State Courts

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access] For Immediate Release: January 24, 2008 Contact: ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford (415) 573-7842 or ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes (510) 681-6361 CA Supreme Court Denies Medical Marijuana Patients' Right to Work Advocates to call on state legislature to prevent discrimination Sacramento, CA -- The California Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana patient Gary Ross today in his fight against employment discrimination. In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court claimed that Ross could not rely on the Fair Housing and Employment Act or the state's medical marijuana law to prevent discrimination at the workplace. The Court did indicate in its decision that the state legislature had not adequately clarified employment rights of medical marijuana patients. "Obviously, we are very disappointed by today's decision," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that argued the case. "However, we remain hopeful that the legislature will come to the aid of patients by preventing the sort of discrimination that is likely to occur from such a decision." The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, stated that the ruling "has seriously compromised the Compassionate Use Act, denying to those who must work for a living its promised benefits." Despite a clearly worded amicus "friend of the court" brief filed in support of Ross in July 2006 by all of the original co-authors of SB 420 (state legislation that helped to define the rights of medical marijuana patients), the Supreme Court failed to believe that it was the intent of the entire legislature. Advocates assert that they will seek a different response from the state legislature in the form of a bill introduced in the next few weeks. Gary Ross, a 45-year old disabled veteran and a medical marijuana patient living in Carmichael, California, is at the forefront of a landmark employment case, with significant ramifications for patients in California and across the country. Ross was fired in September 2001 for failing an employer-mandated drug test while working as a systems engineer for RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. "All I am asking is to be a productive member of society," said plaintiff Gary Ross. "I was not fired for poor work performance, but for an antiquated policy on medical marijuana,” continued Ross. “This practice allows employers to undermine state law and the protections provided for patients.” Ross's physician recommended cannabis for chronic back pain that resulted from injuries sustained during his military service. But Ross's employer, RagingWire Telecommunications, refused to make an exception to its policy of terminating anyone testing positive for marijuana. Ross filed suit after he was fired in 2001, arguing that RagingWire illegally discriminated against him because of his condition. However, a Sacramento Superior Court, and then the Third Appellate District Court both rejected his argument. In October 2005, ASA appealed to the California Supreme Court on behalf of Ross. Strong public support has been shown for Ross and the plight of California patients to seek and maintain employment. Since it began recording instances of employment discrimination in 2005, ASA has received hundreds of such reports from across California. Companies that have either fired patients from their job, threatened them with termination, or denied them employment because of patient status or a positive test for marijuana, include Costco Wholesale, UPS, Foster Farms Dairy, DirecTV, the San Joaquin Courier, Power Auto Group, as well as several construction companies, hospitals, and various trade union employers. Further information: Today's California Supreme Court decision: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/Ross_Ruling.pdf Photo of Gary Ross: http://safeaccessnow.org/img/original/Ross_pic3.jpg Legislative-based amicus brief: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/ross_legislative.pdf Review legal briefs and more about the Ross v. RagingWire case here: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/Ross

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access] For Immediate Release: *November 28, 2007 Appellate Court Strongly Vindicates Patients Right to Medical Marijuana Seized by Police Ending years of dispute, court rules that police must enforce state and not federal law Santa Ana, CA: A California Appeals Court ruled today in favor of Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove seeking the return of his 8 grams of medical marijuana that was seized by police. In a ruling that rejects law enforcement's claim that federal law preempts the state's medical marijuana law, the court asserted "we do not believe the federal drug laws supersede or preempt Kha's right to the return of his property." The court further stated that, "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws..." After more than 2 years, the appellate court has answered a divisive question pitting the State Attorney General against the California Police Chiefs Association. Both filed "friend of the court" briefs in the case on opposite sides of the issue, with the Attorney General in support of Kha. "It should now be abundantly clear to law enforcement across the state that it is not acceptable to seize the medicine of seriously ill patients," said Joe Elford, who represented Kha as Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group. "And if, for whatever reason, a seizure occurs, the court has ensured that patients have a mechanism to get it back." Kha was cited for marijuana possession and had his medicine seized in June 2005, but after the case was dismissed in August 2005, an Orange County Superior Court judge ordered the return of his medicine. However, the City of Garden Grove not only refused to return Kha's unlawfully seized property, it also appealed the order, an unprecedented action by a California city. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) has compiled reports from nearly eight hundred patient encounters with local or state police during a period of more than two years. These reports show a glaring trend: more than 90% of all encounters result in medicine seizure by police regardless of any probable cause. According to reports received by ASA, rampant seizure of medical marijuana from qualified patients and primary caregivers has taken place in 53 of California's 58 counties. These violations of state law occur in both urban and rural locales, in the north as well as the south, and by both city and county law enforcement. The court's ruling also affirms a policy change by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which until 2005 held the record for the worst violator of Proposition 215. The CHP's policy of mandatory seizure of medical marijuana was challenged in court by ASA, after which the state's top law enforcement agency amply modified its policy. "Both today's court ruling and the CHP policy should go a long way to restore patients' rights in California," continued Elford. For further information, refer to: Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036250.PDF) Felix Kha's return of property case (http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=4412).

For Immediate Release: November 18, 2007 Contact: Brian Vicente, Sensible Colorado, 720-280-4067 Historic Lawsuit Overturns State's Medical Marijuana Policy Denver Judge slaps state health department; rules medical marijuana patients can appoint provider of their choice. DENVER -- Sensible Colorado will hold a press conference on Monday, Nov. 19, in front of the Denver City and County Building, to announce the issuance of an order by Chief Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves permanently overturning the Colorado Health Department's "Five Patient Policy." Adopted by the Health Department in a closed meeting in 2004, this policy limited the number of patients to which a caregiver can provide marijuana for medical purposes. Chief Judge Naves's decision stems from a lawsuit filed in June 2007 by Sensible Colorado on behalf of state-licensed medical marijuana patient Damien LaGoy. LaGoy, who uses medical marijuana to cope with nausea related to AIDS wasting-syndrome and Hepatitis C, sued the agency after his caregiver request was denied by the Health Department in May 2007 based on the "Five Patient Policy." In a July hearing Judge Naves temporarily suspended the policy accusing the agency of acting inappropriately in establishing the policy in a closed-door meeting which was not open to public or scientific input. Naves further alluded to the harmful nature of the policy in stating, "There is no reason this plaintiff should suffer." In a decision released late last week, Naves permanently overturned the policy citing violations of both the Colorado Open Meetings Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. This decision will allow the plaintiff Damien LaGoy, and the rest of Colorado's 1700 licensed medical marijuana patients, to appoint the medical marijuana provider of their choice. "I feel safer already," said LaGoy. "Now I can get my medicine from a safe and responsible caregiver instead of taking my chances on the streets." "This policy had the real effect of harming seriously-ill Coloradans," said Brian Vicente, lead attorney and head of Sensible Colorado. "Hopefully the Health Department will now begin acting to help medical marijuana patients, not harm them." WHAT: Press conference to announce an order protecting medical marijuana patient rights **copies of Judge Naves's decision will be made available at the press conference** WHEN: Monday, November 19, 12 p.m. (noon) WHERE: In front of the Denver City and County Building, 1437 Bannock Street WHO: Damien LaGoy, plaintiff and medical marijuana patient Daniel J. Pope, medical marijuana caregiver for LaGoy Brian Vicente, attorney and Sensible Colorado executive director Sean McAllister, co-counsel and criminal defense attorney # # #

[Courtesy of Drug Policy Alliance] For Immediate Release: November 5, 2007 For More Info: Tony Newman, (646) 335-5384 or Tamar Todd (510) 593-4908 California State Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Medical Marijuana Employment Discrimination Case on Tuesday Gary Ross, Fired After Testing Positive for Medical Marijuana, Despite Using Off-Hours and in Accordance with California Law Leading Public Health Organizations File Amicus in Support of Gary Ross; Outcome May Affect Thousands of Working Californians Who Use Medicine to Relieve Chronic Pain On Tuesday, November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., a case in which a lawful medical marijuana patient was fired by his employer after testing positive for medical marijuana he used during off-hours in accordance with his doctor’s recommendation for the treatment of severe pain. The case concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana in compliance with California law. Mr. Ross provided the company with documentation of his legal status as a medical marijuana patient but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment. “The livelihoods of thousands of working Californians who are using medical marijuana in full compliance with state law are at stake in this case,” said Tamar Todd, staff attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance. Mr. Ross is represented by Joe Elford of Americans for Safe Access, who will be arguing that case in front of the California Supreme Court on Tuesday. The Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in support of Mr. Ross on behalf of leading national and state public health organizations, including the American Pain Foundation, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the American Nurses Association, the California Nurses’ Association, the AIDS Action Council, the National Women’s Health Network, Doctors of the World – USA and the Gay Men’s Health Crisis. The brief argues that patients should not be forced to choose between the best course of treatment or employment, and outlines the sound evidence that marijuana is medically appropriate treatment for chronic pain and other serious medical conditions. Signatories to the brief represent a powerful contingent of medical and public health organizations that represent a broad class of patient-employees. “These leading health organizations recognize the need for patients to be able to follow their doctors’ advice for pain relief and treatment without fear of being fired from their jobs for doing so,” said Todd. Oral argument is scheduled for November 6, 2007 at 9 a.m., in the California Supreme Court‘s Capitol courtroom, Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento.

MEDIA ADVISORY Americans for Safe Access For Immediate Release: August 23, 2007 Contact: ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes (510) 681-6361 or ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford (415) 573-7842 Medical Marijuana Patients Argue for Right to Unlawfully Seized Property Hearing Today in state appellate court could mark an end to years of local law enforcement violations What: Oral arguments for two medical marijuana "Return of Property" cases in State Appellate Court When: Thursday, August 23 at 1:30pm Where: California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, 925 N. Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana Who: ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer, Chief Counsel Joe Elford will all be available for comment after the hearing Santa Ana, CA -- After more than two years, Garden Grove patient Felix Kha may finally see the return of his wrongfully confiscated 8 grams of medical marijuana. California's Fourth Appellate District in Santa Ana will hear oral arguments today in a case that has drawn the attention of the State Attorney General and the California Police Chiefs Association. Both organizations filed amicus briefs in the case, which supported opposite sides of the issue whether law enforcement has a right to seize a patient's marijuana and, in the event of an unlawful seizure, whether that patient has a right to get it back. Kha was cited for marijuana possession and had his medicine seized in June 2005, but after the case was dismissed in August 2005, an Orange County Superior Court judge ordered the return of his medicine. However, the City of Garden Grove not only refused to return Kha's unlawfully seized property, it also appealed the order, an unprecedented action by a California city. "More than ten years after the passage of the Compassionate Use Act, patients are still victim to routine medical marijuana seizures by local law enforcement," said Americans for Safe Access Chief Counsel, and Kha's attorney, Joe Elford. "It is bad enough to have your medicine indiscriminately seized by police, but to then be denied its rightful return shows a blatant disregard for state law and the hundreds of thousands of California patients for whom this law was designed to protect." Americans for Safe Access (ASA) has compiled reports from nearly eight hundred patient encounters with local or state police during a period of more than two years. These reports show a glaring trend: more than 90% of all encounters result in medicine seizure by police regardless of any probable cause. According to reports received by ASA, rampant seizure of medical marijuana from qualified patients and primary caregivers has taken place in 53 of California's 58 counties. These violations of state law occur in both urban and rural locales, in the north as well as the south, and by both city and county law enforcement. Until 2005, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) held the record for the worst violator of Proposition 215, with a policy of mandatory seizure of medical marijuana regardless of patient status. In early 2005, ASA sued the state's top law enforcement agency and by August of that year the CHP had revised its policy to better respect patients' rights. As a result of that policy change, the CHP went from being the most irresponsible law enforcement agency with regard to the unlawful seizure of medical marijuana to one of the state's best. As a result of different litigation, also involving ASA, the County of Merced revised its police policy in June 2007 to prevent the unlawful seizure of marijuana from qualified patients. As a consequence of the high number of medicine seizures, ASA has assisted scores of patients in seeking the return of their property. Although fairly onerous, California criminal courts have a mechanism to seek the return of medical marijuana; patients can file a motion for return of property and request a hearing. According to ASA, at least thirty of these motions have resulted in Superior Court orders and the return of patient medicine. At the same time, an undue number of denials have also occurred. In fact, Kha's case will be heard alongside the case of Jim Spray, a Huntington Beach patient that was denied a court order by a different judge in the same Superior Court that issued Kha's order. This discrepancy makes the issue ripe for an appellate court decision.

For Immediate Release: May 11, 2007 CONTACT: Reena Szczepanski (DPA): 505-983-3277 or Nancy Goldstein (NAPW): 347-563-1647 Supreme Court of New Mexico Strikes Down State’s Attempt to Convict Woman Struggling with Addiction During Pregnancy Leading Physicians, Scientific Researchers, and Medical, Public Health, and Child Welfare Organizations Applaud Court’s Order On May 11, the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico turned back the state's attempt to expand the criminal child abuse laws to apply to pregnant women and fetuses. In 2003, Ms. Cynthia Martinez was charged with felony child abuse “for permitting a child under 18 years of age to be placed in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health. . .” In bringing this prosecution, the state argued that a pregnant woman who cannot overcome a drug addiction before she gives birth should be sent to jail as a felony child abuser. Today the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, which overturned Ms. Martinez’s conviction. New Mexico joins more than 20 other states that have ruled on this issue and that have refused to judicially expand state criminal child abuse and related laws to reach the issues of pregnancy and addiction. The Drug Policy Alliance (“DPA”) and the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (“NAPW”) filed a friend-of-the-court brief http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/NMvMartinezAmicusBrief.pdf on behalf of the New Mexico Public Health Association, the New Mexico Nurses Association, and nearly three dozen other leading medical and public health organizations, physicians, and scientific researchers. During oral argument, the Justices referenced the amicus brief filed by these organizations and expressed grave concerns about the deterrent effect such prosecutions would have on women seeking prenatal care. Tiloma Jayasinghe, NAPW staff attorney, explained, “Making child abuse laws applicable to pregnant women and fetuses would, by definition, make every woman who is low-income, uninsured, has health problems, and/or is battered who becomes pregnant a felony child abuser. In oral argument, the state’s attorney conceded that the law could potentially be applied to pregnant women who smoked.” Reena Szczepanski, Director of Drug Policy Alliance New Mexico, said, “I hope that this case serves as a reminder that pregnant women who are struggling with drug use should be offered prenatal care and drug treatment, not prosecution. There are better ways to protect our children in New Mexico, and ensure that future generations will be safe and healthy.”

Maryland: Lawmakers Push to Restore Vote Maryland lawmakers are pushing a bill that would immediately restore the right to vote following release from prison, the Baltimore Sun reported. The proposed legislation would also change the current Maryland law which bans formerly incarcerated individuals with two felony convictions from voting three years after sentence completion. Bills have also been introduced that would restore voting rights after completion of sentence, including parole. Similar proposals failed in the state last year. For additional coverage, see the Washington Post and the Washington Times.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information: Jen Nessel, 212-614-6449 / 917-442-0112 cell Dan Klotz, 917-438-4613 / 347-307-2866 cell FAMILIES WIN VICTORY IN COURT OF APPEALS ON PRISON TELEPHONE CHALLENGE

For Immediate Release: Contact: Tony Newman (646) 335-5384 October 19, 2006 Daniel Abrahamson (510) 295-5635