Also, this County says that hash and hash oil are “manufacturing a controlled substance” that is not covered by 215 (yes, they have had the AG opinion shoved in their face, etc). There is a case on this now in the 3rd district COA – Thomas Von Lhar is the defendant.

My patient is also the only person in local memory to have a habeas petition granted. In her case, it was because the State kept her doctor, Philip Denney, from testifying at her cultivation trial (she was aquitted of all the other usual BS charges), and her attorney (appointed) failed to make a coherent offer of proof, thus IAC.

Prop. 215 is a very interesting subject. Thanks for your note on this recent matter.

An important part of state law on Prop. 215 has recently been struck down by a state appellate court and is now before the state Supreme Court in the Kelly case (S164830).

I’ll soon be filing an amicus brief in this case.

I invented local governmental implementation of Prop. 215 in 1997 (Arcata) — when most everyone said such an approach was impossible — and the OCR has editorialized that I’m “the closest thing to a hero in the struggle to implement” the initiative. I’m likely the leading expert on this subject.

The AG has recently issued guidelines that are very adverse to interests of Prop. 215 — at the urging of the law enforcement lobby. AG Brown would like to be gov. again, and needs such help, so he’s willing to compromise Prop. 215.

I’ve submitted 30 relevant questions about these guiedelines to Christine Gasparac (AG press sec.) — but the attorneys in the office have refused to respond to them. I will send you a copy, if you like.

That same political dynamic is how present state law, SB 420 of 2003, was adopted — during the recall of Gray Davis. Davis was trying to stay in office and AG Locker wanted to follow him as gov., so the law enforcement lobby was able to leverage a late-session gut-and-amend bill to pass law its agenda.

This sudden move even surprised Davis’ relevant staff, since he often said that he’d never sign such a bill. But, his political pants were on fire and he had to do something — like carry this key water for the cops.

The source of the language in SB 420 is the AG’s office under Lockyer.

I was at the right spot at the right time, to discover this fact.

Limits on cannabis possession and cultivation in SB 420 are what have been struck down by the appellate court. The AG actually concedes this point — but is attempting to preserve application of these (totally unreasonable) limits to a program of purported “arrest-immunity.”

My amicus brief will thwart that effort and hopefully — finally put Prop. 215 interpretation on the correct course.

I’ll inform you of the legal details related to this amicus brief, if you like. I guarantee you’ll be very interested in these details.

I’ve had bill language ready (approved by Leg. Counsel)since 2004, to replace SB 420, and in every session have slogged it around the Capitol. I’ll be back during December, attempting to find authorship.

I have a recent essay about Prop. 215 posted online at my (local affairs) blog: http://yolosun.wordpress.com
Just consult the archives link at top of home page to locate this essay.

Another interesting and little understood (historical) aspect of implementation is that for the intial 5 years of its existence, persons related to Prop. 215 were being subjected to criminal process on a preponderance-of-evidence standard, rather than beyond-reasonable-doubt. The state Supreme Court had to correct that problem in the Mower case (2002).

Prop. 215 implementation must finally be succesfully achieved. Good journalism will be essential to that effort. Please email me a note, and I’ll help you to best accomplish such reporting.

Best wishes,
Bobby Harris