Actions by Cities Statewide Could Cost Californians Millions Reports Pappas Law Group

Sun Feb 3, 2013 6:00am EST

* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.

http://pdf.reuters.com/htmlnews/8knews.asp?i=43059c3bf0e37541&u=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20130203:nGNXUXCAZa

LONG BEACH, Calif., Feb. 3, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following is a statement made by Pappas
Law Group:

Currently, the City of Long Beach is being sued by dozens of medical marijuana patients for
enforcing a city ordinance deemed illegal by a California appellate court. In the 2011 Pack v.
Superior Court decision, Long Beach's controversial 5.87 marijuana law was invalidated by the
Second District California Court of Appeal. The same trial judge in that case found, "the evidence
seems to show that the city through its police have used...strong arm tactics to knock down doors
of the collectives without a warrant and without exigent circumstances." The initial hearing in a
myriad of cases grouped together that seek millions of dollars in damages from Long Beach will be
held on March 6 in Los Angeles. One of the state court cases seeks damages as a class action on
behalf of thousands of people attacked by the city over the last two years. Long Beach is also a
defendant in multiple federal lawsuits alleging it used brutal attacks and raids to force closure
of collectives. One of the federal cases alleges that search warrants were served and obtained
improperly through judicial deception and that multiple raids were conducted without any warrants.
Another case involves the attack of a collective worker caught on video in June, 2012.

On February 5th, the University of San Francisco's School of Law will host a public session of the
state Supreme Court. At the hearing, the court will determine whether California cities can
completely ban medical cannabis collectives. The results of the court's decision will have serious
and long-lasting implications for Long Beach taxpayers. For over a year, Long Beach City Attorney
Bob Shannon has insisted that the City's ban of collectives, enacted after controversial Chapter
5.87 was stricken by the appellate court, was absolutely necessary. Until it finally passed the
ban ordinance on February 14, 2012 after it failed to do so during standing room only public
meetings in December, 2011 and January, 2012, Shannon used PowerPoint presentations, numerous
meetings with council members, and warnings that members might be breaking federal law to force
passage of the ban. If Shannon was wrong about the ban, there will no doubt be a myriad of new
lawsuits filed seeking damages for hundreds of raids and coercive actions taken against Long Beach
property owners who lease space to patient collectives since the ban was passed.

Before it was passed, Shannon advised the City Council, telling members that banning all
collectives was the only course of action that he could recommend. Only months before the ban was
passed, Shannon asked in a petition he filed in the California Supreme Court whether California
cities even have the legal authority to ban collectives. The consequence for the City Council's
vote to outlaw all cannabis collectives rests in-part on whether the state's highest court
determines such bans are legal. In August, 2012, a state trial court in Los Angeles found the
City's ban law was preempted by state law and invalid. Since the ban was passed, numerous patients
and volunteers have been jailed and hundreds of citations have been issued to the patients,
collectives, and landlords. Liens have been placed on properties and landlord business licenses
have been revoked.

During the February 5th hearing, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from attorneys representing
the City of Riverside, California and a patient collective in that city that was ordered to
shut-down under a ban law similar to the Long Beach ban. If the state's high court rules in favor
of the Riverside patient collective, then Long Beach's city officials will have once again pursued
an illegal policy. Given its first law, Chapter 5.87, was rebuked resulting in millions of
taxpayer dollars being wasted on legal fees and costs, the controversial position taken by Shannon
and supported by deputy city attorneys Michael Mais and J. Charles Parkin will place additional
millions of taxpayer dollars at risk. One city official who asked to remain anonymous commented
the cases could bankrupt the city.

Concern for potential taxpayer liability has been mounting statewide. Cities around the state
have, like Long Beach, taken actions to shutter medical marijuana dispensaries. All of those
cities are subject to lawsuits by patients similar to the suits filed against Long Beach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O6y8BeF8cU&feature=plcp
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ctr?d=10020400&l=7&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9O6y8BeF8cU%26feature%3Dplcp


http://www.ocweekly.com/2012-02-02/news/long-beach-medical-marijuana-lottery/
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ctr?d=10020400&l=8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ocweekly.com%2F2012-02-02%2Fnews%2Flong-beach-medical-marijuana-lottery%2F


http://greaterlongbeach.com/04/08/2011/mayor-fosters-first-term-actions-created-multi-millions-of-lbs-current-deficit
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ctr?d=10020400&l=9&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgreaterlongbeach.com%2F04%2F08%2F2011%2Fmayor-fosters-first-term-actions-created-multi-millions-of-lbs-current-deficit


http://lang.presstelegram.com/projects/mcclure/
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ctr?d=10020400&l=10&u=http%3A%2F%2Flang.presstelegram.com%2Fprojects%2Fmcclure%2F


http://www.littlaw.com/CM/Articles/McClure.PDF
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ctr?d=10020400&l=11&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.littlaw.com%2FCM%2FArticles%2FMcClure.PDF


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrisonNewsNetwork/message/41450
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ctr?d=10020400&l=12&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.yahoo.com%2Fgroup%2FPrisonNewsNetwork%2Fmessage%2F41450

CONTACT: Pappas Law Group
         213-531-1788
         citizens4disabled@gmail.com

Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.