Quick Hits (page 4)
Pot Bust Valued at $14 Million
By: Marc Benjamin (The Fresno Bee)
For the second time in a week, Fresno County drug investigators removed a field filled with marijuana plants.
The 13,999 marijuana plants that were removed were ringed by tomatoes that camouflaged the stash near Ashlan and Monroe avenues, southeast of Biola.
No arrests were made, and investigators are looking into whether the field was linked to an earlier discovery of 12,068 plants near Thompson and Butler avenues, southwest of Sanger.
The plants discovered in the earlier bust were valued at about $13 million, and three arrests were made.
This latest stash find had an estimated value of $14 million, said Lt. Rick Hill, commander of the Fresno County Narcotics Enforcement Team.
All the plants have been destroyed.
"People who walked the perimeter didn't even see it," Hill said. "Farmers we walked with said they walk it every day and saw nothing but tomatoes out there."
The field was not as isolated as the one previously discovered.
Several homes are nearby. "All the people living here were literally shocked it was growing in their back yards," he said.
The discovered plants were set in a 40-acre field. About 30 acres along the perimeter remained bare dirt, Hill said.
Inside the remaining 10 acres, about a dozen rows of tomato plants surrounded the marijuana plants, he said.
"You go in about 12 plants from the edges, and then everything in the middle was marijuana with an occasional tomato," Hill said. "It was a well-thought-out, well-planned garden."
He said the largest plants were about 1 foot tall.
"These were the typical indoor plants that were being groomed to grow outside, so they are short and stocky," he said.
The plants were started inside, with less-healthy plants weeded out.
They were transplanted about the same time the tomatoes were planted, about a month ago, he said.
To Hill, it's a signal of a lengthy marijuana growing season ahead.
"This is the earliest we have ever started with marijuana in my 23 years, other than indoor grows," he said.
Click here for more Quick Hits.
Tan 'n' Trends
Growin' Our Own (page 4)
Pot Plot in Foothills Sparks High Anxiety
By: Niesha Lofing (Sacramento Bee)
The owner of a local medical marijuana store has begun growing the product at his Newcastle home, inciting reefer madness among his neighbors.
Some residents are furious that Richard Marino, owner of Capitol Compassionate Care in Roseville, has about 200 marijuana plants in a backyard plot protected by barbed wire, 24-hour guards and bright lights.
Neighbors told Placer County officials recently they're angry they weren't notified of Marino's plans and they fear a drop in property values and a rise in crime.
Officials, however, explained Marino is protected by state law governing medical marijuana and by the residential-agricultural zoning of his five acres.
"We can't view it any differently than if it were any other crop," said county Supervisor Harriet White.
White said she is sympathetic and thinks Californians were deceived when they voted for Proposition 215, which legalized medicinal marijuana.
"I don't think that the voters really thought there was going to be medical marijuana farms," she said.
Tiffany Mosburg, whose four-acre property abuts the back of Marino's, has limited her child's outside activities because of the pot farm. While Marino's marijuana crop is surrounded by fencing, there is no fence separating his land from Mosburg's.
"My son isn't allowed to go in the back part of our property anymore," said Mosburg. "He used to ride his little trucks back there, and he and his buddies would play wilderness and adventure make-believe games, but I can't chance it anymore."
Frustrated with the county's lack of action, she and others have written legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Supervisor White said she, too, has written lawmakers.
Marino said he is the listed caregiver for more than 1,000 medicinal marijuana users, so state law lets him grow as many as six mature or 12 immature plants for each patient - more if prescribed by a doctor.
"I'm only growing a tenth of what I could be," he said.
Passed by California voters in 1996, Proposition 215 allows qualified patients to use medical marijuana and protects physicians who prescribe it from criminal prosecution.
In 2003, the Legislature broadened the definition of a medical marijuana caregiver and allows for the drug's collective cultivation. In Marino's case, the new law allows him to grow medical marijuana for people who list him as their caregiver and to sell it to them to recoup expenses.
The law also let cities and counties adopt guidelines concerning the growing and distribution of medical marijuana. As a result, many cities in the Sacramento area have adopted ordinances restricting the location and operations of marijuana dispensaries.
Some governments adopted measures to govern the growing of marijuana. San Diego has a law mandating medical marijuana be grown indoors, said Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster.
"People were scared that if the plants weren't kept in a structure, it could get into hands of kids," Foster said.
Placer County, however, has not adopted any such ordinances or guidelines.
Marino opened the Roseville dispensary in January, and the pot grown at his home in Newcastle will be sold at the store.
Deputy District Attorney Dave Tellman hinted his office may be looking into the situation.
"Any determination of whether (Marino) is or isn't within the law will have to be after the results of investigations into the circumstances of his possession," Tellman said.
Sheriff's Department officials said medicinal marijuana crops have popped up more frequently, and deputies are aware of them for safety reasons.
"It's a frustrating issue for us," said Lt. George Malim, "but our hands are tied because of the laws."
State regulations remain at odds with federal law, which says it is illegal to possess or grow marijuana for any purpose.
But two recent rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have found that federal authorities do not have the power to go after noncommercial medical marijuana operations confined within the state. The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing the cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Until the Supreme Court makes its determination, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration abides by federal law, said Richard Meyer, special agent at the DEA's San Francisco division.
"We still feel we can initiate investigations," Meyer said.
Marino's marijuana farm and dispensary are illegal, he said.
"He's cultivating, distributing, possessing," Meyer said. "He's breaking federal law big time. He's definitely in harm's way."
Standing in his back yard this week, Marino pointed to his garden of ill-repute.
"There it is. That's what all the fuss is about," he said.
Fencing topped with barbed wire surrounds row upon row of marijuana plants, some skinny and more than 5 feet tall, others short and stout.
A drip system hangs between the plants, pumping two gallons of water an hour through the garden, which sits near a creek.
The marijuana was planted July 1, about a month after Marino purchased the property.
Marino said the fracas over the farm is going to force him to put in more security measures.
"My intention was to grow inexpensive medical marijuana for patients who come to the center," he said. "This is going to end up increasing the cost for patients."
Marino said he purchased the property on a private lane for its farming classification and location out of the public eye.
"I'm not going to move. I have an investment in this thing," he said. Marino said he's unsure if he will replant next year.
Ben and Gloria Padilla, who live next door, said if Marino doesn't move, they might.
"This man has a Class I drug growing right next to our property," Gloria Padilla said. "It's upsetting and makes us apprehensive."
Ben Padilla said there are constant reminders that marijuana is cultivated next door. Surveillance lights shine at night, security guards patrol property lines and the faint, skunky scent of marijuana drifts to their yard.
"We agree with the concept, but there needs to be guidelines in place," he said.
Michael Vitiello, a professor at McGeorge School of Law, said the situation exemplifies the problems with California's medical marijuana laws.
"One of the big gaps in the law is where (medicinal marijuana) is supposed to come from," Vitiello said. "We need to address how we are going to make a safe supply of medical marijuana available without forcing neighbors to have marijuana plants next to their yards."
Click here for more Growin' Our Own.
Pipeline (page 4)
Libraries Ordered to Destroy U.S. Pamphlets
By: Sean P. Murphy (Globe Staff)
The federal Government Printing Office has ordered libraries across the country to destroy five US Department of Justice pamphlets that provide how-to instructions on prosecuting asset forfeiture cases, invoking a rarely-used authority to order the removal of items the government routinely sends to hundreds of libraries.
The pamphlets are among the material the office sends each year to about 1,300 depository libraries. Those facilities, at least two in each congressional district, are designated by Congress to receive and make available copies of virtually all documents the federal government publishes.
Representatives of the 65,000-member American Library Association said they did not know why the pamphlets were ordered destroyed, and they pledged to challenge the order as an infringement on a century-old guarantee of public access to unclassified documents that the government publishes each year.
Patrice McDermott, the association's deputy director of governmental affairs, said 20 to 30 instances have occurred since the middle of the 19th century in which the printing office, acting on behalf of a federal department or agency, has asked for documents to be returned or destroyed. Most previous recalls were for materials found to contain a factual error or determined to be out-of-date, she said.
Bernard A. Margolis, president of the Boston Public Library, said the Government Printing Office distributes documents with the approval of the Justice Department and other federal departments and agencies. Although the documents are kept in libraries, he said, ownership is retained by the federal agencies that produce the materials and they may ask for the materials to be returned.
For example, in the months after Sept. 11, 2001, the Government Printing Office ordered libraries to return a compact disc containing detailed information on the country's public water works systems.
Still, Margolis said the e-mail order to destroy the pamphlets "came out of the blue." He said much, if not all, of the materials -- such as statutes on asset forfeiture -- are "the law of the land" readily available online and in law books.
Margolis said the pamphlets will remain available at the Boston Public Library while he prepares a challenge to the directive.
Calls to the Government Printing Office seeking comment were not returned yesterday.
The office's one-paragraph directive listed the five pamphlets, with titles such as "Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure" and "Select Federal Assets Forfeiture Statutes," and instructed librarians to "withdraw these materials immediately and destroy all copies by any means to prevent disclosure of their content," according to a copy of the e-mail sent to the Boston Public Library and all other depository libraries.
The directive concluded that "the Department of Justice has determined that these materials are for internal use only."
Casey Stavropoulos, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said the pamphlets were written by Justice Department attorneys who intended them to be law enforcement tools for federal prosecutors.
She declined to discuss the content of the pamphlets but said "they were never intended for public distribution. They were developed for internal use."
Margolis said he sought an explanation of the directive from an official in the federal Office of Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering, who told him that some information in the pamphlets could disclose legal strategy.
But he said the official conceded that much of the information has been publicly available for at least four years.
Lester Joseph, head of that federal office, could not be reached for comment.
McDermott said federal law allows government documents created for internal use to be included in the depository system if they are considered "educational" or serve another public interest.
"We are going to push the Department of Justice on this," she said. "This material is already out there. Some of these documents are merely compilations of federal statutes. You can find this stuff in law offices and law libraries across the country. We just don't know the rationale for this."
The pamphlets contain detailed legal research on asset forfeiture law, including statutes and case histories on the legal means of seizing cash, cars, houses, boats, and other property of convicted drug dealers and other criminals.
The materials, dated from 2000 to 2004, include documents and instructions that take prosecutors from "the drafting of the forfeiture allegation . . . to post-trial phases of a criminal forfeiture case."
The pamphlets were written by the Justice Department's Office of Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering and seem to be a comprehensive resource for prosecutors handling forfeiture cases.
Margolis said the materials seemed very similar to the vast majority of other materials from the Government Printing Office.
"There is a precedent danger that if a handful of documents that appear innocuous -- the forfeiture statutes -- if these become subject to a casual or cavalier yanking, then what is next?
Maybe it's things that are really critical and primary to people's livelihood, to their safety, or to their health," he said.
Margolis said he is particularly concerned about the process for determining which documents are excluded from libraries.
"I think at a minimum we are entitled to know the process, how these determinations are made, and whether excluding something is truly in the public interest," he said. "The public should get its day in court."
Click here for more Pipeline.