CA Senate Bill 420

Summary

[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_420_bill_20031012_chaptered.html Senate Bill 420] was passed by the California Legislature to address vague provisions of Proposition 215. The bill was signed into effect by outgoing Governor Gray Davis in 2003.

SB 420, which reflects a compromise between patients’ advocates and law enforcement, includes controversial state guidelines regarding how much Marijuana patients may grow and possess without being subject to arrest. It also requires counties to implement a voluntary patient identification card system and other provisions to protect patients and their caregivers from arrest.The guidelines, which were hotly disputed by California NORML and other patients’ advocates, allow patients up to 6 mature or 12 immature plants and up to one-half pound of dried, processed marijuana. Patient advocates had pushed for more liberal guidelines, such as those adopted by Sonoma County, which allow up to 99 plants in a 100 square foot growing area plus 3 pounds of marijuana. The final guidelines were decided in a last-minute legislative deal by Attorney General Lockyer and Sen. Vasconcellos in order to get the bill passed.

Exceptions to Guidelines

In recognition of the fact that the guidelines are inadequate for many very ill patients, SB 420 allows patients to be exempted from them if they obtain a physician’s statement that they need more. In deference to local autonomy, SB 420 also allows counties and cities to establish higher - but not lower - guidelines if they so choose. As a result, the new law will not overturn liberal guidelines that are now in effect in Sonoma and elsewhere. However, it should force more restrictive counties, such as San Bernardino and Fresno, which have heretofore had "zero tolerance" policies, to honor the new statewide minimum standard. Many counties have increased the limits of possession and cultivation since the passage of the law in 2003.

Voluntary State ID Card System

Identification cards under the new state program are issued by county health departments. There are registration fees to cover the costs of the program, with a 50% discount for Medi-Cal patients. Registrations will be valid for one year. There will be a 24-hour telephone hot-line by which law enforcement can verify the validity of the cards. The system is designed with safeguards to protect patient privacy like the current San Francisco and Oakland ID card system. Police will not be able to identify whether persons are medical marijuana patients by their name or address, but only by a unique identification number appearing on their card. Although some patient advocates have expressed qualms about the privacy of the new identification system, California NORML recommends that patients register to protect themselves from arrest. Similar ID card programs have been in effect in other states for several years, with no reports of abuse.

Abuse was found in Mendocino County California, when then Sheriff Craver required patients to pick up their cards at his sheriffs station. This was where convicted rapists and drug offenders had to get their criminal registration cards. Here, then, the marijuana patients were subjected to abuse by the local law enforcement, as the state Department of Health was not involved with card distribution at that time. Patients, who had been assured that no centralized database would ever be created with their personal information, were themselves witness to that part of SB 420's irregularity.

Persons designated as "primary caregivers" are also be eligible for ID cards. Each patient may designate a single caregiver. Caregivers may receive reasonable compensation for their services. However, cultivation or distribution "for profit" are not authorized. In a quirky provision, SB 420 forbids caregivers from having more than one patient unless all of them reside in the same "city or county" as the caregiver. This means that no one may be a caregiver for both a spouse and a parent if they happen to reside in different counties. California NORML attorneys believe that this is an unconstitutional restriction on Prop 215 and intends to challenge it in court.In 2006, San Diego County was sued for refusing to implement an ID card system as required under SB 420. In response, San Diego County filed a lawsuit against the State of California to overturn Prop. 215 and SB 420. San Diego Superior Court Judge, William R. Nevitt Jr. struck down San Diego's claim in the court's December 6 ruling. San Diego County has filed an appeal in the case. The appeal was on August 1, 2008, and was thrown out again on the basis that the Counties did not have the authority to make a case against the state. The Counties do, however, have the right to make an appeal about the statutes in SB 420 that deal with the issuing of identification cards, as this task is placed upon the counties and affects their taxes.

Other Provisions of SB 420

In other provisions, SB 420:
* Recognizes the right of patients and caregivers to associate collectively or cooperatively to cultivate medical marijuana.
* Disallows marijuana smoking in no smoking zones, within 1000 feet of a school or youth center except in private residences, on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is being operated, or while operating a boat.
* Protects patients and caregivers from arrest for transportation and other miscellaneous charges not covered in 215.
* Allows probationers, parolees, and prisoners to apply for permission to use medical marijuana; however, such permission may be refused at the discretion of the authorities.
* Makes it a crime to fraudulently provide misinformation to obtain a card, to steal or misuse the card of another, to counterfeit a card, or to breach the confidentiality of patient records in the card program.

People v. Kelly overturns SB 420 limits

The California District Three Second Appellate Court on May 22, 2008 in the case of People v. Kelly ruled that the plant and processed leaf limits implemented by California Senate Bill 420 were an unconstitutional modification to California's Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Act (CUA). The CUA does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. Rather, the only “limit” on how much marijuana a person falling under the Act may possess is it must be for the patient’s “personal medical purposes.” On July 1st, 2008 the California Attorney General filed for a review before the California Supreme Court.cite court
litigants = People v. Kelly
vol =
reporter =
opinion = Section 11362.77 is unconstitutional because it amends the CUA.
pinpoint =
court = IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE, Los Angeles County Superior Court No. VA092724
date = 2008-05-22
url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B195624.PDF ] cite news
url=http://cannabisnews.com/news/23/thread23985.shtml
title="Court Overturns Medical Marijuana Senate Bill 420"
date=2008-06-04
author= [mailto:[e-mail] Paul Boerger]
accessdate=2008-08-02
publisher= [http://www.mtshastanews.com Mt. Shasta Herald] ] cite court
litigants=People v. Kelly
opinion=Docket (Register of Actions) PEOPLE v. KELLY Case Number S164830
date=2008-07-01
accessdate=2008-08-02
court = California Supreme Court
url=http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=546238&doc_no=S164830]

See also

* Legal history of marijuana in the United States
* Medical cannabis

This case is now set for review by the California Supreme Court. Until the Court makes its ruling, the case cannot be cited as law.

References

External links

* [http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_420&sess=0304&house=B&site=sen Official California Legislative Information relating to SB 420 in the 2003/2004 session]
* [http://www.marijuana.org/UkiahDailyJournal4-06-05.htm Ukiah Daily Journal]