Cannasuer - you mentioned having an mmj license, which had been expired for 1.5 months. Was that why they raided?? If so, they must be watching those licenses like vultures, just waiting for someone to slip up! So LEO had been watching licenses, then began taking action right after your license expired - right?
Sorry for all that happened to you, and here's hoping that the DA forgets, their case expires and goes away.
The Ca Supreme Court already decided that a Recommendation does not expire--
Here is the Appellate document I took the quote from--
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...ases/b196483.pdf+People+v.+Windus&hl=en&gl=us
Hope this helps you with your case--The Attorney General’s principal argument is that Dr. Eidleman did not
recommend prior to appellant’s arrest in December 2004 that a specific amount of
marijuana was necessary to meet appellant’s medical needs. He points out Dr. Eidleman
did not see appellant from September 2001 until November 2005, approximately 11
months after appellant’s arrest. He contends that the doctor advised appellant, in 2001, to
come in for yearly reevaluations. Thus, because Dr. Eidleman’s recommendation was
more than three years old, it “had clearly expired.” The Attorney General argues “it was
only at the hearing in January 2006 that the doctor testified appellant’s condition
appropriately called for possession of three to six pounds. Thus, appellant did not present
any evidence regarding the amount of marijuana he required to satisfy his medical need
in December 2004, when he was arrested.” (Citation omitted.) We disagree with the Attorney General’s analysis.
Based on our examination of the CUA, we see nothing in the statute that requires a
patient to periodically renew a doctor’s recommendation regarding medical marijuana
use. The statute does not provide, as the Attorney General asserts, that a
recommendation “expires” after a certain period of time. As for Dr. Eidleman’s
suggestion that appellant see him annually, there was no evidence appellant’s failure to
do so invalidated the doctor’s medical marijuana recommendation. Moreover, the
evidence appellant presented was sufficient to present to the jury the question whether the
marijuana he possessed was for his personal medical needs.