All State officials must uphold The Compassionate Use Act regardless of whether or not it is said to conflict with federal law. Since no judicial challenge has been filed seeking to invalidate the law on the basis of a conflict with federal laws or regulations, or for any other reason, ALL California officials are legally obligated to uphold the Compassionate Use Act and failure to do so is a criminal act.
Constitution of the State of California, Amendment III, Section 3.5
"An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations. "
California Constitution Article 2 Section 10,
(a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise.
Furthermore, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, because it is an initiative statute approved by a majority of votes, cannot be limited or restricted by anyone, including sheriffs, district attorneys, the attorney general or even the legislature, unless approved by the electors. Any attempt to do so is illegal.
California Constitution Article 2 Section 10:
(c) The Legislature. . . May amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.
"The rule should be that the quantity possessed by the patient or the primary care giver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonalby related to the patient's current medical needs." People v. Trippett, 56 Cal.App.4th at 1549
Excerpts from People v Peron:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
(Filed: December 12, 1997)
The People ex rel DANIEL E. LUNGREN, as Attorney General,
DENNIS PERON et al.,
"Although the sale and distribution of marijuana remain as criminal offenses under section 11360, bona fide primary caregivers for section 11362.5 patients should not be precluded from receiving bona fide reimbursement for their actual expense of cultivating and furnishing marijuana for the patient's approved medical treatment. This will 'ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for the medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana ' (SS11362.5(b)(1)(A).)
For example, if a qualified patient is a semi-invalid and asks the primary caregiver to purchase fertilizer or special equipment to cultivate marijuana, merely reimbursing the caregiver for the purchase price thereof would be an adjunct to possession or cultivation under section 11362.5 and subject to the same affirmative defense. If the patient is incapacitated and thereby dependent upon the caregiver to cultivate or acquire the medicinal marijuana prescribed or approved for that patient's use, reimbursement for the caregiver's actual expenses in consistently doing so could be subject to the affirmative defense granted by section 11362.5.
As we have noted, the statute defines a primary caregiver as one "who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of (the patient). (SS11362.5(e), italics added.) Assuming responsibility for housing, health, or safety does not preclude the caregiver from charging the patient for those services. A primary caregiver who consistently grows and supplies physician-approved or -prescribed medicinal marijuana for a section 11362.5 patient is serving a health need of the patient, and may seek reimbursement for such services."
[p.18 -- (E) Miscellaneous Considerations]
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997)
-- Analysis by Judy Appel, Drug Policy Alliance
The federal government may not compel state law enforcement agents to enforce federal regulations. "[T]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997), a Montana Sheriff Jay Printz challenged the constitutionality of a federal handgun control scheme that required him and other local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun buyers, ensuring that no handguns were illegally purchased. In invalidating the law, the Supreme Court stated that Congress cannot require state officers to enforce federal laws. Asserting that it was discovered early on by the framers of the Constitution that "using the states as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal-state conflict," the Court said that "the Constitution  contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens."
Federal: State officials can be sued for violating civil rights -- even if they do it under "color of law"
We have the right to due process under these sections of federal law:
42 USC 1983 deprivaton of Civil rights under color of law
42 USC 1985 (3) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
42 USC 1986 Neglect to prevent conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
42 USC Sec. 1983 01/26/98 -- EXPCITE
TITLE 42 -- THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 -- CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I -- GENERAL
HEAD -- Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
STATUTE -- Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Government agencies can be sued for conspiracy
"Enterprise" means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this state, or other legal entity, or any unchartered union, association or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, and it includes illicit as well as licit enterprises, AND GOVERNMENTAL, as well as other, entities. -TN CODE 39-12-203, Organized Crime and Racketeer Influenced Organizations (RICO Act)
Sec. 2234. - Authority exceeded in executing warrant
Whoever, in executing a search warrant, willfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year
USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 109 > Sec. 2235. Prev | Next
Sec. 2235. - Search warrant procured maliciously
Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant to be issued and executed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year
TITLE 21 > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part E > Sec. 885. Prev | Next
Sec. 885. - Burden of proof; liabilities
(a) Exemptions and exceptions; presumption in simple possession offenses
(1) It shall not be necessary for the United States to negative any exemption or exception set forth in this subchapter in any complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this subchapter, and the burden of going forward with the evidence with respect to any such exemption or exception shall be upon the person claiming its benefit.
(2) In the case of a person charged under section 844(a) of this title with the possession of a controlled substance, any label identifying such substance for purposes of section 353(b)(2) of this title shall be admissible in evidence and shall be prima facie evidence that such substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription from a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice.
(b) Registration and order forms
In the absence of proof that a person is the duly authorized holder of an appropriate registration or order form issued under this subchapter, he shall be presumed not to be the holder of such registration or form, and the burden of going forward with the evidence with respect to such registration or form shall be upon him.
(c) Use of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft
The burden of going forward with the evidence to establish that a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft used in connection with controlled substances in schedule I was used in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter shall be on the persons engaged in such use.
(d) Immunity of Federal, State, local and other officials
Except as provided in section 2234 and 2235 of title 18, no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed by virtue of this subchapter upon any duly authorized Federal officer lawfully engaged in the enforcement of this subchapter, or upon any duly authorized officer of any State, territory, political subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States, who shall be lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating to controlled substances
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff, and
COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON,