CORRESPONDENCE - 55D - ADDITIONAL

Home Browse Search

Mayor Manuel Pulido June 17, 2014 Page Two a "roadmap" for the ordinance before the Council tonight. It is also my belief, after investigating the matter, that Best, Best and Krieger may be operating for its own interests rather than on behalf of the City and its citizens. Oddly, your proposed ballot initiative looks very much like the Long Beach ordinance that was in -part stricken by the appellate court. In the Long Beach case, the appellate court essentially found that the permitting or authorizing provisions of former LBMC Chapter 5.87 were impermissibly conflicted with Federal law. The Court also held that the specific provision of Long Beach's ordinance that compelled testing of marijuana directly conflicted with federal law. Your ordinance contains an almost identical provision. Although Long Beach called what it was issuing a "Medical Marijuana Collective Permit," changing the name of that permit to a "Conditional Use Permit" does not alter one of the fatal flaws in the proposed law — like the Long Beach ordinance, it conflicts with federal law. The proposed ordinance also compels individuals to provide information that can be used to incriminate them because all marijuana activities are illegal under federal law. Each provision of the ordinance that compels what could result in federal criminal charges is likewise invalid. The City cannot compel individuals in compliance with State law to incriminate themselves under Federal law through a scheme designed to "permit" a federally illegal activity. At the same time, Santa Ana is not part of the federal sovereign. It is a part of the sovereign state of California and must give meaning and effect to state law even in areas where federal law may differ. Moreover, the City cannot be compelled to enforce federal law nor can its officers be conscripted by the federal government in order to enforce the remote central power's laws. Attached is a marked copy of the proposed ordinance. The marked copy has a legend at the top with color indicators. Each section of the ordinance that is impermissible has been marked by the respective colors. Given I have stricken laws in this area and have handled multiple cases in this area, I urge you to carefully review this letter and the accompanying exhibits. The taxpayers of Santa Ana should not be exposed to having to pay for the defense of lawsuits attacking this poorly drafted proposed ordinance. There is an ballot initiative already on the November ballot provided by the Citizens of Santa Ana. I have reviewed that proposed initiative and it is not subject to the preemption and discrimination issues I have outlined above. While it may not be perfect, it is far less vulnerable to attack in court in my opinion. Moreover, although it contains restrictions that I believe violate California's Disabled Persons Act, it is not subject to federal preemption attack based on the issuance of permits, forced incrimination or the