SEIZED MEDICINAL POT ISN'T EASY TO GET BACK

Confusion Over Federal, State Laws

Got pot? Maybe not: Medicinal marijuana users who had drug charges dropped
against them might not get their plants back without a fight.

Two separate cases in San Francisco and Yuba counties this week have
highlighted the issue of whether seized marijuana plants used for medical
purposes should be returned to onetime criminal defendants.

In San Francisco, a judge reversed himself Wednesday, ruling that police do
not have to return marijuana seized from someone who keeps it for legitimate
medicinal use.

In Yuba County, the sheriff has refused to comply with a court order that
she return plants that had been seized from a couple who were arrested and
later not charged.

The cases are the latest examples of the conflict between state and federal
law over medicinal marijuana.

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, which allows the use of
marijuana for medical purposes, but federal law -- which supersedes state
law -- says marijuana used for any purpose is illegal.

"I think the sheriff is trying to be conservative about it," defense
attorney Justin Scott of Yuba City said today of Yuba County Sheriff
Virginia Black. "I think she's dead wrong."

Black has defied an order by Yuba County Superior Court Judge James Curry on
Monday to return 37 medicinal marijuana plants to Doyle and Belinda
Satterfield, who were arrested in August by the Yuba-Sutter Narcotic
Enforcement Team on charges of planting and possessing marijuana for sale.

Charges against them were dropped in January after they provided paperwork
from doctors that indicated the marijuana was for medical use. Doyle
Satterfield said he uses marijuana for insomnia and arthritis, and his wife
has used it for chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer.

"I'm not happy at all," Doyle Satterfield, 52, said today. "We're still
fighting it and hopefully we'll win and get it back. It couldn't be
considered contraband if the law says I can legally have it."

His wife, 51, said of the sheriff, "I think she's thinking she's got more
power than anybody else. That she's beyond the judge."

In an interview today, Black said, "If I deliver marijuana to the
Satterfields, technically I place myself in violation of federal law, and
I'm not inclined to do that. So I find myself in a Catch-22."

Black said state and federal law-enforcement officials generally enjoy a
"good, harmonious working relationship." But because of differences over
medicinal marijuana, "we find ourselves at odds with each other, which is
not a comfortable position to be in."

But Belinda Satterfield's attorney, Jud Waggoman of Marysville, said today
that the arguments being raised by the sheriff "have already been raised
numerous times, and it's repeatedly been rejected."

In court papers, Scott said medicinal marijuana has been returned in
criminal cases in Ventura, Placer, San Bernardino, Sonoma, Mendocino and San
Joaquin counties.

"Courts all over the state of California are returning medical marijuana to
patients who are determined to be in compliance with the medical marijuana
laws," Scott wrote. "No law enforcement officials or judges have ever been
prosecuted in the above cases as a result of the return of medical
marijuana."

The defense attorneys said they are considering suing Black or asking a
judge to find her in contempt of court if she doesn't return the marijuana,
including 37 plants and 4 1/2 pounds of dried marijuana. But they hoped the
issue would be resolved without going to court.

"The court has issued a valid order," Waggoman said. "Once she has met with
her attorney, I'm confident that she'll understand the true status of the
law, both federal and state, as it relates to medical marijuana."

In another setback for medicinal marijuana users, San Francisco Superior
Court Judge Wallace Douglass agreed with police Wednesday that it would
violate federal law if authorities gave Babu Lal his marijuana and hash oil
back.

Douglass reversed his own ruling in making the decision. Police seized the
marijuana from Lal during a traffic stop in December, and Douglass ruled
April 3 that Lal was entitled to its return under Proposition 215.

Lal, 24, had been issued a medical marijuana card by the city health
department.

Lal's attorney, Brian Petersen, argued that state law should prevail, absent
specific federal court rulings, and that police would never be prosecuted
for violating the federal law anyway.

"It's all right for me to order the Police Department to violate the law as
long as they are immune from prosecution?" Douglass asked Petersen.

After the ruling, defense attorneys faulted San Francisco District Attorney
Terence Hallinan for not backing up Lal. Hallinan had testified in Sonoma
County last year on behalf of two men accused of growing marijuana for
medical use.

Hallinan's office had not opposed the return of Lal's drugs earlier, but did
not argue against the police before Douglass on Wednesday.

"He considers himself a leader in the movement, but when it comes down to
implementing those actions and going to the mat for the movement, he wasn't
here this time," said defense attorney Derek St. Pierre.

Reg Smith, a spokesman for Hallinan, had no comment.