Can You Sue the Police for Destroying Your Drug Crop if You Are Acquitted

I am posting here to discuss the issues.

In this alternative, there is an arrest for felony cultivation and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The arrestee had a valid pot recommendation at the time and was honest with police about intending to engage in this controversial form of Commerce since Prop215 should secure those natural and civil rights, regardless of any criminal statutes to the contrary.

Police seized and destroyed a "pre-season" grow (crop) in April of last year proximate; and, the pre-trial procedure prevented a regular season grow (crop) in that same year, which would have been worth more than the pre-season grow (crop).

What would be the actual procedure to recover private property and damages for income lost due to the arrest and pre-trial procedures should the State be unable to convict?

I am hoping for a discussion of these issues. And, there are some elements in this alternative that may be considered "controversial" should anyone want to actually debate.

Thanks in advance.

since your information is so lacking:

if they had probable cause to act, you lose

but getting beyond that ever: if you want to sue a government entity you must file a claim within 6 months of the action to preserve your right to sue. Since you are well beyond that time limit, you lose.

What information do you need?

And, as for probable cause; ignorance of the law is no excuse, even for Persons who have shiny, Fasces of Power.

Prop215 is a Constitutional amendment and as such, is more supreme than any silly statutes.

What if the case has not been resolved, yet?

Here is some additional information:

Quote:

---

Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional. --http://www.canorml.org/news/kellyruling.html

---

In addition, during the pre-trial hearing, the arresting officer claimed to have been "under cover" doing precisely what the arrest charges were for and gained experience, sufficient to place a valuation on that marijuana grow (crop). I am pretty sure that police officer didn't have a valid marijuana recommendation; but I did not verify that fact.

Quote:

---

Article 1, Section 7b-A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

---

Also, Prop215 declared marijuana to be Good and not Bad by the People; thus, precluding any Schedule 1 classification by the State of California.

Furthermore, new marijuana regulations took effect on January 1st of this year.

Quote:

---

Gov. Brown signs bills regulating medical marijuana industry--http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Gov-Brown-signs-bills-regulating-medical-6562139.php

---

Thus, I believe the Doctrine of Implied Repeal applies and that there is no longer any reason to continue the case in question.

Was the grow being done on your personal property?

Were you ever prosecuted for the offenses?

If a prosecution is pending, then your fiscal claims may be a bit premature. What does your civil attorney have to say? You're not planning to sue the city, county or state on your own are you?

The grow was done on private property and where the person resided.

The case is still pending trial.

I believe it was a mistake to waive the right to a speedy trial, even if the public defender was "fresh out of law school". An instruction was given to rescind that waiver.

From what I can find, Prop215 only gives you a pass on growing for personal use and NOT for sale. SB 240 gives you the right to grow and sell on a non-profit basis for members of your coop/collective.

The officer does not have to have a valid MM card to go undercover and work in a pot growing outfit.

Going to trial quickly is not necessarily a benefit to the defense. The state has the option to drop charges and re-file at a later date if they are not ready - the defense does not have the same option. Your friend should heed the advice of his attorney and not someone with an agenda.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

From what I can find, Prop215 only gives you a pass on growing for personal use and NOT for sale. SB 240 gives you the right to grow and sell on a non-profit basis for members of your coop/collective.

The officer does not have to have a valid MM card to go undercover and work in a pot growing outfit.

---

Correct. The officer does not need a 215 recommendation in order to infiltrate a criminal enterprise.

I strongly suspect that the enterprise was found to be offering product for sale outside the confines of 215, but, only time will tell. And the OP's friend's civil claim is likely to fall flat unless he can get the entire case tossed out for lack of probable cause or clear malfeasance ... theoretically possible, but unlikely.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

From what I can find, Prop215 only gives you a pass on growing for personal use and NOT for sale. SB 240 gives you the right to grow and sell on a non-profit basis for members of your coop/collective.

The officer does not have to have a valid MM card to go undercover and work in a pot growing outfit.

---

Quote:

---

Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional. --http://www.canorml.org/news/kellyruling.html

---

Why doesn't that citizen in that State have to follow the law?

Quote:

---

Article 1, Section 7b-A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Going to trial quickly is not necessarily a benefit to the defense. The state has the option to drop charges and re-file at a later date if they are not ready - the defense does not have the same option. Your friend should heed the advice of his attorney and not someone with an agenda.



Correct. The officer does not need a 215 recommendation in order to infiltrate a criminal enterprise.

I strongly suspect that the enterprise was found to be offering product for sale outside the confines of 215, but, only time will tell. And the OP's friend's civil claim is likely to fall flat unless he can get the entire case tossed out for lack of probable cause or clear malfeasance ... theoretically possible, but unlikely.

---

Why doesn't that citizen in that State have to follow the law?

Quote:

---

Article 1, Section 7b-A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

---

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; not even for law enforcement.

It is my understanding that Persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Simply claiming intent to sell to pot collectives should be enough.

You all realize who this OP is, don't you?

Post hx is SO important here.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

You all realize who this OP is, don't you?

Post hx is SO important here.

---

It only shows his current posts? I'm afraid I don't recognize him/her but my brain isn't firing on all cylinders.