Religious Use of Marijuana

There is a pervasive and persistent myth that, somehow, claiming "religious use" is a valid, legal defense to the charge of operating an unlicensed marijuana dispensary.  It is not.

It's frustrating to see decent people taking bad advice and getting themselves arrested.  It's especially frustrating in a place like California, where marijuana is legal.  California currently allows adults to cultivate and possess marijuana for recreational or medical use.  If you follow some simple rules, you can even sell it.  Unfortunately, some shady attorneys, charlatans and various non-attorney posers have been spreading the myth that "rules don't apply to you if you simply pretend that it's your religion."  This is, of course, total nonsense.  As a real attorney, I would strongly discourage anyone from relying on this argument.

Just think about it.  If anyone could successfully disregard the law by simply claiming that XYZ was part of their "religion", what would stop them from founding the Church of Child Pornography?  Or the Church of Bank Robbery?  

Most of the confusion revolves around a pair of federal laws -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Incarcerated Persons Act.  These laws prohibit the federal government from taking any action that "substantially burdens" the free exercise of religion unless authorities can show some compelling interest in doing so.  The RLUIPA further prohibits local authorities from imposing land use restrictions that interfere with the free exercise of religion.  Some advocates have argued that, taken together, these federal laws provide carte blanche to ignore local zoning laws regarding commercial marijuana activity as long as they call their dispensary a "church".

Courts have consistently shot these arguments down.  Instead, they have affirmed the power of local zoning authorities to regulate commercial marijuana activity, regardless of whether or not litigants claim that cannabis is a "sacrament".  Their reasoning has turned on a couple key points.  Keep in the mind that no court has ever ruled that religion is an absolute defense to anything.  The state can always "interfere with the practice of religion" if the regulation is narrowly tailored to address some compelling government interest.  

In Mooney v. Lynch (2016), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a challenge from the Oklevueha Native American Church.  In that case, a "church" sued the federal government, claiming that laws against marijuana interfered with the free exercise of their religion.  Judges disagreed because, "nothing in the record demonstrated that a prohibition on cannabis forced the plaintiffs to choose between obedience to their religion and criminal sanction, such that they were being coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs."

To date, nobody has ever convinced a federal judge that laws against selling marijuana actually impose a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of their religion.  There have been a handful of cases in which Native American churches have won lawsuits against the federal government, but those cases turned on technical, procedural issues.  The courts did not actually determine that Native American religious practices trump federal drug laws, and the rulings do not affect other litigants who were not parties to those cases.

As I mentioned above, though, there are legal ways to grow, use and sell marijuana in California -- but claiming that cannabis is a "sacrament" is not your best strategy.  If you or a loved one has questions about forming a legal marijuana farm or dispensary in Southern California, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Fullerton Marijuana Lawyer

Drunk in Public on Catalina Island

According to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, deputies arrested several individuals on suspicion of being drunk in public this month.  In my experience, this is probably the most commonly charged offense on the island, other than minor fishing violations.

To convict you for being drunk in public under PC 647(f), the prosecutor must prove that you were so drunk that you could not reasonably care for your own safety, or that you posed a danger to people around you.  To determine whether or not you were "dangerously" drunk, the court will consider the totality of the circumstances -- the condition in which you were found, how / why you attracted attention from the police, objective and subjective observations of the arresting officers, your own statements, statements from other witnesses, audio / video recordings of the incident, etc.

There is no magic number that clearly distinguishes "fun drunk" from "criminally drunk".  The decision of whether or not to make an arrest is generally left to the officer's discretion.  You have a right to take a breath test if you are arrested for being drunk in public, but police are not required to administer one unless you demand it.  If you decide to demand a breath test, that number will be used against you in court.

If you are arrested for being drunk in public in Avalon, deputies will take you to the tiny jail on Sumner street, attached to the local courthouse.  You will be held for several hours and released in the morning.  Being polite and cooperative during this process will definitely speed up your release.  Deputies will also make a note of your attitude in the reports that they prepare.  If your arrest report shows that you were cooperative, that fact will go a long way when your attorney attempts to negotiate a reduced charge or a dismissal in court.

When you are released from custody, the deputies will give you a "notice to appear" in court at some future date.  Regardless of what the deputies told you, your case cannot simply be resolved through the mail or at the Long Beach courthouse.  All misdemeanors arising on Catalina Island are heard at the Catalina courthouse.

If you retain a local attorney, you do not need to travel back to the island for your court date -- your attorney can go for you.  Your lawyer will gather copies of the police reports and any other evidence (photos, videos, etc.), enter a "not guilty" plea, and schedule a series of future court dates to come back and discuss the case with prosecutors.

If the prosecutor recognizes that the evidence in your case is weak, you have a clean criminal record and you were cooperative during your arrest, they might make an offer that's too good to refuse.  A "good offer" might include a reduced charge or a complete dismissal.  If the evidence is strong, or if you have a history of alcohol-related offenses, or if your police report indicates that you were uncooperative, the DA's offers get less generous.  "Drunk in Public" is a misdemeanor, so penalties may include probation, fines, community service, CalTrans labor, mandatory AA meetings, or even jail time.  

Unfortunately, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has decided to take an aggressive stand in prosecuting "drunk in public" cases on Catalina.  Lawyers who visit Avalon from out of the area are often shocked by the harsh offers they receive on the island.  In other courthouses, 647(f) cases are routinely reduced to infractions or settled for minimal penalties.  In Avalon, though, standard offers from the DA often include dozens of AA meetings, high fines, 1-3 years of probation, 10-30 days of CalTrans service, or worse.

Our office has extensive experience defending against all types of cases that arise on Catalina Island, including drunk in public.  We offer competitive rates and affordable payments, and we never charge clients for our travel expenses.

If you or a loved one has been cited or arrested while visiting Catalina, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Catalina Island Lawyer

I Lost in Restraining Order Court. Can I Get Another Hearing?

You generally get one bite of the apple in restraining order court. This is why I'm always stressing the importance of showing up to court prepared for your hearing. Part of effectively preparing for your day before the judge includes speaking with a qualified, local attorney as early as possible. Your attorney understands the rules of evidence, how to issue subpoenas, how to properly examine witnesses, and how to effectively present a case in court. You wouldn't operate on yourself; don't try to represent yourself in court.

If, despite your best efforts, you haven't had an opportunity to thoroughly prepare before your court hearing, there's some good news -- you are entitled to at least one free continuance. Maybe you haven't been able to save up the money to retain a qualified lawyer. Maybe you're still trying to locate and interview prospective witnesses. If you need more time for any reason, all you have to do is show up and ask the judge nicely for 2-4 more weeks to get your ducks into a row. The court will give you as much time as you reasonably need to prepare your defense.

That being said, there are a handful of good reasons to request a new hearing if a restraining order is granted against you. First, though, you need to understand a few things that are NOT good reasons to request a new hearing:

I Wasn't Ready 

The court does NOT want to hear that you were simply unprepared. As mentioned above, you were entitled to a continuance before the hearing if you weren't ready to go forward. If you wanted more time, you only had to ask for it. If you announced that you were ready to litigate, though, it's too late to request a postponement now. That ship has sailed.

I'm Not a Lawyer

It is also NOT effective to argue that your hearing was unfair because you aren't a lawyer and you didn't understand the rules. If you choose to represent yourself in court, you will be held to the same standards as a professionally trained and licensed attorney. You will not receive any special considerations or preferential treatment if you appear without a lawyer.

The Petitioner Lied and the Judge Believed It

Finally, you CANNOT argue that the restraining order should be overturned because you disagree with the judge's ruling. Again, the point of the hearing was to present relevant facts and evidence -- that was your chance. If you showed up in court without any evidence and unprepared to explain / deny / excuse the petitioner's evidence, reread the previous paragraphs.

After hearing the evidence, the judge had discretion to determine whether or not harassment has occurred. If the judge heard the facts and weighed the evidence fairly, in accordance with the law, then the issues are settled. The court will not reconsider any new arguments, except...

Motion to Reconsider a Restraining Order

The Respondent MAY ask the court for a new hearing if there are some "new or different facts, circumstances or law" since the first hearing. If the situation has changed since you last appeared in court, you may appear before a judge and explain why the restraining order against you is no longer necessary or warranted.

In a motion to reconsider a restraining order, the judge does not want to hear a better version of the arguments you've already made. Instead, the court wants to hear something new that wasn't available at the last hearing.

Here's the kicker, though: a motion to reconsider a restraining order must be filed within 10 days after the respondent is served with the original order. This is why motions to reconsider are difficult -- you're required to prove some "change in circumstances", but you only have 10 days to do so. Since circumstances are unlikely to change that drastically in 10 days, motions to reconsider restraining orders can be an uphill battle.

If you or a loved one has questions about restraining orders in Southern California, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Restraining Order Lawyer.