LAKE COUNTY >> Tuesday a San Francisco Federal Court granted a preliminary injunction to stop Lake County and its officials from taking warrantless summary abatement actions on medical marijuana patients” plants, noting it was not persuaded by many of the arguments made by the defendants.
In its order, the court stated the plaintiffs have met their burden in showing the need for the injunction, while allowing for the county”s response to true emergencies that are in addition to mere violations of Measure N. The court only granted the injunction against Lake County and the defendants acting in their official capacities, rather than their individual capacities.
The request for a preliminary injunction was made by eight named residents of the county after being allegedly raided in August by Lake County Sheriff”s Office (LCSO) officers who were reportedly on occasion accompanied by officials from the Lake County Community Development Department and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. During the raids, officials failed, according to plaintiff reports, to provide warrants or a five-day abatement notice. The officers allegedly conducted the raids while some of the plaintiffs were not home, allegedly pried locks off of gates at some residences and threatened at least one resident with arrest when he requested to see a warrant.
The defendants in the case include Lake County Sheriff Francisco Rivero, Lake County Sheriff”s Office (LCSO), Interim Undersheriff Chris Macedo, Lt. Loren Freeman of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Lake County Community Development Director Richard Coel.
While the court had originally denied the plaintiffs” request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) as they had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future irreparable harm, after filing a supplemental briefing and giving testimony at court hearings, the court stated the plaintiffs have now provided sufficient evidence to show they are likely to suffer injury from future raids within this growing season. The convincing evidence includes a testimony from a similarly situated medical marijuana patient whose property was said to have been seized by the LCSO in July 2013, March 2014 and again in August 2014.
“The numerosity and repetitive nature of these searches suggests a pattern or practice on part of the county to conduct repeat searches and seizures,” the court”s order states.
The defendants had also argued that the plaintiffs had a heightened burden in making their case for a preliminary injunction but the court stated the defendants” argument for the heightened burden was unconvincing.
“The argument that an injunction here would disturb the status quo carries little force where the status quo is the warrantless search and seizure of private property unjustified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement,” the order states.
While the defendants had raised three exceptions to the warrant requirement that they believed applied in the raids, including exigent circumstances, consent and the open fields exception, the court found none of the exceptions applied.
The defendants had argued the exigent circumstances exception should apply as the state is suffering an ongoing drought.
But “the need to reduce water use, even during a drought, falls below the level of urgency associated with the emergencies justifying a warrantless search,” the order stated, noting the defendants had explained it would have only taken about a day to obtain a warrant. “The apparent arbitrariness of the ordinance”s (Measure N”s) razor-thin distinction between emergency violations and permissible growth delegitimizes the ordinance”s summary abatement provision.”
The court did not find the plaintiffs had given consent to the seizures as four of the nine named plaintiffs weren”t even home at the time of the reported raids. And while the defendants had said they would provide proof of the plaintiffs” consent under penalty of perjury, they have not provided such evidence to date.
Finally, the defendants” claim to an open fields exception, which does not require law enforcement to obtain warrants in open spaces, was dismissed by the court, finding that each of the plaintiffs” plants were within the curtilage of their homes and surrounded by at least one fence.
As “denying a preliminary injunction would leave numerous medical marijuana patients in Lake County vulnerable to future warrantless seizures of their medicine, which could lead to significant pain and suffering,” the court found that the balance of equities tips “sharply” in the plaintiffs” favor.
Attorney Joe Elford, representing the plaintiffs, called the court”s decision groundbreaking as it is infrequent that medical marijuana comes up in a civil context in a federal court, yet the court decided to take state medical marijuana law seriously.
The case will proceed to assess damages owed to the plaintiffs.
