cannabisnews.com: Suits Rap Placer Deputies on Raids





Suits Rap Placer Deputies on Raids
Posted by FoM on March 25, 2001 at 15:57:36 PT
By Roger Phelps, Bee Staff Writer 
Source: Sacramento Bee 
A series of marijuana raids in 1998 and 1999 has Placer County facing damage claims that could top $30 million in several lawsuits. Three court cases could be merged in a single trial, said Santa Cruz attorney Kate Wells. Cases involve people who were charged but not convicted, and people who were never charged, Wells said. Raids sought marijuana in plaintiffs' homes. The three plaintiffs are medical patients who say they have used marijuana legally for pain relief. 
Additional, similar cases are also in court, said Placer County Counsel Tony LaBouff. "Most of those cases are in federal district court," LaBouff said. "We've had about six cases." The plaintiffs generally allege that a group of Placer sheriff's detectives acted on false affidavits for search warrants. The warrants concerned homes in Sacramento and Placer counties. The plaintiffs sued in 1999 after Placer supervisors denied claims related to the searches. A lengthy fact-finding stage is set to begin in the cases, said David Husky, deputy county counsel. "We have the rest of this year to do discovery," Husky said. Wells represents plaintiffs Robert DeArkland, Chris Miller and Lyman Sanborn. "On July 1, 1999, sheriffs broke into my house and assaulted and battered me and my family," wrote Sanborn, a Roseville resident, in a claim filed in December 1999. "They dangerously brandished their weapons at us and we were terrorized by their unwarranted behavior. The officers pushed and handcuffed us without regard to physical condition or age." Sanborn is a childhood chum of former President Ronald Reagan, known as a law-and-order politician, Wells said. Wells said the cases concern a systematic misuse of power by Placer detectives. The abuse is no different from many such abuses around the state, she said. Drug squads need to justify funding, so too often they improperly pursue easy targets - medical-marijuana users, Wells said. "A judge has held the three cases are related, and I want them consolidated for trial purposes," Wells said. Defendants Placer and Sacramento counties want separate trials, Husky said. Several details differ among the cases. At some homes, detectives found no marijuana and made no arrests. In preparing to seek warrants to search homes, detectives searched for and found marijuana cuttings in trash, and subpoenaed electric bills that showed abnormal power use, warrant affidavits say. The plaintiffs claim detectives knew any marijuana growing in the residences was for medical use. Lt. Rick Armstrong, Placer sheriff's spokesman, avoided comment on open court cases. "We obey the law," Armstrong said. "If we receive information on a person who's possibly growing, we investigate to see if it's medicinal." It is alleged that Placer detectives conducted surveillance of a hydroponics-supply store on Auburn Boulevard in the Arcade area of Sacramento County, recorded license-plate numbers of customers and used license data to find home addresses, Wells said. Affidavits say that at several homes - including the plaintiffs' - detectives searched trash, subpoenaed light bills and sought warrants. Hydroponics is a long-established, legal method of growing various plants with no soil, under special lights. "Many people believe they took down license numbers," Wells said. "They went into trash. There's about 80 warrants, and they look like carbon copies. The store owners were very upset. They contacted me to see if there were grounds for litigation." Armstrong would not confirm or deny that general investigative procedures include surveillance of hydroponics stores. "I'm not going to give you our investigative techniques," he said. A typical search-warrant affidavit in the cases says detectives went to a particular address and saw a vehicle with a particular license number. The affidavit then offers the vehicle sighting in support of a request to search the residence. The affidavit fails to say how Placer detectives learned the address. A fourth plaintiff, Joseph Sandbank, claimed his trash contained no marijuana cuttings, but that detectives falsely swore it did in seeking a warrant, court documents show. Husky said Sandbank did not claim to be a medicinal pot user. Cases are moving slowly through the court system. Trial dates are set for early 2003, Husky said. Simply taking depositions from detectives and from plaintiffs will occupy at least two full weeks, he said. In a tort claim, DeArkland sought $25.1 million in damages from Placer County. The search of his home caused DeArkland's heart to malfunction, he wrote. He entered a hospital for treatment, the claim says. Claims by Sanborn and Sandbank alleged improper search and emotional distress, and sought $1 million apiece. A claim by Sanborn's relative, Lyman H. Sanborn III, sought $50,000. Miller's claim, for property damage only, sought $12,353. Note: Court cases target marijuana probes.Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)Roger Phelps, Bee Staff WriterPublished: March 25, 2001Copyright: 2000 The Sacramento BeeAddress: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852Contact: opinion sacbee.comWebsite: http://www.sacbee.com/Forum: http://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.htmlFeedback: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.htmlRelated Articles:Roseville Man Files $1 Million Suit Over Pot Raidhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9130.shtmlCounty Faces Lawsuits Over Pot Raids http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9075.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by Dan B on March 26, 2001 at 10:02:58 PT
Combining Cases
Remember that the plaintiffs also have to pay court fees, etc. I think that thier attorney wants to save them some money and save herself the trouble of trying the same case over and over. She'll be able to mount a more effective case with three plaintiffs than with just one, and I think that is a smart move, overall.I agree that the county should have to pay out the nose, but let the bulk of the hardship fall on the county rather than on those who are suing. I'd like for these folks who are suing to keep as much of the money as possible.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dddd on March 25, 2001 at 19:38:39 PT
2 in one
I thought the same thing as Imprint mentioned about trying the2 cases together......Why?...ya got two,basically unrelated cases,(theyare related in a certain way),,but I dont recall seeing any fraud,or assault,or drunk driving cases being combined in this way?I think Imprint is right,,,its gotta be about the money,and minimalizing thepublic scrutiny,and embarassment,,by trying to kill two birds with one stone.But then again,,on the flip side,,perhaps combining the two cases will work out tobe a plus,,in that it will strengthen the plaintiffs position....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Imprint on March 25, 2001 at 19:10:39 PT:
Make the county pay
Well, $30 million would just be the possible total awarded amount. This isn’t counting the hundreds of thousands if not millions spent on court proceedings, investigations and prosecutors. The judge is no dummy, he realizes that to combine the cases into one would save a substantial amount of money for Placer County. For this reason I think the cases should be kept separate. The more money Placer County is forced to spend the more likely the voting public in Placer County will demand a change in the drug war policy. For years defendants have been striped of their hard-earned money. Placer County needs to feel what it is like to be financially harmed. Money makes the drug war go-around and lack of money will help make it stop. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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