Pubdate: Wed, 07 Apr 2010
Source: Tribune, The (Greeley, CO)
Copyright: 2010sThe Greeley Publishing Co.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/2T4s2YlD
Website: http://www.greeleytribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3165
Note: Note: typically publishes LTEs from circulation area only
Author: Sherrie Peif
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

CASE AGAINST WINDSOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY MOVES  TO TRIAL

WINDSOR -- A Windsor Municipal Court Judge ruled  Tuesday that 
Lazarus Pino's claims against the town of  Windsor, which stem from 
Pino being cited daily for  operating a medical marijuana dispensary 
in violation of a moratorium, are not valid.

Judge Michael E. Manning denied Pino's motions to  dismiss the 
charges March 30th.

But he left it open for Pino to introduce more evidence  when the 
case goes to court later this month.

Pino presented the motion to dismiss about 100  citations, which 
carry a penalty of up to $300 per day,  on Feb. 25 in Windsor 
Municipal Court based on five  claims he said made Windsor's medical 
marijuana dispensary moratorium unconstitutional.

On Dec. 16 the Windsor town board passed the emergency  ordinance but 
left Pino's business, MediGrow off the  list of businesses it 
exempted from the moratorium.

The town began citing Pino the next day for violating  the ordinance. 
In addition, he is receiving citations  for building code violations, 
which also carry fines of  up to $300 a day.

Pino's attorney Daniel Taylor of Wheatridge, argued at  least four 
different violations of local, state and  federal laws, including 
failure to provide proper  notice of a public meeting and enacting an 
emergency  ordinance where no emergency existed; hampering, by 
unreasonable and arbitrary governmental interference,  one's right to 
engage in a lawful business; equal  protection; and retroactive law making.

Manning's decision was clear that the town acted  reasonably where 
notice of the special meeting and  enacting an emergency moratorium 
were concerned. He  also found that the moratorium itself was 
reasonable  because of its temporary nature, therefore not blocking 
Pino from operating his business permanently.

Under equal protection and retroactive law making,  Manning ruled, 
Pino did not present enough evidence to  allow him to rule.

"The defendant must show that he was a member of the  group singled 
out for the disparate treatment." Manning  wrote. "... Only if he was 
in fact open for business  for less than five days before the 
effective date of  the moratorium can he raise the question of the 
unconstitutionality of the moratorium on equal  protection grounds."

Pino will get the chance to prove his case on April 21,  when he is 
scheduled to appear in court to defend the  charges.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom