I’m sure it’s come up in some way before but my search skills are failing me today.
In light of CA prop 64 recreational marijuana sales and production.
Once the state starts issuing permits/licences is there any mechanism that stops agencies like the DEA from just showing up with a warrant/subpeona at the new licenceing agency demanding a list of all those license holders for purposes of raiding them?
The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibits the DEA and other federal agencies from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. The catch is that it doesn’t change the legal status of marijuana nationwide, and since it was attached to an omnibus spending bill, it needs to be renewed every year in order to stay in force. It’s a paper shield, but better than what we used to have.
How is it any different from this? Or this?
Similar issues have also arisen in Maine, Nevada, Massachussetts and Oregon.
The federal responses to the above should hint towards their response to California Prop 64.
Also, considering that Congress could have stopped legalization in Washington, DC, but chose not to, I don’t think the feds would do much.
It should be noted that CA Prop 64 legalized marijuana for recreational use. Pot has been legal for medicinal purposes for years in CA. I’m not sure if your info applies in the case of recreational use.
As your own description makes clear, though, this law refers only to medical marijuana. It makes no mention whatsoever of recreational marijuana.
Neither of these posts address the OP’s question in any substantial fashion.
Firstly, both posts talk only about what the federal government’s response has been SO FAR; neither one touches on the fact that a new Administration in Washington D.C. could dramatically change enforcement priorities in federal agencies like the DEA and the FBI.
Secondly, in talking about priorities and choices, neither post answers the OP’s question about whether any mechanism would prevent federal agencies from enforcing federal prohibitions, if they did choose to make this an enforcement priority.
On preview: I see that John Mace beat me to the punch of the medical/recreational distinction.
Looks like the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment only applies to medicinal marijuana … the OP is about recreational marijuana …
AFAIK if the current administration repeals the Executive Order limiting enforcement of Federal marijuana laws, then yes the DEA could come in and demand the lists of State licensed recreational marijuana producers, processors, wholesalers and retailers … for the purposes of throwing everyone involved in prison … and I think we’ll see the courts involved almost immediately … how it pans out there is anyone’s guess …
Growing marijuana is a felony under Federal law … license up at your own risk …
I called the local police dept to see what their policy was and when it would go into effect. I talked to 3 people and none of the were clear on the law yet or even the city policy. I guess my city doesn’t discuss it much.
The federal responses to the above reflected the Obama DOJ’s hands-off attitude towards marijuana. The Trump administration’s DOJ has a much different view:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s anti-marijuana views have long been reported by the press. In fact, one of the stories that made the headlines during the confirmation process was that he reportedly said (to an African American assistant US Attorney) that he thought the KKK “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.”
The legal marijuana industry is likely going to face a rude awakening in the coming months.
So in a nutshell
CA sets up shop, starts issuing licenses
DEA shows up at CA Marijuana licensing office with warrant for list of issued licenses
CA is obligated to say “here is all of our records, have fun”
Correct?
The answer is probably a “no.” In Printz v US, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not compel states to carry out or enforce a federal program. But it’s unclear whether the DEA demanding such records rises to a prohibited level of compulsion.
From the articles I read when Colorado legalized recreational use, the Feds said they wouldn’t prosecute anybody who was following the state law. There is no mechanism in place that requires them to do so, it’s just been their word so far. I found it intriguing at the time how all the marijuana fans suddenly started trusting the cops…
It’s not unclear at all; Printz is simply not analogous. In Printz the government was essentially federalizing local law enforcement to carry out duties mandated by federal law. In this scenario, the federal government is seeking a list the state already maintains at its own initiative, not requiring the state to create one. The federal power to subpoena or obtain state records by warrant is well-established.
If it’s unclear why the two situations are not analogous, look at it this way: the federal government can compel an accountant to hand over an income tax return prepared for a client. It can’t compel an accountant to do someone’s taxes.
The obvious (to me) strategy here would be for the state to require licensing, but keep no records of compliance.
I really doubt they would need a warrant or subpoena. Seems like an open records request would suffice.
The OP specifies that a warrant or subpeona has been issued, presumable by the US District Court … and either the State didn’t appeal or the appeal was denied/refused/refuted … I believe at this point in the legal process, the State is compelled to surrender the documents to the DEA …
An interesting question in this is would the courts take into account that 38 or more States joined together to defeat the issuing of the original warrant?
How do you imagine that working?
State requires purchase of a permit/license in order to be in state compliance. Growers are required to show license to state inspector on demand. Licenses are sold at the county courthouse in the same office dog licenses are sold. No identifying information is collected from license purchaser at time of purchase.
So, if Ed Grower misplaces his physical license/permit, he cannot get a free replacement. But, if the DEA wants to see a list of licensees there isn’t one to show.
So how does the state verify a potentially fake license?
Watermark? Trust?
If the state told me tomorrow I could legally grow, but required I pay $500 a year for a permit, I’d be there with cash in hand and I’d tip the lady who sold me the permit.
I have PA stickers on my boats that allow me to boat legally on various waterways. I could make a reasonable facsimile and likely never get caught, but it’s easier to buy the stickers.