2 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 A. The Defendant's Property was Seixed During a Valid
Service of a Search Warrant and its Return is Improper
A valid search warrant was obtained and executed by Deputy Dugan at the
defendant's home. Thus, the search and seizure was reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment. Any contraband, evidence, or otherwise seizable items could not be properly
suppressed or returned. There are several important exceptions to a defendant's right to
return of property. A defendant is not entitled to the return of seized contraband. See
Aday V. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789, 800. Furthermore, defendants are not
entitled to the return of items usable as evidence against them. See People v. DeRenzy
(1969) 275 Cal.App.@d 380, 387.
Similarly, property need not be returned where there is reason to believe it is subject
to forfeiture under California or federal law. See People v. Superior Court (Moraza) (1989)
210 Call.App.3d 592.
18 B. There is no Medical Use Defense to Marijuana Possession, Cultivation, and Distribution
Under Federal Law. Thus Return of any Marijuana Would be Improper Even if Called For by
19 California Law.
The California Supreme Court recently noted that:
21 In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative (2001) 532
U.S. 482, 149 L. Ed. 2d 722, 121 S. Ct. 1711, the United States
22 Supreme Court held that there was no "medical necessity" defense
under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et se1.), which
23 prohibits the manufacture and distribution of various drugs, including
24 People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 457 at fn. 2.
In the case cited by the California Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court
states that "for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has 'no currently
People v. Canada, FMB006414; People's Opposition to Return of Property Motion.