home

1,000 Pot Plants Seized, Owner Asserts Compliance With State Law

In Grand Junction, Colorado, a strange odor in the Government census office resulted in a search warrant being executed next door and the discovery and seizure of 1,000 marijuana plants. Sid Squirrel, who owns the building and is a realtor, says the plants are his, and he's growing them in compliance with state law. Also found: 300 file folders containing cards of medical marijuana patients.

Colorado law allows patients to possess up to two ounces of marijuana or six plants. Patients can also designate a caregiver. So for each patient who designated Mr. Squirrel as his or her caregiver, Squirrel can grow 6 plants. If 300 patients designated him as a caregiver, he could grow 1,800 plants and be in compliance with state law.

Squirrel was not arrested yesterday. [More...]

Police are checking records to see if they have enough card holders to support the growth of the more than one thousand marijuana plants found.

Will the DEA step in and charge Squirrel even if he is in compliance with state law, alleging he stood to make too much money from the cultivation? Colorado does not require dispensaries or growers to operate on a non-profit basis. And what's too much money? Who decides? Apparently, the DEA and the U.S. Attorney's office. How arbitrary is that? How is anyone put on notice of what will be prosecuted if that's the case, especially in light of the DOJ memo?

< A Private Hell in Idaho | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sid Squirrel... (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    Is that his real name...

    Or is it his Sixties name?

    Like Barbara Seagull or Peter Coyote.

    I was (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 01:07:41 PM EST
    thinking the exact same thing, desertswine.  ;-)

    Parent
    He's (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 01:27:05 PM EST
    A cousin to Rocky

    Parent
    It's his real name (none / 0) (#29)
    by rdandrea on Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    He's a local real estate broker who specializes in commercial property.

    Parent
    Sid Squirrel? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    he should definitely get Bugs Bunny for a lawyer.
    he never loses.

    sorry.


    Wondering how many grow lights (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:56:12 AM EST
    Sid had going.

    Parent
    Man, I'd hate to see (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    his electric bill.  Although maybe he uses alternative energy- solar, wind, etc.

    Parent
    The advances... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    in illumination technology and energy efficiency have done wonders...I hear its not like the dark-ages of suburban America grow-ops where the meter was a dead give-away.

    The sh*t you learn reading High Times Magazine:)

    Parent

    Will the DEA decline to prosecute (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    if the grower has enough cards for the no. of plants?  Still a schedule I substance under federal law.  

    "We talked to the feds today" (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    Under amendment 20, a caregiver can grow six plants per patient. The search warrant says 1,084 plants were found and 308 patient files. Some of those files were duplicated patients though. Police say so far charges haven't been filed and they are still checking to see if the plant-to-patient ratio is correct. So far no arrests have been made.

    Of course, under federal law, growing or possessing marijuana is illegal. We talked to the feds today and they told us they are staying out of this.



    Parent
    Did you see this case out of the 9th Cir? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    While Colorado is in not in the 9th Circuit, this case on the seizure of  legal medicinal marijuana under state law vs. federal prosecution was interesting. (US v. Stacy)

    Of particular note was this passage of the opinion:

    Defendant also points to a statement by Ben LaBolt, Obama campaign spokesman, that: "Voters and legislators in the states ... have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice-through he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulations like other drugs." LaBolt also indicated that Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws.

    In addition, Defendant relies on certain statements by U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. During a press conference on February 24, 2009, in response to a question whether raids of medical marijuana clubs established under state law represented American policy going forward, Holder stated, "No, what the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American Policy." On March 19, 2009, Holder explained that the Justice Department had no plans to prosecute pot dispensaries that were operating legally under state laws.

    Defendant's reliance on the above-quoted statements is problematic for several reasons. First of all, as pointed out by the Government, Defendant does not state that he personally read or heard these statements prior to engaging in the conduct that forms the basis of this criminal case. Furthermore, the comments by then-candidate Obama and his campaign spokesman cannot be deemed representations of the federal government regarding drug-prosecution policy.

    Although Holder was Attorney General when he made the statements at issue, his statements do not constitute affirmative representations that Defendant would not be prosecuted under federal law. Holder's comment that "what [Obama] said during the campaign is now American Policy" is vague and provides no real guidance as to what the so-called "American Policy" is. Similarly, Holder's statement that the Justice Department "had no plans" to prosecute pot dispensaries that were operating legally under state laws was a loose statement that left open the possibility the Justice Department could change its "plans" or could choose to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries on a case-by-case basis.

    SNIP

    Defendant contends that his prosecution is in direct conflict with U.S. Department of Justice Policy, specifically, a Department of Justice Memorandum dated October 19, 2009 ("Memorandum"). Defendant argues that the Memorandum reaffirmed the federal policy of not prosecuting individuals who are in compliance with state law.

    SNIP

    According to the Memorandum, an individual is not insulated from prosecution under the CSA just because he ostensibly complies with California law. Federal prosecuting authorities are free to investigate or prosecute individuals if, in their judgment, there is reason to believe that state law is being invoked to mask the illegal production or distribution of marijuana. Based on the evidence in this case, federal authorities apparently concluded that Defendant is operating a commercial enterprise that unlawfully sells marijuana for profit and determined that prosecution would be appropriate. The fact that Defendant disputes that his collective was a business run for profit does not preclude federal authorities from drawing their own conclusions and choosing to prosecute this case.

    Even if Defendant's prosecution were contrary to the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, dismissal of the Indictment would not be warranted. Defendant has not pointed to any authority for dismissing an indictment because it is contrary to internal Department of Justice guidelines. See United States v. McInnis, 601 F.2d 1319, 1323 (5th Cir.1979) (refusing to dismiss an indictment based on a policy set forth in an internal guideline of the Department of Justice). Indeed, the Memorandum specifies that it is not intended "to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter .... Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion." ...



    At least Sid is free... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    for now...pending the next move of the federal tyrants.

    Some guys in NJ doing the same thing...they got the cages. What a shame, what a waste:(

    Can (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:39:20 AM EST
    you believe the guy's name? Mr. Squirrel?
    Perfect.

    Parent
    What happens with the plants/equip (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:24:13 AM EST
    if he's not arrested? Does a person get them back/compensated for any losses?

    Not sure... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    but typically, in a case of state seizure of assets, you gotta sue to get your stuff back or be compensated for losses...and the state likes to drag their feet.

    Parent
    It just seems wrong (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:59:19 AM EST
    what's to stop them from destroying legit businesses by just going around and seizing plants and then not pressing charges? I'm guessing it's not cheap to set up and grow that many plants . . .

    Parent
    Oh... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    it is most definitely wrong and unjust...in all cases of asset seizure, drug crime or not.

    Totally at odds with the concept of innocent until proven guilty...as far as I'm concerned it is legal theft by the state...quite the racket.

    Parent

    More to the point, (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    what happens to the patients who depend on that medical marijuana?  Sure, there may be some, or even many, who are skirting the law by not really being sick enough to justify using (and I'm sure there are doctors who will certify just about anyone who asks as needing it), but I'm betting that a whole lot of them really do need it to relieve their symptoms.

    Parent
    They'll be ok... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    its not like there is a shortage of good ganja around...despite the efforts of tyrants and thieves.

    And thank the sun god for that!

    Parent

    Hey! Doctor! (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:37:10 AM EST
    I don't feel so good.
    Every time I eat a meal, I don't feel so hungry after.
    I think I need a prescription.

    Parent
    Good enough... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    for the percocet-heads and the valium-heads and the adderall-heads...good enough for the potheads.

    I long for the day we scrap the whole permission-slip system...until then, if my state legalized medical use, I'd be at the doc with a tall-tale of medical woe the very next morning.

    Parent

    A real throwback to the good old days... (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:34:51 AM EST
    I can see 'em now.

    The Feds burst in.
    They see plants.
    They burn them.
    The neighbors gather around - downwind.

    It reminds me of those old movies depicting the prohibition era when the Feds burst into a warehouse and start shooting people who are brewing beer. Then they hack the kegs with their hatchets. Beer flows on the floor - a symbol of an American triumph over evil.

    This is all soooooo stupid.

    Yea, Right (none / 0) (#18)
    by artr2 on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    Defendant contends that his prosecution is in direct conflict with U.S. Department of Justice Policy, specifically, a Department of Justice Memorandum dated October 19, 2009 ("Memorandum"). Defendant argues that the Memorandum reaffirmed the federal policy of not prosecuting individuals who are in compliance with state law.

    Yea but their manhoods seem so much bigger when that are breaking down the door

    See US vs. Stacy (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    Judge said even if you take "The Memorandum" as the final word, it's really not.

    The Memorandum is just a guideline and should not be taken by someone growing pot as a statement they will not be prosecuted.

    The judge (10th Circuit - Colorado not part of 10th Circuit) in that case said

    Indeed, the Memorandum specifies that it is not intended "to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter .... Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion."


    Parent
    Mr. Squirrel... (none / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    ...is down in Mexico (storing his nuts?) which is why he wasn't arrested.  Wonder if he'll come back--and if he's related to Secret Squirrel.  

    You know, sometimes you can't make (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    this stuff up!

    How big is Grand Junction anyway? (none / 0) (#26)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 08:37:12 AM EST
    Three hundred people have unique medical conditions requiring that they inhale marijuana rather than taking Marinol pills?  Is there something wrong with the drinking water in that town?

    And the answer is (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 09:07:01 AM EST
    53662 not counting Secret Squirrels.

    Parent