 News |
|
|
|
 News |
| General Cannabis News | |
Giaque's marijuana, in a Tupperware container, was seized although he was
carrying a card identifying him as a medical marijuana patient under state
Proposition 215.
When he put up a fuss he was booked for disturbing the peace and resisting
arrest, along with transportation of marijuana.
Giaque eventually pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace, although the plea
will not enter unless he fails to complete probation. Defense attorney Russ
Clanton then filed a motion for return of property.
Watson granted the motion earlier this week, ruling on the two central
issues disputed in the case: Federal law does not pre-empt California
voters from approving medical use of marijuana, and under Proposition 215
"some level of transportation must be contemplated."
"The unobtrusive, de minimis (very small) transportation in this matter
would come within that permitted," the judge wrote.
Clanton said he argued that Giaque's marijuana was medicine, not contraband.
"A diabetic can transport their needles," Clanton said Friday. "Why can't
medical marijuana patients take their marijuana with them?"
He said the other important issue is whether federal law pre-empts state law.
"The judge found that not to be true," he said. "This is a chance to
clarify the issue. Law enforcement is still being told it is contraband and
not to be transported."
Clanton said Giaque, who is about 35, suffers from "physical disabilities."
He said he could not elaborate.
The Sheriff's Department was represented by private attorney William
Mitchell, who was hired by the county. Mitchell said Friday he disagrees
with the judge's opinion, but it will be honored.
He said it's important to note that Watson made the ruling specific to the
facts in Giaque's case, and it should not be considered a precedent for
future litigation.
"It's our position that this ruling applies specifically to these facts,"
Mitchell said.
He said a U.S. Supreme Court case is pending on whether California's
Proposition 215 violates federal law.
"There is no real clear guidance," Mitchell said.
|
|
|
|---|
|
