cannabisnews.com: Petaluma Pair Facing Trial in Pot-Growing Case 





Petaluma Pair Facing Trial in Pot-Growing Case 
Posted by FoM on April 18, 2000 at 19:02:39 PT
Key Prop. 215 Issues May Be Decided 
Source: Press Democrat
A Petaluma couple who helped grow and distribute medical marijuana will stand trial on charges of unauthorized cultivation of marijuana in a case that could help determine how pot can be distributed.What constitutes the relationship between the "caregiver," or marijuana provider and patient, is a question that continues to be debated more than three years after the passage of Proposition 215, the initiative approved by California voters allowing the use of medical marijuana. 
The initiative legalized the use of marijuana as medicine, but did not specify how people are to obtain it."The lines are still being drawn. That's what the case is about," said Santa Rosa attorney Chris Andrian who is representing Cheryl Sequeira, 37, one of the people active in a cannabis club that distributes marijuana to 1,200 patients in the Bay Area.Sequeira, her boyfriend, Ken Hayes, 32, and Michael Scott Foley, 34, were arrested in May at their rented Petaluma area home where sheriff's deputies seized 800 plants and about 20 pounds of dried marijuana, along with a loaded .22 caliber rifle and $3,300 in cash.Hayes, the executive director of CHAMP, or Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems, has boxes of records to bolster his claim that he was the primary caregiver supplying ill people with pot, as recommended by their doctors.Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins contends that nothing in the generally worded Prop. 215 allows people to grow large amounts of marijuana and sell or distribute it to others. But Andrian said a 1997 state court of appeal ruling, People vs. Peron, allowed a caregiver to supply to more than one person.The court ruling stated "a primary caregiver who consistently grows and supplies physician-approved marijuana is serving a health need of the patient and may seek reimbursement for such purposes."Mullins said the problem is that Hayes, the lead defendant in the case, did not fit the definition of primary caregiver as defined by the court ruling. "A primary caregiver must consistently assume responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person," Mullins said.Mullins said counties have differing policies on marijuana co-ops and how much medical marijuana each patient can possess. He believes the issue needs to be resolved in the state legislature, but proposed laws to do so have failed.Proposition 215 was "so vague and ambiguous. It doesn't do what it was supposed to do. It left everyone in a quandary," Mullins said.But Andrian said "the vast majority of voters wanted this. Instead of finding ways to prosecute people, they should find ways to make it work."He said his client and her co-defendants were "acting out of good faith and the belief what they were doing was legal." He noted that CHAMP was lauded for its work last year by the mayor of San Francisco and San Francisco Board of Supervisors.A preliminary hearing was held over two days and concluded Monday with Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Frank Passalacqua finding there was probable cause to hold Sequeira and Foley for trial on charges of illicit marijuana cultivation and possession for sale.Foley's preliminary hearing was delayed until May because his attorney was Andrian and William Panzer, the co-author of Prop. 215 who is representing See Pot, Page B4Pot.Hayes, said they decided not to mount a defense at the preliminary hearing stage and instead take it to a jury trial."The judge stated on more than one occasion he felt we had a strong case," Andrian said.Last week, the preliminary hearing was watched by about 40 medical marijuana patients and advocates who came up on a chartered bus from San Francisco.Defense attorneys said they are contemplating seeking a change of venue in the case to San Francisco because many of the witnesses are poor and ill with cancer and AIDS.Andrian said, "I feel much more comfortable trying the case here" even though he believes prosecutors will have a tough time in either county convincing a jury to convict.Mullins said he would oppose any change of venue.By Clark Mason, Press Democrat Staff Writer Published April 8, 2000© 2000 The Press DemocratRelated Articles & Web Site:C.H.A.M.P.http://www.champsf.org/Medical Pot Advocates Turn Out for Growers Hearinghttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread5421.shtmlJustice Department Ask for Rehearing of Medical Marijuana Rulinghttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3459.shtmlCannabisNews Articles On William Panzer & C.H.A.M.P.http://google.com/search?lc=&num=10&q=cannabisnews+panzer+site:cannabisnews.comhttp://google.com/search?lc=&num=10&q=cannabisnews+C.H.A.M.P.+site:cannabisnews.com 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Bill Bryan on April 02, 2001 at 09:37:05 PT:
fed, state, county, city--Who's boss on med mj?
The U.S. Supreme Court,federal pot laws, existent or nonexistent state pot laws, medical or no, Prop. 215, county interpretations and applications of Prop. 215, county and city, sheriff--narcotics task forces??--and police enforcement jurisdictions, interpetations, enforcements, arbitrarinesses thereof in applications....Whose word, mood, power, interpretion, etc., ad infinitum plus--decides, kind of decides, may decide, kind of may want to decide pending other pendings pending time and the river and the price of tea in China--rules on the use of medical marijuana in California and the Unites States??? Not to oversimplify I hope. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: