Laserfiche WebLink
The Investigation <br />San Diego DEA and its local task force (NTF) sought assistance from the DA's Office as well as the <br />U.S. Attorney's Office. Though empathetic about being willing to assist, the DA's Office was not <br />sure how prosecutions would fare under the provisions of SB 420. The U.S. Attorney had the easier <br />road but was noncommittal. After several meetings it was decided that law enforcement would work <br />on using undercover operatives (UCs) to buy, so law enforcement could see exactly what was <br />happening in the dispensaries. <br />The investigation was initiated in December of 2005, after NTF received numerous citizen <br />complaints regarding the crime and traffic associated with "medical marijuana dispensaries." The <br />City of San Diego also saw an increase in crime related to the marijuana dispensaries. By then <br />approximately 20 marijuana dispensaries had opened and were operating in San Diego County, and <br />investigations on 15 of these dispensaries were initiated. <br />During the investigation, NTF learned that all of the business owners were involved in the <br />transportation and distribution of large quantities of marijuana, marijuana derivatives, and marijuana <br />food products. In addition, several owners were involved in the cultivation of high grade marijuana. <br />The business owners were making significant profits from the sale of these products and not <br />properly reporting this income. <br />Undercover Task Force Officers (TFO's) and SDPD Detectives were utilized to purchase marijuana <br />and marijuana food products from these businesses. In December of 2005, thirteen state search <br />warrants were executed at businesses and residences of several owners. Two additional follow-up <br />search warrants and a consent search were executed the same day. Approximately 977 marijuana <br />plants from seven indoor marijuana grows, 564.88 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana food <br />products, one gun, and over $58,000 U.S. currency were seized. There were six arrests made during <br />the execution of these search warrants for various violations, including outstanding warrants, <br />possession of marijuana for sale, possession of psilocybin mushrooms, obstructing a police officer, <br />and weapons violations. However, the owners and clerks were not arrested or prosecuted at this <br />time just those who showed up with weapons or product to sell. <br />Given the fact most owners could claim mistake of law as to selling (though not a legitimate defense, <br />it could be a jury nullification defense) the DA's Office decided not to file cases at that time. It was <br />hoped that the dispensaries would feel San Diego was hostile ground and they would do business <br />elsewhere. Unfortunately this was not the case. Over the next few months seven of the previously <br />targeted dispensaries opened, as well as a slew of others. Clearly prosecutions would be necessary. <br />To gear up for the re-opened and new dispensaries prosecutors reviewed the evidence and sought a <br />second round of UC buys wherein the UC would be buying for themselves and they would have a <br />second UC present at the time acting as UC 1's caregiver who also would buy. This was designed to <br />show the dispensary was not the caregiver. There is no authority in the law for organizations to act <br />as primary caregivers. Caregivers must be individuals who care for a marijuana patient. A primary <br />caregiver is defined by Proposition 215, as codified in H&S Code section 11362.5(e), as, "For the <br />purposes of this section, 'primary caregiver' means the individual designated by the person exempted <br />under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of <br />that person." The goal was to show that the stores were only selling marijuana, and not providing <br />care for the hundreds who bought from them. <br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 20 All Rights Reserved <br />65A-81