So, what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had to determine was this: was the affidavit produced by the officer of UMCC in state court causally linked to the initial violation of its constitutional rights? If it was, then the UMCC affidavit is evidence that was also tainted and the Feds can't rely upon it. With no evidence to prove that the money was the proceeds of a federal crime, the Feds have no case and must give the money back to UMCC. No trial is necessary.

The 9th Circuit Court held that the UMCC affidavit was not admissible. It was evidence that was given in state court to get back the money that was illegally seized as evidence under the original flawed search warrant. If UMCC had not filed that affidavit, it would have lost its money. It HAD to file that affidavit - it had no choice. Because it had no choice, it was causally connected to the illegal search in an unbroken chain. The UMCC affidavit must be suppressed, too.

End of case. Judgment for UMCC.

First Note: The 9th Circuit reversed the District Court on another point. The District Court had initially held there was no violation of UMCC's 4th amendment rights because a sale of marijuana was illegal under federal law.

The 9th Circuit Court was having nothing to do with that. The only standard that the LAPD was empowered to deal with was their action as state officials asking for a search warrant from a state court alleging a violation of state law. The US Attorney could not argue violations of federal law to make a misleading affidavit used to obtain a search warrant, un-misleading. State courts deal with state law, and that was the relevant law to consider. The warrant was improperly obtained on misleading evidence and the whole thing was tainted.

Second Note: Is there a point of law that the 9th Circuit Court made that is appealable to The USSC?

Probably, yes. The 9th Circuit Court also suppressed the amount of the money seized, arguing that the US Attorney could not rely upon the large amount of cash seized as evidence of anything, for any purpose, for any reason in the entire forfeiture proceeding. The 9th Circuit relied upon another decision in support of this proposition. IMO, that legal principle is, at its highest, dubious and at its lowest, downright nutty. Its rulings like that which tend to bring the law into disrepute, imo.

I doubt the USSC will choose to hear the appeal on that narrow ground though, but...they might, if the US Attorney chooses to appeal. And the Feds could well win the appeal on that narrow point, too.

Don’t misunderstand, I don't think the evidence of the amount of money seized, on its own, would be sufficient for the Feds to win the forfeiture case outright - but it should be enough to resist a motion for summary judgment, when the Feds only have to raise a triable issue to win the motion. (Remember, this was not an appeal of a trial decision, rather, it was an appeal of a ruling on a motion that said that the evidence in the case is so clear, a trial could not reasonably result in any other verdict.)

It would have been better had the 9th Circuit Court also held that the amount of money seized was itself “factual evidence” which is causally linked to the illegal search and that fact must also be suppressed. That would have been a far better hook to hang their hat upon, rather than to suggest that $186,000.00 US Dollars “might have been an employee’s lunch money in a drawer”. Judicial asshattery of that kind is plainly stupid.

So this one ain't necessarily all over.

 

[Blue Dot]

Wow, that was a lot of legalese, but can't the feds rely on other evidence that this was indeed proceeds from a federal crime like UMCC ADVERTISING in the paper or on websites like WT that they were indeed violating federal law.

Hello, just the act of adverstising that you are a dispensary is a direct admission of guilt that you are breaking federal law.

The ninth has always been way liberal and i love them for that and I do believe this case should be thrown out, like all other cases that are based on faulty warrants but it seems to me the feds could easily use other means like I mentioned to win.

 

[kmk420kali]

Wow, that was a lot of legalese, but can't the feds rely on other evidence that this was indeed proceeds from a federal crime like UMCC ADVERTISING in the paper or on websites like WT that they were indeed violating federal law.

Hello, just the act of adverstising that you are a dispensary is a direct admission of guilt that you are breaking federal law.

The ninth has always been way liberal and i love them for that and I do believe this case should be thrown out, like all other cases that are based on faulty warrants but it seems to me the feds could easily use other means like I mentioned to win.

Yes...after they return the $$...because they fucked up....they can possibly try and get another warrant based on anything they might have learned....but will a Judge sign it?? After just having to give up a hundred grand...maybe not--

 

[Pythagllio]

*sigh* I think I am in the wrong frame of mind today to discuss this...

You need to get a lobotomy in order to be in the right frame of mind to argue with the mindless.

 

[Blue Dot]

You need to get a lobotomy in order to be in the right frame of mind to argue with the mindless.

^would have been better if you had actually posted an arguement.

 

[fatigues]

Hello, just the act of adverstising that you are a dispensary is a direct admission of guilt that you are breaking federal law.

They tried that. But the question before the Court was not whether UMCC was selling dope, it was whether the money found on the premises HAD to be from selling dope. That's a different point.

The amount of money itself then becomes the evidence. If it was, say, $5.65, it could have been lunch money belonging to an employee and did not HAVE to be from anything.

So the fact they were selling MJ doesn't tie the money to selling MJ. Only the amount gets you there, but the amount can't be used as evidence of anything for any purpose, the Court said.

Like I mentioned, if they had excluded the amount of money as evidence obtained by an illegal search, that would have got them to the same place. But to just hold the amount can't ever be used for any reason --whether it's a legal OR an illegal search?

That was a lil nutty. It had precedent behind it - but precedent doesn't make bad law, good law. It just makes it oft quoted.

 

[zenoonez]

They haven't really gone after dispensaries because your city TOLERATED it.

Then the dispensaries took a mile when you gave them an inch and now since it won't be tolerated they will go after the dispensaries.

My city? You don't know my city so don't presume to talk about it. In my city you get caught with an ounce you have a choice, cop bashes your face into your hood and takes it for himself and you get to go free or the cop bashes your face into your hood and arrests you. I am in a non med state friend. Yet again I will say if the come after dispensaries they should have their stuff in order because otherwise it is unlawful search and seizure and will be overturned in court over and over again. If thats the type of ship we are going to see set sail in LA I can't wait to watch because the DA is going to get buttfucked every day in court and we can just watch more of CA's tax dollars swirl down the drain.

 

[johnnyla]

Because any biz has an ongoing inventory. If they had 209 on hand then they sold 209 recently and will sell 209 in the near future.

No buisiness or dispensary is an island.

It's not like they got nabbed on opening day.

blue dot? do you even use cannabis? because you should.

 

[Blue Dot]

blue dot? do you even use cannabis? because you should.

I've smoked longer then you.

Even though I don't know you or how old you are, on a statistical average it's just fact I've puffed longer then you.

 

[johnnyla]

been smoking daily for 20 years. i was just checkin maing. you don't seem too chill sometimes but other times i can see your humor. you're probably a virgo.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

this is great because the people convicted in the illeagal case will have to be let go now, because the search was illeagal.

 

[Blue Dot]

this is great because the people convicted in the illeagal case will have to be let go now, because the search was illeagal.

Yup, two wrongs DOES actually make a right?????

 

[kmk420kali]

Yup, two wrongs DOES actually make a right?????

No...but the first wrong...the ones the cops made...cancels out the other (Proposed) wrong...since they had no right to be there in the first place--

 

[Bemysnugglemate]

Thanks for posting

Thanks for posting

Great to read this....TY

 

[ballplayer 2]

fatigues, I read your dissection of the case with great interest. At the end of your post you described the judicial asshattery of considering 186,000 as possibly being the lunch money of an employee(s). As opposed to, preventing the exact amount of money seized from becoming legal evidence becasue it is factual evidence which is casually linked to an illegal search and must be suppressed. I totally agree with your reasoning, and the accompanying evidence you provided to back it up.

However, isn't it very possible that the court let their decision rest on a rather weak/debatable point, rather than a precedent with strong foundation on purpose? A flashing neon sign if you will...Screaming to the next court OVERTURN ME.

I would hope judges at that level should not be irresponsible at best...dubious at worst. However, nothing these days would surprise me.

I just hope one day people on both sides of these cases can put self interest aside and find a happy medium that makes both sides content with the issue of MJ (Medical or otherwise). Unfortunately, it feels like the zealous drug warriors (who are often operating under the equation illegal drugs=contant paycheck) contain not one shred of realisitic compromise. Yet, also the MJ community seems to turn a blind eye about just how dangerous a place/business with 200+ lbs pot, 20+ lbs hash, 12 lbs of oil is. I'm not saying its not okay to posess such quantities, but under the current system (illegality, quasi-legality) it's obviously very dangerous to have such quantities on hand. Plus, could there be easier marks for vicious criminals than the physically/psychologically ailing? Think bank, with a lighter security team, and both state and federal DA's who could care less if patients get robbed after obtaining the DEVILS PLANT!! (PLEASE NOTE SARCASM).

The obvious answer has to be legalization at all levels. I have read arguments that full on legalization could compromise international controlled substance treaties. My answer would be that if our politicians were worth their salt (yet, I know many of them are not) they could find a way to explain away our bending of these treaties in the interest of safety to our citizens on both sides of the debate. Not to mention it is just SOO obvious that its the right thing to do, at least given the circumstances of our country right now.

Also, I would like to direct this question to fatigues specifically, but also open to any other with solid knowledge of law. Isn't the law supposed to change? People always complain about not wanting activist judges on the bench. Do we not need judges willing to be activists if they are doing so by gauging the barometer of how society feels about legislation? Clearly our branch of government charged with the responsibility of creating legislation judges the society's wishes about as well as a three toed sloth runs. If all courts EVER do is cite previously quoted precedents how can things EVER evolve? Is law not constantly a matter of interpretation? So its ok for a law to remain or be struck down as long as the judge has the sticktoitiveness to dig up a case which matches their disposition? I'm not stating this from either a conservative or progressive position. There are some laws which clearly could use a more conservative lean, and others which could use a more progressive lean.

Ok. Rant's over. Sorry if I sidetracked the thread at all. Thank you for listening.

 

[PharmaCan]

Yet again I will say if the come after dispensaries they should have their stuff in order because otherwise it is unlawful search and seizure and will be overturned in court over and over again. If thats the type of ship we are going to see set sail in LA I can't wait to watch because the DA is going to get buttfucked every day in court and we can just watch more of CA's tax dollars swirl down the drain.

This is why this ruling is quit likely to put a stop to Steve Cooley's ambitions. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals get's a wild hair up their ass, and decides that mj prohibition is stupid, they'll look for ways to throw out cases. That's just the nature of that particular court.

It seems to me that, essentially, the court has told prosecutors and LEO that they can't just say, "Well, everybody knows this is true, so that makes it true." as reason for a search warrant anymore. This puts lower court judges on notice that they had better scrutinize warrants before signing them, particularly when it comes to medical marijuana operations. So, when Cooley goes to a judge and asks for a search warrant based solely on the fact that an establishment is selling marijuana, just maybe the judge will now take the fact that it is a med shop, selling mmj, and that that in and of itself is not enough to justify a warrant. That may be a stretch from a legal standpoint, but you also have to figure that politics comes into play here too.

There are elected county Supervisors who are going to look at decisions like this. These Supervisors not only have legal staff that advise them on the pros and cons of any decision like this, but they also read the newspapers and take into consideration how people will react to their actions. They will question the political wisdom of pursuing a path that could have embarrassing and costly ramifications for the County. This is particularly true when the City of L.A. has created a mess and is now asking the County taxpayers to use their resources to clean that mess up. (The City of L.A. and County of L.A. are two completely separate municipalities. The City has their own P.D. and is responsible for law enforcement within city limits. The County has a Sheriff's Dept. and is responsible for law enforcement in unincorporated areas and on a contract basis to smaller cities that don't have their own P.D.) The County BOS can pass a lot of this off to the City simply by telling the City it is their problem. This just shifts the problem to someone else, an oft' used political maneuver.

Steve Cooley is surrounded by like-minded drug warriors with their noses up his ass. In their minds, the drug war is a worthy and popular cause. The BOS is probably a little more in touch with reality and realizes that anti-marijuana rhetoric really doesn't have much political traction nowadays.

It's too bad Cooley doesn't have the balls to go after the gangs in Los Angeles. They're a much greater risk to public safety than mmj shops. But Cooley's not man enough to go after real bad guys, he'd rather pick on sick people and their support structure.

PC

 

[Babbabud]

southern cal ? hehe you need to open your eyes

southern cal ? hehe you need to open your eyes

With all due respect Babba, this was an LA dispensary, not a Norcal one.

I could easily see how this could happen in norcal, especially with an outdoor crop, but in LA the dipensaries don't harvest nothin', they just buy from vendors so these guys were able to procure 209 lbs continuously from mostly indoor grows (which is a highly commendable feat in itself) because i think it's highly unlikely a majority of that 209 was outdoor. LA customers just seem to buy more indoor then outdoor IMO.

If you dont think there are giant warehouses being used to grow large crops for collectives in LA you are saddly mistaken.