Pubdate: Fri, 06 Apr 2012
Source: San Bernardino Sun (CA)
Copyright: 2012 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact:  http://www.sbsun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1417
Author: Wes Woods II

LOCAL ATTORNEY CITES LAKE FOREST DECISION FOR FUTURE DISPENSARY VICTORIES

The offices of Route 66 Healing and Wellness in Rancho Cucamonga. A
local attorney says a recent court ruling will have significant
consequences on how courts deal with medical marijuana collectives.
The fallout may soon be seen in Rancho Cucamonga.

The California Fourth District Court of Appeals, Division 3, ruled in
February in the City of Lake Forest vs. Evergreen Holistic Collective
case that cities and counties can't use zoning laws to ban medical
marijuana collectives, but the marijuana must be grown on site.

Redlands attorney James DeAguilera said judges are dismissing lawsuits
filed by cities against dispensaries statewide because of the ruling.

"The Lake Forest decision says that cities and counties cannot adopt
zoning ordinances that conflict with state law," DeAguilera said.

DeAguilera said he is handling about 50 lawsuits involving medical
marijuana dispensaries statewide, including G3 Holistic in Colton.

Rancho Cucamonga filed a preliminary injunction March 14 against the
medical marijuana dispensary Route 66 Healing and Wellness, but a
dismissal hearing is set for May 14 because of the Lake Forest
decision, DeAguilera said.

Nonetheless, Rancho Cucamonga's city attorney said it is only a matter
of time before the state Supreme Court addresses the Lake Forest case,
which has been appealed.

City Attorney Jim Markman called the Lake Forest result a "horrible
decision."

In the Rancho Cucamonga case, "we weren't happy, but we weren't
surprised," Markman said about the dismissal hearing.

"But the Rancho Cucamonga council will not be dissuaded. We want to
keep retail drug dealers out of Rancho Cucamonga. They're not running
co-ops in our view ... His motion to dismiss is frivolous."

Markman was encouraged by a Nov. 9 Fourth District Court of Appeals in
Riverside decision.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Riverside's injunction based on
zoning ordinance that bans dispensaries. The case has been appealed to
the state Supreme Court and was granted a review Jan. 18.

"We think because all these (marijuana dispensary) cases are sitting
in the Supreme Court in the interim, unfortunately, a lower court is
reluctant to issue temporary injunctions because they want to wait to
see what finally comes out of the California Supreme Court," Markman
said.

Proposition 215 in 1996 approved medical marijuana in the
state.

Senate Bill 420, which details the amount of marijuana a person can
possess for medical purposes, prevents cities and counties from
banning marijuana dispensaries.

Although, federal law says marijuana - medical or otherwise - in any
form is illegal.

"The language is very clear," said Paul Chabot, founder and president
of Coalition for a Drug Free California.

"Local officials cannot violate federal law. So city officials
allowing them are in violation of the law."

Meanwhile, DeAguilera said he recently filed a Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuit - a counter lawsuit to
what one would assume to be a frivolous lawsuit - against Rancho
Cucamonga because:

- - The Lake Forest decision "says the city's regulations are
illegal."

- - The city is harassing landlords and tenants through issuing
citations.

- - Rancho Cucamonga filed a cross complaint against the dispensary that
is retaliatory in nature

"It's the first time ever in the state of California. Never has a
SLAPP motion been filed against a city or country for trying to close
down a dispensary," DeAguilera said.

Markman said he felt the motion was ridiculous.

"Are you aware of SLAPP? It's so stupid and frivolous it is hard to
articulate how bad it is," he said.

The SLAPP motion is "to stop activity that would preclude somebody
from speaking or exercising their First Amendment rights or address
grievances ... someone selling pot is an exercise of someone's free
speech rights?"

Stephen Downing, former deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police
Department and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said
the Lake Forest case would most likely be appealed to the state
Supreme Court.

"I would hope the California Supreme Court would acknowledge the will
of the people," Downing said.

"And the will of the people voted 55 percent to have medical marijuana
in this state 15 years ago."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt