This blog is dedicated to making the public aware of what happened in operation Green Rx / Endless Summer as well as the continued prosecution of legitimate medical cannabis patients trying to follow the law in San Diego as a result of District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' thirst for a higher conviction rate and bias towards medical cannabis.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
CA Appeals Court: storefront dispensaries may operate legally as collectives or cooperatives
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dale Gieringer<firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:06 AM Subject: CALCBC: CA Appeals Court: storefront dispensaries may operate legally as collectives or cooperatives To: email@example.com
In an important decision regarding a Riverside medical cannabis dispensary, People v Hochanadel, the CA 4th District Appeals Court ruled that storefront dispensaries may operate legally as non-profit collectives or cooperatives. At the same time, however, the court ruled that the dispensary in question did NOT legally qualify as a "primary caregiver" under Prop. 215. The decision confirms Cal NORML's legal advice that dispensaries should organize as collectives/cooperatives, NOT caregivers. http://www.canorml.org/prop/collectivetips.html - D. Gieringer
> >We also conclude that storefront >dispensaries that qualify as "cooperatives" or >"collectives" under the CUA and MMPA, >and otherwise comply with those laws, may >operate legally, and defendants may have a >defense at trial to the charges in this case >based upon the CUA and MMPA. We further >conclude, however, that the court erred in >finding that CannaHelp qualified as a primary >caregiver under the CUA and MMPA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fantastic decision clears up much of the issues in this area of law. > > Bill > > People v Hochanadel (filed 8/18/09) Fourth Dist. > > http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D054743.PDF > > SB 420 did not amend the CUA, but was enacted to facilite > the transfer by members of cooperatives and collectives, > however, no storefront or operator may qualify as a caregiver. > > Storefronts if operated for no profit & per AG Guidelines are immune > to prosecution. > > Note the AG didn't participate in this appeal, he must have agreed > in part with the trial court. > > Enjoy, Bill McPike
It's an interesting decision with a good deal of explicit support for legality of collectively or cooperatively operated MCD's.
It seems a bit of a mixed bag for the two manager/owners as their standing to challenge the search warrant was dependent on being part owners.
If the DA from their jurisdiction (seems likely in Riverside) attempts re-trial the court's finding that the def's were part owners cuts both ways. Neither collectives or cooperatives have owners per se, a characteristic of businesses operated as proprietorships or partnerships.