Pubdate: Wed, 24 Oct 2001
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Sacramento Bee
Contact:  http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Author: Wayne Wilson, Sacramento Bee Staff Writer

JUDGE RULES FEDS CAN EXAMINE FRY-SCHAFER FILES

Seized files' return denied: Attorney-physician couple lose their bid to 
regain data taken by federal agents in a medical pot probe. By Wayne Wilson 
Sacramento Bee Staff Writer (Published Oct. 24, 2001)

Thousands of files seized by federal drug agents from an attorney-physician 
couple who advocate the medical use of marijuana need not be returned, a 
judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. Magistrate Gregory G. Hollows rejected the attorney-client privilege 
asserted by the operators of California Medical Research Center in the El 
Dorado County town of Cool, but set up rigid rules by which the 
still-sealed records may be reviewed.

Neither attorney Dale C. Schafer nor his wife, Dr. Marion "Molly" P. Fry, 
would discuss Hollows' findings, saying they had not yet seen the 28-page 
order.

Their lawyer, J. David Nick of San Francisco, could not be reached for 
comment, but after Monday's hearing in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, 
he characterized the government's campaign against the pair as an "unsavory 
attempt" to instill fear in seriously ill Californians.

The offices of Schafer and Fry, along with their nearby Greenwood residence 
and a storage unit in Cool, were raided Sept. 28-29. A U-Haul truck 
transported the seized computerized and paper files to Sacramento, where 
they have been placed in a locked room on the 16th floor of the federal 
courthouse.

Schafer and Fry have yet to be formally charged with a crime, but drug 
agents alleged in the affidavit for a search warrant that the lawyer and 
doctor were engaged in a scheme to unlawfully prescribe, cultivate and sell 
marijuana.

The government called it a marijuana prescription "tag team" with the 
doctor recommending pot therapy and the attorney advising patients how to 
avoid conviction.

At Monday's hearing on the Schafer-Fry motion to return their files, 
attorney Nick argued that the government is on a "fishing expedition," 
looking for evidence that would implicate thousands of sick people who use 
marijuana medicinally.

Nick said the Compassionate Use Act, a 1996 state ballot measure, permits 
Californians to employ pot therapy when it is recommended by a doctor. But 
Assistant U.S. Attorney Anne Pings said that possession or distribution of 
marijuana is a federal crime, regardless of one's claimed medical needs.

And, she said, the actions of Schafer and Fry went beyond the mere 
recommendation of marijuana therapy.

"Attorney Schafer did more than advise clients about the ins and outs of 
medical marijuana, including how to avoid prosecution or how to act after 
an arrest," Hollows noted in his findings. "He coupled that advice with 
sales of marijuana, distribution of marijuana clones, as well as the 
organization of a business with his doctor-wife for the mass distribution 
of marijuana through allegedly unlawful recommendations.

"At this point, there is probable cause to believe that attorney Schafer 
not only advised his customers to possess marijuana in violation of federal 
law, he took steps to ensure that possession," Hollows declared.

Schafer advertised on the Internet and in local papers, offering marijuana 
recommendations from his business, Hollows stated. But "he affirmatively 
told his purported clients from the inception of their meeting that he was 
not their attorney," Hollows said, quoting a question-answer sheet 
"apparently given to ... Schafer's customers": Q: Is Mr. Schafer my attorney?

A: No. Dale C. Schafer (has) provided you with legal consultation to assist 
you in understanding (the applicable law) and how to keep you out of 
trouble with law enforcement.

With that in mind, Magistrate Hollows reasoned, "Attorney Schafer's clients 
could not have had a reasonable basis to believe that they were submitting 
confidential information to their lawyer." Thus, there was no 
attorney-client privilege, he found. Recognizing the "sensitive" nature of 
the seized documents, Hollows ruled that the government will be allowed 
access to some of the files only after they've been reviewed by a "special 
master" for the purpose of establishing relevance.

The medical records themselves will not be opened because, under the 
government's theory that all marijuana use is unlawful, any reason for such 
use is not relevant, the magistrate noted.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart