Pubdate: Sat, 08 Sep 2012
Source: Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
Copyright: 2012 The Press-Enterprise Company
Contact: http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/letters_form.html
Website: http://www.pe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/830
Author: Richard K. De Atley

STORES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND CITY OF COLTON SUFFER SETBACKS

Riverside County's Medical Marijuana Ban Is Upheld Regarding Two
Dispensaries, and a Colton Storefront Operator Is Found in Contempt

In the dispensary-by-dispensary court battles over local government
bans on medical marijuana storefronts, an appellate court has ruled
that Riverside County can close two outlets.

In addition, a San Bernardino County judge has upheld Colton's
dispensary ban by finding an owner-operator in contempt for staying
open in the face of an order to shut down..

The Tuesday appellate order does not affect cases under consideration
by the state Supreme Court over whether local ordinances banning
medical marijuana storefronts bans are valid.

Conflicting rulings upholding or striking down the bans have left both
sides of the issue whipsawed and uncertain.

In the Riverside County case, the summary order from the Fourth
District Court of Appeals, Division 2 issued on Tuesday, Sept. 4,
reverses a lower court decision that went against the county's law
banning marijuana dispensaries.

It was the same Division 2 court that in November 2011 upheld local
governments' rights to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in their
jurisdictions.

The county had been trying to close a dispensary operated by Nature's
Relief Group near Murrieta and one by the MOSA Collective Inc. in
Thousand Palms.

In a statement issued Friday, Riverside County officials said the
order helps establish that the local government dispensary bans remain
the rule of law in the 4th District, Division 2's jurisdiction of
Riverside, San Bernardino and Inyo counties.

The appellate case stemmed from Riverside County Superior Court Judge
John Vineyard's ruling on May 30 that if storefronts are operating in
compliance with California's two medical marijuana laws - the1996
Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) and the Legislature's Medical
Marijuana Program - then the dispensaries cannot be declared a public
nuisance.

Vineyard also said that in order to close the storefronts, Riverside
County had the burden of proving their activities were not in
compliance with state regulations.

Attorneys for the county have argued in that case and others that the
local ban ordinance is valid because it was upheld by the 4th
District, and they have no such burden of proof. They say that
dispensary outlets were never part of the medical marijuana user laws
approved by voters and the Legislature, and therefore are outside the
protection of those laws.

The Tuesday order regarding the two outlets is an interim step, and
the case will continue on appeal for several months.

Meantime, the county said it will check on the two storefronts to see
if they have closed.

Riverside County plans to go before the same court to appeal a
separate August ruling by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Ronald
Taylor, who denied a preliminary injunction filed by the county
against 16 storefronts .

And Vineyard last month also ruled against a city of Riverside ban on
a single dispensary. That also will be appealed, attorneys for the
city said.

In the San Bernardino County case, Judge David Cohn found the Organic
Garden dispensary and owner James Turner in contempt of a preliminary
injunction ordering the storefront to close in compliance with
Colton's ban. Organic Garden had remained open despite the ban.

Cohn on Aug. 31 ordered Turner to serve three days in jail and
separately fined Turner and the dispensary $1,000 each, and ordered
the dispensary and Turner to pay opposing counsel attorney fees of
$4,380. Cohn ordered a 30-day stay of the jail time to allow Turner
time to appeal, the case docket said.

"In the city of Colton, all the dispensaries are now closed," said
attorney Laura Crane, of Best Best & Krieger, who represented the city.

"It lets people know the city is pursuing them aggressively and the
city is recovering its fees, so it's not a cost burden to the city."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt