James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al. Complaint for Damages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In Proper Persona XXXXXXXXX IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE COUNTY XXXXXXXXXX ) No. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ) DECLARATORY RELIEF ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. ) & PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Acting District Attorney Kathleen Micks ) & Del Norte Sheriffs deputies John Does #1-20, ) Defendants ) Date: ) Time: __________________________________________) Place: TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE COUNTY; AND THE DEL NORTE SHERIFF”S OFFICE I. INTRODUCTION. 1
lawsuit against D.A. & sheriff. It's won a bunch of cases already. It cost 20k for an attorney to write it.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In Proper Persona XXXXXXXXX
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE COUNTY
XXXXXXXXXX ) No. ))
Plaintiff, )) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES) DECLARATORY RELIEF
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE COUNTY; AND THE DEL NORTE SHERIFF”S OFFICE
I. INTRODUCTION.
1
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. This is a civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages arising out of an
unconstitutional policy and practice effectuated by the County of Del Norte to seize and destroy
medical cannabis lawfully possessed under the laws of the State of California without prior
notice and a hearing, in violation of due process. Plaintiff XXXXXX is qualified medical
cannabis patient to use cannabis to treat symptoms associated with PTSS, extreme anxiety,
migraines, fibromyalgia, arthritis, high blood pressure, and depression. The County of Del Norte,
the Office of the Sheriff and DOES 1-20 seized his medical marijuana and are withholding it
from him without notice or a hearing. This action and policy violates XXXXX’ rights under the
First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I,
Sections 7 and 19 of the California Constitution.
2. In the general election of November 4, 1996, fifty-seven percent of the California
electorate approved a ballot measure enacting Proposition 215 (“Proposition 215” or “the
Compassionate Use Act”). In so doing, the California voters established that “seriously ill
Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical
use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that
the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana. . . .” Cal. Health & Safety Code §
11362.5(b)(1)(A).
3. Where property has been confiscated by law enforcement without probable cause to believe
that a crime has been committed, the California Legislature has established “special
proceedings” for its expeditious return. See Penal Code § 1538.5 et seq.; Avelar v. Superior
Court, 7 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1276 (1992). Recognizing the important due process and property
interests at stake, California has established that once a court finds probable cause lacking, it
must return seized property to its rightful owner. See Stern v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.2d
772, 784 (1946).
4. Notwithstanding these important statutory and constitutional rights, the County of Del Norte
and its employees seized the medical marijuana it confiscated from XXXXX after he had given
them clear notice that he was interested in seeking its return.
2
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Plaintiff brings this action to redress the deprivation of rights secured to him by the Fourth,
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Untied States Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and
19 of the California Constitution.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also invokes supplemental jurisdiction of this Court over his state claims
against defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as the state constitutional claims form part of
the same case or controversy.
7. Venue is proper is this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events
giving rise to the complaint occurred in the County of Contra Costa, which is in this judicial
district.
III. THE PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
8. Plaintiff XXXXXX is, and at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of the County of
Humboldt in the State of California and a qualified medical marijuana patient under California
law.
B. Defendants
9. Defendant COUNTY OF DEL NORTE is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a municipal
corporation within the State of California. Defendant Del Norte operates and governs the Office
of the Sheriff, Del Norte County pursuant to the laws of State of California.
10. Defendant OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, DEL NORTECOUNTY (“Del Norte Sheriff’s
Office”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a department within the State of California,
which is owned and operated by it.
11. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this
complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and
3
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
believes and therefore alleges that each of the Doe defendants is legally responsible and liable
for the injuries and damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said defendants proximately
caused said injuries and damages by reason of their violation of constitutional and legal rights.
Plaintiff will ask leave to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such
facts are ascertained.
12. Each of the defendants, including defendants DOES 1 through 20, caused and is responsible
for the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, among other things,
personally participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or conspiring with others who
did so; by authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion policies, plans or actions that led to the
unlawful conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by failing and
refusing with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s rights to initiate and maintain adequate training
and supervision; and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by agents and officers under
their direction and control, including failing to take remedial or disciplinary action.
4
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendants and each of them, including defendants DOES 1
through 20, were acting within the scope and course of their employment with the County of Del
Norte and the Del Norte Sheriff’s Office.
14. At the time of the incident, and at all times pertinent hereto, defendants, including DOES 1
through 20, acted under color of law, of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.
IV. FACTS
15. On November 4, 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which is codified as the
Compassionate Use Act at California Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (“the Compassionate Use
Act”), to “ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for
medical purposes” without criminal penalty. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(b)(1).
16. Pursuant to this law, Plaintiff XXXXXX obtained a written recommendation from his
physician to treat symptoms associated with migraines, high blood pressure, strokes, &
fibromyalgia. This makes him a “qualified medical marijuana patient” under California law. See
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5.
17. As a qualified patient, XXXXXXX had the right under California law to cultivate
marijuana or his personal medical use.
18. Despite the legality of his conduct under California law, the Del Norte Sheriff’s Office
unconstitutionally and unlawfully pulled XXXXXXX over during and illicit traffic stop and
seized his medical marijuana and apparatus on March 18, 2013. Officer Donaldson had parked
his patrol vehicle in the Elk Valley Rancheria parking lot in a position to watch vehicles as the
drove by on Howland Hill Rd. & Humboldt Rd. The officer seen XXXXXXX drive by and
immediately pulled out and accelerated to catch up with him. He then pulled XXXXXXX over
without any justification, as he was not speeding or swerving, the vehicle was in good condition,
no taillights were out, no headlights were out, the registration was current and the registration
tags were properly displayed.
19. XXXXXXX showed Donaldson his I.D. and papers for the car. Donaldson asked why
XXXXXXX was out late at night. XXXXXXX asked Donaldson if he had done anything wrong,
if he was being detained, and if he was free to leave. Donaldson said he stopped XXXXXXX
5
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
because he was on the lookout for a stolen black Lexus. XXXXXXX was driving a 93 brown
Ford Contour. Donaldson observed a roll of aluminum wire in the backseat of XXXXXXX’
vehicle. Donaldson asked if the wire was stolen. XXXXXXX replied ‘no’. Donaldson informed
XXXXXXX that Donaldson was going to search the vehicle. XXXXXXX stated he was not
going to submit to a search or seizure. Donaldson then requested for backup.
20. Donaldson then placed XXXXXXX in the back of his patrol vehicle and had
XXXXXXX’ wife Patty placed in the back of the other officers’ vehicle & then ensued searching
XXXXXXX vehicle. XXXXXXX informed Donaldson that both XXXXXXX & Patty had
current 215 cards and had multiple medical causes to necessitate its medical use.
21. Donaldson found cannabis, and apparatus to use the cannabis. Donaldson informed
XXXXXXX that he was seizing all cannabis related items ad that XXXXXXX was being
handcuffed & arrested for felony cannabis charges.
22. Officer Donaldson informed XXXXXXX that “marijuana was still illegal under federal law,
and that was the authority under which (he) was acting.” He then informed XXXXXXX that the
seized property was to be held for evidence, and then it would be eventually destroyed.
23. Soon thereafter, on March 18, 2013, XXXXXXX filed a motion for dismissal.
24. After no charges were filed against XXXXXXX and he was informed by the D.A.’s
office that no charges would be filed, XXXXXXX filed a motion for return of property on or
about April 25th, 2013 and multiple times afterwards. The Court clerk refused to accept these
motions several times without explanation.
25. A Government tort claim was served on the County Board of Supervisors in April, 2013,
and again in May 2014 when charges were filed by the D.A. and the Tort claim was rejected by
the County.
26. On July 13, the D.A. pressed charges against XXXXXXX.
27. The D.A. and the sheriff’s dept. delayed 7 months before providing the police video of
the incident. Once this time had elapsed, Kathleen Micks advised XXXXXXX attorney, Dale
Trigg that she would drop the charges if XXXXXXX promised not to sue her. XXXXXXX
attorney, Dale Trigg advised XXXXXXX of this. XXXXXXX requested not to waive time and
6
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wished to push forward with the trial. At this point, Kathleen Micks decided to drop the felony
charges against XXXXXXX.
28. On or around February 5th, 2014, XXXXXXX requested his property back from the
property/evidence officer at the Del Norte Sheriff’s dept. as they no longer needed it as evidence
in an ongoing criminal matter. XXXXXXX was informed by the on duty sergeant that it was the
sergeant’s opinion XXXXXXX should have been convicted for a crime and the property would
not be given back, but destroyed.
29. Each and every time XXXXXXX has traveled to Crescent City for court, he has been
stopped, harassed, searched, and threatened by either the Crescent City police Dept or the
Sheriff’s dept. and has probable cause his life may be in jeopardy by the hands of these officers
in the future.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION--VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
7
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 of this
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
31. Defendants’ seizure and/or destruction of XXXXXXX’s property without prior notice or
hearing violated his right not to be deprived of property or liberty without due process of law
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
32. It was the policy and practice of the County of Del Norte and the Del Norte Sheriff’s
Office to authorize their officers to seize and destroy medical marijuana without prior notice and
hearing. This policy and practice was either explicit, tolerated or ratified by these defendants.
This policy and practice encouraged and caused the constitutional violations complained of
herein.
33. At all times pertinent hereto, the supervisors who supervised the defendant officers who
unlawfully violated XXXXXXX’s constitutional rights encouraged and tolerated the policies and
practices described herein.
34. The Plaintiff believes the acting district attorney was using her office as a shield to
protect the Sheriffs policies and to punish XXXXXXX for attempting to file a complaint.
35. Defendants County of Del Norte and the Del Norte Sheriff’s Office refused adequately
to train, direct, supervise, or control the individual defendant officers so as to prevent the
violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
36. At all times pertinent hereto, the individual defendant officers were acting within the
scope of their employment and pursuant to the aforementioned policies and practices of the
County of Del Norte and the Del Norte Sheriff’s Office. These policies and practices were
enforced by defendants County of Del Norte, the Del Norte Sheriff’s Office, and their employee
supervisors and were the moving force, proximate cause, or affirmative link behind the conduct
causing plaintiff’s injury. These defendants are therefore liable for the violation of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights by the individual defendant officers.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION--DUE PROCESS
Violation of California Constitution, Article I, § 7(a)
8
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 of this
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
38. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiff’s right not to be deprived of
property or liberty without due process of law under article I, section 7(a) of the California
Constitution.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION--TAKINGS/INVERSE CONDEMNATION
Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 of this
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
40. At all times mentioned herein, plaintiff was the legal owner of the medical marijuana and
medical apparatus when it was confiscated and destroyed by the defendants.
41. Defendants took plaintiff’s medical marijuana and apparatus without a legitimate public
health or safety interest.
42. Plaintiff received no monetary compensation for the damage to his property. In doing
the aforesaid acts, defendants violated plaintiff’s right to just compensation for property taken or
damaged for public use without a legitimate public health or safety interest under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION--TAKINGS/INVERSE CONDEMNATIONViolation of California Constitution, Article I, Section 19
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
44. At all times mentioned herein, plaintiff was the legal owner of the medical marijuana and
medical apparatus when it was confiscated and destroyed by the defendants.
9
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
45. Defendants took plaintiff’s medical marijuana and medical apparatus without a
legitimate public health or safety interest. In doing so, the officer committed a crime.
46. Plaintiff received no monetary compensation for the damage to his property. In doing the
aforesaid acts, defendants violated plaintiff’s right to just compensation for property taken or
damaged for public use without a legitimate public health or safety interest under article I,
section 19 of the California Constitution.
10
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION--CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS
(42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985)
(AGAINST DOES 1-20)
47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of this
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
48. The individual defendant officers conspired to violate plaintiff’s statutory civil rights by
acting in concert to seize and destroy his medical marijuana and medical apparatus, as more fully
described in the preceding paragraphs, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, for which
the individual defendant officers are individually liable.
49. XXXXXXX's supporting documents showing his purported entitlement to medical
marijuana all pre-date the March, 18, 2013 seizure.
50. A medical recommendation was presented to the trial court showing that on March 18,
2013, XXXXXXX was entitled to possess medical marijuana. (People v. Rigo (1999) 69
Cal.App.4th 409, 412-413).
51. The fact that no criminal charges were timely filed by the district attorney shows a
prevalent scheme in Del Norte County to violate citizens civil rights at whim and a penchant for
indiscriminant property seizure.
52. The question thus reduces to whether this trial court is compelled to find under state law
that XXXXXXX lawfully possessed the marijuana at issue and then has no option other than to
order its return. Trial courts like to refer to the continuing prohibition of marijuana possession
under federal law as a basis for its ruling. But the State of California does not rely on this
rationale in defending the court's ruling, and instead acknowledges that-both generally and in the
specific context of interpreting the Compassionate Use Act-it is not the province of state courts
to enforce federal laws. (See People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1445-
11
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1446). State courts have an obligation under the California Constitution to follow only state, not
federal, law (People v. Maravilla). This is a direct quote for the California Attorney General’s
Office. For years, local officials have tried to use federal law as a reason to deny patients their
legal rights, but the July 2008 landmark decision in the San Diego case made clear that federal
law does not preempt the state's medical marijuana law. After the landmark appellate court
decision, both the California Supreme Court (in October 2008) and the U.S. Supreme Court (in
May 2009) refused to hear the case brought by San Diego County.
53. In addition, the U.S. Government contradicts its own policy with the U.S. Patent
#6,630,507. The patent abstract is as follows:
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##
This U.S. Patent claims that a method of treating dementia, Down’s syndrome, heart disease,
disease in the central nervous system of a subject, diseases caused by oxidative stress
[“Oxidative associated diseases include, without limitation, free radical associated diseases, such
as ischemia, ischemic reperfusion injury, inflammatory diseases, systemic lupus erythematosis,
myocardial ischemia or infarction, cerebrovascular accidents (such as thromboembolic or
hermorrhagic stroke) that can lead to ischemia or an infarct in the brain, operative ischemia,
traumatic hemorrhage (for example a hypovolemic stroke that can lead to CNS hypoxia or
(cancer tumors).”], ischemic or neurodegenerative disease or wherein the ischemic or
12
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
neurodegenerative disease is an ischemic infarct, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and
human immunodeficiency virus, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount
of a cannabinoid to a subject will cure the patient.
54. In 1988--after reviewing all evidence brought forth in a lawsuit against the government's
prohibition of medical marijuana--the DEA's own administrative law judge (Judge Francis
Young) wrote:
"The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the Drug Enforcement Administration to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence." Judge Francis Young of the Drug Enforcement Administration went on to say: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. In strict medical terms, marijuana is safer than many foods we commonly consume."Judge Young recommended that the DEA allow marijuana to be prescribed as medicine, but the DEA has refused. -Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57
1. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
UNLAWFUL DETENTION, ARREST AND SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION
55. 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides:Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.56. Delaware v Prouse, 1979 determined a citizen cannot be detained without suspicion of
criminal activity.
13
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57. Brown v Texas, 1979 found a peace officer cannot demand ID without reasonable
suspicion.
58. Terry v. Ohio (1968) decided law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited
warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances.
In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that
leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", the officer must be
able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from
those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. As established in Florida v. Royer (1983), such a
search must be temporary, and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g.,
officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was
driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer
questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).
59. Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another
according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit
from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution. The liberty of which the deprivation without due process of
law is forbidden. This"means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his
person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any livelihood or avocation, …" Allgeyer v. Louisiana - 165 U.S. 578 (1897), 165 U. S. 591; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366.
60. Policing-for-profit is nothing new. But it is a crime. “Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement
of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) As used in this section - (1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of
14
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining. (2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. (3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” 18 U.S.C. Section 1951
2. THE COMPASSIONATE USE ACT ENTITLES JAMES XXXXXXX TO POSSESS
THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA AT ISSUE
61. An entitlement is a guarantee of access to something, such as to welfare benefits, based
on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral
or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with a legal
framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle ("rights")
which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.
62. The Compassionate Use Act expressly “ensure[s] that seriously ill Californians have the
right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed
appropriate and has been recommended by a physician. . . .” (Cal. Health & Safety Code §
11362.5, subd. (b)(1).) Where a qualified patient establishes his entitlement to possess the
medical marijuana at issue, which requires a “written or oral recommendation or approval of a
physician” to use marijuana medicinally and a quantity of marijuana that is no more than is
reasonably related to his current medical needs (See Health & Saf. Code § 11362.5, subd. (d);
People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341, 347, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916, 920; People v. Trippett
(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1550-51, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 559), there is no probable cause to believe
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE COUNTY; AND THE DEL NORTE SHERIFF’S DEPT.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the aforementioned date, time, and place of the above-
entitled court, or as soon thereafter as movant may be heard in the above-entitled court, Movant
JAMES XXXXXXX will move for an order to return property seized from movant’s person
and/or vehicle on March 18, 2013 by members of the Del Norte Sheriff’s Law Enforcement
Agency. The property sought to be returned is as follows: medical cannabis and apparatus,
monies, and anything else that may have been seized.
30
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This motion is made on the grounds that the property seized is being held unreasonably
and there is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
This motion is based on California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, California
Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 et seq., Penal Code Sections 1536, 1538.5 and 1540,
article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007)
157 Cal.App.4th 355, this notice of motion, the attached memorandum of points and authorities
served and filed herewith, and such supplemental memoranda of points and authorities as may
hereafter be filed with the court or stated at oral argument, on all papers and records on file in
this action, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the
motion.
Dated: ______________ Respectfully submitted,
BY: _______________________JAMES XXXXXXX
31
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE COUNTY
JAMES XXXXXXX, ) No. ))
Plaintiff, )) ORDER FOR)) RETURN OF PROPERTY
v. )Acting District Attorney Kathleen Bryson )& Del Norte Sheriffs deputies John Does #1-20 )
TO THE DEL NORTE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING POSSESSION OF ITEMS LISTED BELOW:
Good cause having been shown, you are hereby ordered to immediately return each of the
items listed below to JAMES XXXXXXX:
Cannabis, medical apparatus, & all other seized property.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
_______________________________JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
32
James XXXXXXX v. Kathleen Micks et. Al.
Complaint for Damages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years. My address is XXXXX. On February 11, 2014, I served the within document(s):
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RETURN PROPERTY ILLEGALLY SEIZED; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; ORDER FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
via first-class mail upon:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY Kathleen Bryson981 H StreetCrescent City, CA 95531
Gretchen StuhrCounty Counsel981 H Street, Suite 220Crescent City, CA 95531Phone (707) 464-7208
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
Executed on this ___ day of June, in XXXXXX, California.