Medical pot limits thrown out

The California Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out limits on how much pot that medical marijuana patients can possess, but the ruling spread confusion among law enforcement agencies.

The high court ruled that state lawmakers overstepped their bounds in 2003 when they altered Proposition 215, approved by voters in 1996, by tacking on limits to how much marijuana patients could possess.

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that amendments to the state Constitution created by the initiative process can be changed only through the ballot box.

Proposition 215 does not address the issue of quantity.

The ruling throws open to interpretation how much is a reasonable amount of marijuana for an individual with a doctor's recommendation to use it.

"With guidelines, the public has clear delineations of when you are in violation of the law and when you are not," said Diana Gomez, assistant district attorney in Sonoma County. "Now the whole issue is: What is reasonable for this individual to possess?"

"It's an issue that every prosecutor in the state and every law enforcement agency in the state is facing," she said.

In Mendocino County, Sheriff Tom Allman and District Attorney Meredith Lintott agree the ruling effectively invalidates a 2008 county ballot measure that lowered allowed limits for pot cultivation and possession to state levels.

"The major guidelines are no more," Allman said. "This is akin to having a freeway without a speed limit."

In unincorporated Sonoma County, the guideline has been that an individual could have up to three pounds of dried marijuana and 30 plants, according to Sheriff Bill Cogbill. A patient could possess more if it is proven that a medical condition necessitates a greater amount.

After Thursday's ruling, those guidelines can no longer be used in court to determine a reasonable possession. Each case will be determined in part by a doctor's recommendation about each individual's condition.

"It's the defendants' job to prove they deserve it," said Anne Keck, deputy county counsel in Sonoma County. "Under (Prop. 215) there can be no limitations on the amount, no limitations whatsoever. It's completely an individual test based on what your individual medical needs are."

Clear guidelines benefit not only officers on the street, but users who need to know what is a legal amount to possess, Cogbill said.

"Really, it's in the best interest of the people out there, too, so they know when we won't arrest them," he said. "As far as law enforcement, it doesn't change anything. As far as prosecution, it changes things."

The latest ruling could mean a patient is prosecuted for holding less marijuana than had been previously allowed locally, said Joe Elford, a lawyer for the marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.

"The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation," he said. "At the same time, the Court may have left too much discretion to law enforcement in deciding what are reasonable amounts for patients to possess and cultivate."

John Sugg, president of Sonoma Patient Group, a marijuana dispensary in Santa Rosa, said the ruling will have little effect on his operation that serves 500 people a month.

"It's mainly for the police to decide what to do with people (when police) come across their garden," he said. "I'm sure that it's going to create consternation on the part of cities and counties where they wanted to set up the limit."

In Sonoma County, without the three-pound, 30-plant threshold, deputies can still arrest a person for possession, but the defendant will have to prove the amount of pot held is reasonable for the applicable medical condition, said Keck, the deputy county counsel.

District attorneys and officials from the Attorney General's office are scheduled to meet at regularly scheduled bi-annual meeting in Oakland next week and the latest ruling is expected to be a hot topic, Gomez said.

"We have been operating so far under a really gray area under the law," she said. "What is legal and what is not legal - it has not been cut and dry."

Sonoma County officials said they expect to meet with members of District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua's office to determine guidelines for what quantity of possession will typically merit prosecution.

Without that, officers could waste time and resources arresting people who will not be prosecuted, said Sebastopol Police Chief Jeff Weaver.

"There needs to be continuing discussion with the district attorney to make sure our enforcement is in line with what they are intending to prosecute," Weaver said.

Gomez said clear guidelines will help the district attorney's office protect lawful users from persecution.

"We firmly believe that people are entitled to it. The state has spoken, the people have spoken, it has been shown to be effective, people are entitled," she said.

If they have to prosecute, Gomez said, possession guidelines help establish "a reasonable prosecution that is based on reasonable, rational guidelines that we can back up in a court of law."

The Associated Press and Staff writer Glenda Anderson contributed to this story. Staff writer Kerry Benefield writes an education blog at extracredit.blogs.pressdemocrat.com. She can be reached at 526-8671 or kerry.benefield @pressdemocrat.com.