Val & Mike Corral's story
Get
Free >>> QuickTime
Here is a link to the original.

Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM)
The facts about: the County of Santa Cruz et. al. vs. Gonzales et. al

 

Go ahead and search us:

 Read the latest press releases regarding Santa Cruz v. AshcroftMedia Contact
          Information

All Press Releases


Important Documents
 
The Complaint
  WAMM Order (.pdf)
  Motion for Preliminary Injunction

  Judicial Notice Request
  WAMM Protocols and Guidelines

Meet the Plaintiffs

  More about the Plaintiffs

  Their Declarations

  1.   Valerie Corral

  2.   RIP Eladio V. Acosta (of cancer)

  3.   Jennifer Lee Hentz

  4.   Harold F. Margolin

  5.   Levi Castro - Quadriplegic &  business
      owner More soon...

  6.   RIP Dorothy Gibbs
      (of Post-polio complications)

  7.   RIP James Daniel Baehr

  8.   RIP Michael Cheslosky
      (of AIDS/Bone Cancer)

     

Supportive Pleadings

  Arnold S. Leff M.D.

  Earnest H. Rosenbaum M.D.

  Harvey L. Rose, M.D.

  Neil Flynn, M.D.

  Robert Brody, M.D.

 

We are proud winners of the 2003-2004 Golden Web Award. Thanks!
 

  Links | About Us | Home

<page 28>

1                             114. The Tenth Amendment limits the powers of the federal government to

2 those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, reserving all other powers to the states or to

3 the people. Under their police power, states are primarily responsible for regulating the health

4      and safety of their citizens. California voters and legislators expressed their desire to legalize the

5 use of medical marijuana by enacting the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

6                             115. DEA seizure of medical marijuana violates the Tenth Amendment by

7 preventing the State of California from implementing a duly enacted statute, the Compassionate

8 Use Act of 1996. Such seizures commandeer the police power of the State of California and its

9 political subdivisions, including the County of Santa Cruz, over the health and safety of

 10 California citizens.

11                              116. Pursuant to its authority over local affairs under the California

 12 Constitution, the County of Santa Cruz adopted the Santa Cruz County Medical Marijuana

13 Ordinance, one of the purposes of which is to "direct the elected officials of Santa Cruz County

14 to take whatever actions may be within their power to support the availability of

15 cannabis/marijuana for medical use." The federal government's disruption of lawful medical

16 marijuana activities prevents the County of Santa Cruz, a political subdivision of the State of

17 California, from implementing its medical marijuana ordinance.

18                              117. To ensure effective implementation of the Compassionate Use Act,

19 plaintiff City of Santa Cruz enacted its Personal Medical Marijuana Use Ordinance in 2000.

20 Pursuant to the City Ordinance, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a resolution deputizing

21 WAMM, plaintiff Valerie Corral, and her husband and primary caregiver Michael Corral to

22 function as medical marijuana providers authorized to assist the City in implementing the City

23 Ordinance and the Compassionate Use Act. Thus, the federal government's disruption of

24 WAMM's lawful and officially sanctioned activities prevents the City of Santa Cruz and the

25 State of California from implementing the duly enacted Compassionate Use Act.

26                              118. The DEA raid also commandeered the State of California's executive

27 functions. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the DEA task force that conducted the

28 raid included officers of the San Jose Police Department and the Santa Clara County Sheriff's

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES

28

21500440.1/2096001-2960011334


Top <page 29>

1 Department. The Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government to compel state officers to

2       execute federal laws.

3                              119. The Plaintiffs desire a judicial declaration that seizure of the WAMM

4 patients' medical marijuana constitutes federal commandeering of the police power and

5 executive functions of the State of California and its political subdivisions, in violation of the

6 Tenth Amendment. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the

7 Plaintiffs may implement and enjoy the protections of the duly enacted Compassionate Use Act

8 of 1996 free from federal intrusion. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. 2201, the Plaintiffs are entitled

9 to a judicial declaration of their Tenth Amendment rights.

10                              120. The Plaintiffs also desire injunctive relief protecting them from future

11      federal interference with California's implementation of the Compassionate Use Act. Federal

12 interference has caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable injury to

13 their Tenth Amendment rights. They have no adequate remedy at law. The Plaintiffs can show a

14 credible threat of actual harm to their Tenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs are informed and

15 believe that at least eight medical marijuana raids by federal agents, including the WAMM raid,

16 have taken place in California, and that these raids are part of a federal policy of disrupting the

17 lawful use of medical marijuana. Unless enjoined, the federal government will continue to

18 conduct medical marijuana raids that commandeer the police power and executive functions of

19 the State of California and its political subdivisions, usurping the authority of California citizens

20 in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

21                                                         FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22                                        (Declaratory Relief: Immunity Of Local Officials)

23         121. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

24         through 120.

25         122. The Controlled Substances Act provides that no civil or criminal liability

26  shall be imposed under the act on any duly authorized officer of any State or political subdivision

27 thereof who is lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating to

28 controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 885(d).

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES

29

21500440.1/2096001-2960011334


Top <page 30>

1                              123. The City of Santa Cruz's Medical Marijuana Use Ordinance provides that

2 the city may deputize individuals and organizations to function as medical marijuana providers

3 to assist the City in implementing the City Ordinance and the Compassionate Use Act. City of

4 Santa Cruz Code 6.90.080. On December 10, 2002, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a

5 resolution deputizing WAMM, plaintiff Valerie Corral, and her husband and primary caregiver

6 Michael Corral to function as medical marijuana providers.

7                              124. The Plaintiffs desire a judicial declaration that WAMM and the patient

8 Plaintiffs are immune from criminal and civil liability under the Controlled Substances Act by

9 virtue of their status as deputies of the City of Santa Cruz authorized to enforce the City's

10 Personal Medical Marijuana Use Ordinance, which was enacted pursuant to the Compassionate

11 Use Act and the City of Santa Cruz's broad authority to regulate health and welfare under

12 California's "Home Rule." Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that

13 the Plaintiffs may implement and enjoy the protections of the duly enacted Compassionate Use

14 Act of 1996 and the City of Santa Cruz's Personal Medical Marijuana Use Ordinance free from

15       federal intrusion. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. 2201, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial

16 declaration of immunity from civil and criminal liability under the Controlled Substances Act.

17       SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18       (Damages For Violations Of The Fourth, Fifth,

          Ninth, And Tenth Amendments)

19         125. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 124.

21         126. The DEAD agents' seizure of the WAMM patient Plaintiffs' medical

22        marijuana violated their rights under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

23         127. The WAMM raid also violated the WAMM patient Plaintiffs' Fourth

24         Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

25         128. The agents raided the WAMM garden without probable cause that any

26  evidence of criminal activity was on the premises. To the extent that the agents purported to act

27  under color of the federal Controlled Substances Act, the search and seizure exceeded Congress'

28 powers under the Commerce Clause.

 

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES

30.

21500440.1/2096001-2960011334


Top <page 31>

1                             129. The use of searches and seizures to conduct punitive expeditions where

2 criminal prosecution is not reasonably contemplated violates the prohibition against

3 unreasonable searches and seizures.

4 130. Additionally, the DEA agents performed the following actions during the

5 WAMM raid, all of which violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches

6       and seizures:

7                             131. They forcibly entered plaintiff Valerie Corral's home without knocking

8 and announcing their authority or purpose for entry;

9                             132. They used unreasonable force in restraining Valerie and Michael Corral,

10 who did not offer resistance;

11                              133. They arrested Valerie and Michael Corral in their home without an arrest

12 warrant;

13                              134. They acted pursuant to a search warrant that did not particularly describe

14 the items to be searched for and seized;

15                              135. They seized items that were not described in the search warrant; and

16                              136. They engaged in an unlawful general search.

17                              137. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the DEA raid on WAMM was

18 motivated by a federal policy of harassing WAMM, disrupting its activities, and attempting to

19 stop its seriously ill patient members from cultivating medical marijuana, even though they are

20 entitled to do so under California law.

21 138. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

22 Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), to damages to compensate for the 23 Defendants' violation of their constitutional rights.

24                                                              PRAYER FOR RELIEF

25         WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

26                                 1.For preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the Defendants from

27  violating the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments and exceeding federal authority under the

28 Commerce Clause through continued seizures of medical marijuana and/or other interference

 

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES

31

21500440.1/2096001-2960011334


Top <page 32>

1      with the Plaintiffs' cultivation, possession, and use of medical marijuana;

2                              2.          For a judicial declaration that the ability to use medical marijuana is

3 necessary to protect the Plaintiffs' fundamental right to control the circumstances of their own

4 deaths, as secured by the Fifth and/or Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

5                              3.          For a judicial declaration that the ability to use medical marijuana is

6 necessary to protect the Plaintiffs' fundamental rights to maintain bodily integrity, ameliorate

7 pain, preserve life, and to consult their physicians regarding treatment and to act on their

8 physicians' recommendations, as secured by the Fifth and/or Ninth Amendments to the United

9       States Constitution;

10                              4.          For a judicial declaration that, to the extent that the Defendants attempt to

11      regulate wholly intrastate, non-economic cultivation, possession, and use of legal medical

12 marijuana under color of the Controlled Substances Act, their actions exceed Congress' authority

13 under the Commerce Clause;

14                              5.          For a judicial declaration that federal interference with implementation of

15 the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 constitutes commandeering of the police power and

16 executive functions of State of California and its political subdivisions, in violation of the Tenth

17 Amendment;

18                             6.          For a judicial declaration that WAMM and the patient Plaintiffs are

19 immune from criminal and civil liability under the Controlled Substances Act by virtue of their

20 status as deputies of the City of Santa Cruz authorized to enforce the City's Personal Medical

21 Marijuana Use Ordinance;

22 7.                         For an injunction ordering the Defendants to return the medical marijuana

23 unconstitutionally seized from WAMM on September 5, 2002;

24  8.                        For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof arising from

25 the Defendants' violations of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth

26 Amendments;

27                             9.          For punitive damages arising from the Defendants' callous disregard of

28 the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;

 

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES

32

21500440.1/2096001-2960011334

Top <page 33>

1                             10.        For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and

2                              11.        For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

3                                                                   JURY DEMAND

4                  Plaintiffs demand a jury trial of those causes of action triable to a jury.

5

6          DATED: April'/, 2003                BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

7                                                                               By: <signed on original  document>

8                                                                                              Frank Kennamer

9                                                                                  Attorneys for WAMM Plaintiffs

10        Additional Counsel:

 

11         Daniel Abrahamson (SBN 158668)

Judith Appel (SBN 179121) DRUG

12         POLICY ALLIANCE

Office Of Legal Affairs

13         717 Washington Street Oakland, California 94607

14         Telephone: 510.208.7711

Facsimile: 510.208.7722

15

16         Attorneys for WAMM Plaintiff

 

17         Benjamin Rice (SBN 98551)

331 Soquel Avenue, Suite 203

Santa Cruz, California 95062

18         Telephone: 831.425.0555

Facsimile: 831.459.9815

19

20         Attorney for County of Santa Cruz and WAMM Plaintiffs

21

John Barisone (SBN 87831)

22         333 Church Street

Santa Cruz, California 95060

23         Telephone: 831.423.8383

Facsimile: 831.423.9401

24

Attorney for City of Santa Cruz, California

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES

33

21469657.10/2096001-2960011334

<end>

  Hit Counter                                                                                             Copyright Women's Alliance for Medical Marijuana 2007 - 2008