|
Last modified: July 11, 2012 5:56pm CDT
Return of Property Motion
May 07, 2004 - page 6
1 2d 216, 222 [153 P.2d 344].) Of course, in the absence of reasonable or probable cause to believe that a de- 3 fendant is guilty of possession or cultivation of mari- juana, in view of his or her status as a qualified pa- 3 tient or primary caregiver, the grand jury or the mag- istrate should not indict or commit the defendant in 4 the first place, but instead should bring the prosecu- tion to an end at that point. 5 And in People v. Tilehkooh (2004) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433, 6 1443: 7 We are directed to give sense to all of the terms 8 of an enactment. To do so requires that we give effect to the purposes of section 11362.5 to ensure the right 9 to obtain and use marijuana. In particular, we must give effect to subdivision (b)(1)(A), which estab- 10 lishes a "right to obtain and use marijuana for medi- cal purposes" and which links the right to use mari- 11 juana with the prohibition on the imposition of a "criminal prosecution or sanction." It is readily ap- 12 parent that the right to obtain or use marijuana is not "ensure[d]" if its use is not given protection 13 from the adverse consequences of probation. Since the use of marijuana is not a crime, the term "prosecution 14 or criminal sanction" must be read to apply to any criminal sanction for the use of marijuana [including 15 probation]. 16 III. 17 Conclusion 18 For the foregoing reasons the defendant requests this court 19 grant the motion and order the return of defendant's property to 20 defendant. 21 22 Dated: May 7, 2004 23 Respectfully submitted, JOHN E. ROTH 24 Law Offices of the Public Defender 25 26 27 William B. Sasnett, Jr. Deputy Public Defender 28 Attorney for defendant Jeffrey Craig Canada Page 6 of 7 Defendant's Motion for Return of Property
|