Marijuana.com

Herb Ninja

Case could set pot precedent

3-28-2005 | Donna Gray | Vail Daily News

GLENWOOD SPRINGS - A lengthy hearing in 9th District Court in Glenwood Springs could become a landmark case in Colorado constitutional law.

Judge James Boyd heard arguments last week for the dismissal of a medical marijuana case in which defendant Jennifer Ryan's attorney Kris Hammond maintained that the evidence - 131 marijuana plants - were willfully destroyed by members of the Two Rivers Drug Enforcement Team in violation of the Colorado Constitution.

Members of the task force admitted they destroyed the plants when they seized them on the evening of Aug. 2, 2004, at a Rifle residence.

"Law enforcement needs to be sent a message that if a law is on the books which changes the way you do business, and they don't bother to find out about it ... it's willful ignorance," Hammond said, who asked Boyd to dismiss the case.

Colorado's medical marijuana law, Amendment 20, passed by the voters in 2000, says that any property owned or used in connection with medical marijuana cannot be destroyed, but must be held for the defendants and returned to them if the outcome of the case is acquittal.

Jennifer Ryan, her husband Gene Brownlee, Brownlee's nephew, Justin Brownlee, and Drew Gillespie were arrested Aug. 2 at Ryan's and Gene Brownlee's apartment in Rifle.

According to the affidavit to obtain a search warrant, the owner of the apartment building gave a caretaker at the apartments permission to enter Brownlee and Ryan's residence, when the caretaker smelled a chemical odor coming out of a dryer vent on the outside of the building.

Upon entering the ground floor of the apartment, the caretaker saw more than 100 marijuana plants in various stages of growth, many of them up to 4 feet high.

Brownlee told investigators he could grow pot legally because he has terminal cancer. Ryan said she was a certified caregiver to five people using medical marijuana. According to the law, both medical marijuana users and their caregivers can possess up to six plants, of which no more than three can be in flower, or as many plants as they feel necessary to treat a given medical condition.

When TRIDENT officers entered the apartment on Aug. 2, they uprooted the plants, placed the smaller ones in evidence bags and the larger plants in a large plastic container. They took the larger plants to the South Canyon Landfill that night where they were buried.

Deputy District Attorney Jeff Cheney argued that the court must prove the officers acted in bad faith and with "a reckless disregard for the truth," in destroying the evidence. "The officers acted in good faith," he said.

Cheney also said the information Ryan gave about being registered to give medical marijuana was "irrelevant. ... We're talking about a marijuana grow of over 100 plants."

Vail Colorado

__________________
Ron Paul for the Long Haul

 

Cassius

It doesn't matter if it was one plant, or 100 plants, or a million plants. If the owner of the plants has a medical marijuana card, then from what I can tell the law requires non-destruction of the plants. It is up to the COURTS to decide if the defendant is guilty or not, and whether to destroy the plants or not.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm certainly not a lawyer in Colorado, but from what I can tell the police made a decision here that was NOT their decision to make.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

GiantLeprechaun

At the end of the 5th Amendment their is a part that says,"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

If the case is thrown out do you think, that the defendant, should be given "just compensation" for property taken (plants) without the due process of law?

And is the court case concidered "pubilc use?" Since the government says it it for the good of the people and the government must "use" the "property" as "evidence" to prosicute the defendant?
Peace.

pefer

When TRIDENT officers entered the apartment on Aug. 2, they uprooted the plants, placed the smaller ones in evidence bags and the larger plants in a large plastic container. They took the larger plants to the South Canyon Landfill that night where they were buried.


Hmmmm...landfill? Why would they take them to a landfill, they have to be aware of the laws. I think they resold them or smoked them themselves.

Cassius

"Taken for public use" refers to things like, they need to expand this interstate so they take part of your property and pay you for it.

In this case, it wasn't taken for public use, it was taken as contraband, meaning that it's illegal to possess it in the first place so they are allowed to confiscate it.

This being a MMJ (medical marijuana) case, if it turns out that the defendant is acquitted and that it WAS her legitimate property, she could then sue the police for destruction of private property.

 

GiantLeprechaun

I agree they probably smoked them. Must of been one heck of a party. Wish I could have been there.

Thanks for the insight Cassius. I was just wondering how it works.

killer12382

So, if the cops seize some plants then, by all rights, they have to keep these plants alive until the end of the trial or whatever court hearing. So if they put these plants in a vegetative state and the court hearing goes on for months, these plants could be huge, even tree like depending on the type of weed they're growing. Think about the ramifications here...the cops having these holding cells which in reality are grow chambers behind bars. The cops, after a while could become very good at grow weed....ironic as hell.