BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 303|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 303
Author: Hueso (D)
Amended: 4/27/15
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, McGuire, Monning, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SUBJECT: Controlled substances: destruction of seized
marijuana
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill allows, in the case of growing or harvested
marijuana, a law enforcement agency to destroy without a court
order that amount in excess of 2 pounds, or the amount of
marijuana a medical marijuana patient or designated caregiver is
authorized to possess by ordinance in the city or county where
the marijuana was seized, whichever is greater.
ANALYSIS: Existing law, as an exception to other statutes
concerning seizure and destruction of controlled substances,
provides that law enforcement may, without a court order,
destroy seized controlled substances in excess of 10 pounds,
where the following circumstances are present:
1)At least five random samples are taken and preserved in
addition to the 10 pound.
SB 303
Page 2
2)In the cases of marijuana, at least one 10-pound sample and
five representative samples consisting of leaves or buds shall
be retained for evidence.
3)Photographs of the material to be destroyed must be taken.
4)The gross weight of the entire material must be determined.
5)The chief law enforcement officer has determined that it is
not reasonably possible to keep all of the material or to
store it in another place.
6)Within 30 days of destruction of the material, an affidavit
demonstrating compliance with this section must be filed in
the court with jurisdiction over any criminal proceeding
associated with the material.
7)If no criminal action is pending, the affidavit may be filed
in any court in the county that would have jurisdiction over a
criminal action involving the material. (Health & Saf. Code §
11479.)
This bill allows, in the case of growing or harvested marijuana,
a law enforcement agency to destroy without a court order that
amount in excess of 2 pounds, or the amount of marijuana a
medical marijuana patient or designated caregiver is authorized
to possess by ordinance in the city or county where the
marijuana was seized, whichever is greater.
Background
The laws and practices in various counties concerning return of
marijuana to a qualified patient and compensation to a patient
for destruction of marijuana do not appear to be consistent or
clear. The most widely-known case is Garden Grove v. Superior
Court (Kha) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355. In Garden Grove, city
police made a vehicle stop of Felix Kha. The arresting officers
took of an ounce of marijuana from Kha. Marijuana possession
charges were dropped when Kha established that he had a valid
medical marijuana recommendation. Kha sought return of this
marijuana, the city refused to do so and the Court of Appeal
eventually ordered the city to return the marijuana. (Id. at
SB 303
Page 3
pp. 386-392.)
In County of Butte v. Superior Court (Williams) (2009) 175
Cal.App.4th 729, sheriff's deputies threated to arrest David
Williams, a qualified medical marijuana patient and a member of
a medical marijuana collective, if he did not destroy all but 12
of the collective's 41 plants. Williams sued the county,
alleging unreasonable search and seizure, violations of
California civil rights law (Civ. Code § 52.1) and conversion -
a form of theft or wrongful destruction. The county sought
summary dismissal of the suit, arguing that it did not present a
cognizable claim. The appellate court ordered the suit to
proceed. Committee staff has been unable to find any appellate
decisions - including unpublished decisions - applying the Butte
County v. Superior Court decision. However, an appellate
decision would only be issued if one of the parties to a case
appealed the order. Counties and cities may have accepted the
decision in Butte County v. Superior Court that lawsuits for
compensation for seized marijuana could go forward. Allowing
the case to proceed does not mean that the person seeking
compensation will win the case and be compensated. The county
or city could still defend their actions when the case is fully
litigated. Or, counties and cities could have settled the
suits, thus avoiding the substantial costs of litigation.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified4/28/15)
California District Attorneys Association
Imperial County Sheriff
OPPOSITION: (Verified4/28/15)
Drug Policy Alliance
American Civil Liberties Union
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
SB 303
Page 4
The author states in part:
Law enforcement offices are required by law to store
10 pounds marijuana and 5 additional representative
samples for evidence. According to a June report by
the California Attorney General's Office, nine
counties in California: Shasta, Glenn, Mendocino,
Sacramento, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Ventura, and Los
Angeles currently possess over 1,000 pounds of
marijuana. This can be very burdensome on these
agencies because most facilities were not intended to
store such large quantities- forcing these agencies to
create additional storage facilities onsite resulting
in significant costs to law enforcement.
In addition to the lack of adequate storage facilities
to store the marijuana held for evidence, it is also a
serious threat to the health of law enforcement
personnel. Because marijuana is a plant, it begins to
develop spores and mold within a short period of time.
This leads to difficulty breathing and other harmful
side effects as a result of frequent handling of the
storage items inside these evidence rooms.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
Opponents argue in part:
Drug Policy Alliance opposes SB 303, an act to
authorize the law enforcement agency to destroy seized
substances suspected to be marijuana in excess of 2
pounds, subject to specified requirements and require
the law enforcement agency to retain at least one
2-pound sample and 5 random and representative samples
consisting of leaves or buds, for evidentiary
purposes, from the total amount to be destroyed.
SB 303
Page 5
As introduced, the bill would allow law enforcement
agencies to destroy medical marijuana, legally
possessed by a bona fide patient or caregiver before
the defendant has the opportunity to provide evidence
that shows that they are allowed under California law
to cultivate or possess medical marijuana. Medical
marijuana is a lifesaving therapy for thousands of
Californians who suffer debilitating illnesses. Their
rights should not be trammeled upon because some law
enforcement officials find it inconvenient to store
ten pounds of evidence-evidence that may not only be
property, but may in fact be medicine.
Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. /
5/6/15 17:19:35
**** END ****