Pubdate: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 Source: Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) Copyright: 2013 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 Medical Marijuana Update CAL SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS CLINIC'S LEGAL STATUS The California Supreme Court has set Feb. 5 as the date to hear arguments in a Riverside-generated case over whether local governments can ban medical marijuana dispensaries, but a development on Wednesday, Jan. 9 has called into question the legal status of the clinic in the case. City of Riverside v Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center came to the court from a November 2011 ruling from the Riverside-based Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two. It upheld Riverside's assertion that California's Prop. 215 and laws regulating medical marijuana did not preempt the city from creating ordinances that banned storefront dispensaries, and the center appealed. On Wednesday, the court's case file showed a letter to the clinic's attorneys which said Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center's corporate status was listed as "suspended" by the California Secretary of State's office as of Jan. 4. That makes the Center "disabled" from litigation, according to the letter from the court. The letter gives the center's lawyers until 5 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 10 to submit information and commentary on whether Inland Empire's corporate status would allow it to remain as a litigant. There have been rulings on clinic bans from other appellate court divisions since the one issued in November 2011, with one Orange County division turning aside local bans on dispensaries -- the opposite of the Riverside ruling. Published appellate court rulings can be cited or followed throughout the state. When appellate rulings clash, that makes an issue ripe for the state's high court, which granted review for the Riverside case on Jan. 18, 2012. "We anticipate that the decision will resolve the inconsistent appellate court decisions as to a local entity's land use power to ban dispensaries under its zoning code," Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos said in a statement after the court hearing was announced the evening of Tuesday, Jan. 8. "You can imagine how glad I am to see this finally coming to an end; to decide whether cities can ban collectives or not," said Lanny Swerdlow, the founder of the center named the case's title. "I just hope that if we win, the City of Riverside will sit down and do what we asked them to do 2-1/2 years ago, and enact an ordinance to license and regulate medical marijuana collectives." The interview took place before the development regarding the center's corporation status was known. Dispensary advocates say local governments can zone and set regulations for the medical marijuana clinics, but are overstepping their constitutional bounds by banning them outright. Wayward operations can be cited and closed on a case-by-case basis, like any other business suspected of violating local ordinances, they argue. Cities and counties that have banned the dispensaries say they have the right to peremptorily ban the clinics as intrinsic nuisances. They also say storefront operations are not in the language of California's laws regarding medical marijuana and its distribution to qualified persons through non-profit collectives. The list of Inland governments that ban medical marijuana dispensaries includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties and the cities of Riverside, San Bernardino, Redlands, Hemet, San Jacinto, Corona, Norco, Moreno Valley, Murrieta and Temecula. About 200 local governments throughout the state are believed to have enacted bans on the storefront clinics. The arguments will be heard at the University of San Francisco School of Law. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom