Title: Hidden Cameras Catch Cops in Illegal Smash and Grab Raid on Legal Pot Shop Source:
Free Thought Project/Orange County Register URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hi ... -raid-pot/#ymGKa6d0rSSq8Tjs.99 Published:Sep 15, 2016 Author:Justin Gardner Post Date:2016-09-16 19:38:32 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:3384 Comments:18
Costa Mesa, CA – The Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) is trying to pull a fast one after a lawsuit was filed against it for the illegal raid of a medical cannabis dispensary. Knowing they have little chance in state court to defend their actions, which were caught on hidden cameras, the CMPD is attempting to move the case to federal court because cannabis is prohibited under federal law.
In January, cops busted into the Costa Mesa Collective in militaristic fashion, pointing guns at customers and telling them to get on the ground. They immediately began removing surveillance equipment, but didn’t know about the four hidden cameras which caught them damaging store property, interrogating customers and seizing cannabis, money, confidential patient records and other property.
These seizures were done with no legal justification, as police Chief Robert Sharpnack said they had obtained an inspection warrant, “which is used to enter a premises to investigate whether it is complying with building, fire, zoning and civil codes.”
“If a business refuses access, a city can obtain an inspection warrant and seek a judge’s permission to make forcible entry, but investigators can’t seize evidence for a criminal case, said Jen McGrath, another attorney representing Costa Mesa Collective.”
But there’s more. The OC Register has not been able to find any type of warrant for the operation, and Chief Sharpnack has refused to provide a copy of the supposed warrant used to carry out the raid.
Even if such an inspection warrant exists, it does not allow for the seizure of cash, assets and medical records that was recorded by the hidden cameras.
Cops involved in the raid, believing they had removed all video recorders in the store, proceeded to violate the law and the constitutional rights of people inside the store.
Video shows one officer interrogating a female in a separate room, attempting to get her to admit to a crime as she repeatedly says she wants an attorney.
“Were you being a lookout outside? Were you a lookout? Were you asked to look out for people?” said the unidentified officer. As she hesitates, he says, “…you don’t have to tell me if you don’t want to…”
The subject then says, “Oh, ok, that means you can just speak to my lawyer then.”
But the cop continues prodding her, saying, “If you’re the lookout, then that means you’re an employee here. You’re helping these people out. Unless you care to tell me what your involvement is.”
Five people were arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and they spent four days in the county jail before being released with no charges.
Two hours of hidden camera footage was provided to the OC Register by the attorney representing Costa Mesa Collective, Mathew Pappas. Footage shows a cop breaking the ceiling open in the room and other cops looting the place for cash, including the tip jar.
The same cop who interrogated the female subject is heard telling another subject, “The reason why we’re here is because we’re conducting an inspection.”
But the hidden cameras clearly show this is not just an inspection.
In the main room of the dispensary, other cops are taunting a customer laying on the floor.
“Don’t be dumb, dude. Don’t tell me, dah, dah.”
Patient: “You asked if I ever got arrested.”
Officer: “I’m just asking a simple question. You ever been arrested before for anything? It’s a yes or no question. It’s not hard. I’m not interrogating you. Just asking if you had a…”
Patient: “Then let me talk to my lawyer.”
Officer: “That’s a pretty libertarian thing to say.”
Officer 2: “Who’s your lawyer? Call him right now. Phone is right here.” (Tries to hand a phone to the customer) “You don’t have a lawyer dude. I love when people say that. Who’s your lawyer? We’ll call him up.”
They can later be heard making jokes about the fact that cannabis is used as medicine, with one cop pretending to be the salesperson and another cop the customer.
“Looks like you’re gonna be busy counting money,” one cop says as he hands the loot to another cop.
It’s no wonder that attorneys for the CMPD filed a motion to move the case from state to federal court, which is an attempt to dodge the fact that their actions – unknowingly recorded by hidden cameras – violated the law and constitutional rights.
“Costa Mesa’s effort to move the case to federal court is meant to prevent any recovery for their illegal actions because marijuana is prohibited under federal law,” Pappas said. “However, the lawsuit filed is based on state law in an area that should be decided by state courts.”
…The lawsuit filed last month in Orange County Superior Court seeks unspecified damages and the return of marijuana, money, confidential patient records and other property seized Jan. 27 at the now-closed Costa Mesa Collective on Harbor Boulevard.”
The footage provides a rare glimpse into the modus operandi of law enforcement who feel they can get away with anything in their vendetta against peaceful people providing medical products. The Costa Mesa Collective was clearly a target for these cops, but the raid may turn out to be one of their biggest mistakes.
“If a business refuses access, a city can obtain an inspection warrant and seek a judge’s permission to make forcible entry, but investigators can’t seize evidence for a criminal case, said Jen McGrath, another attorney representing Costa Mesa Collective.”
The Orange County Register says they claim entry was made with a warrant.
Sharpnack said the department obtained an inspection warrant, which is used to enter a premises to investigate whether it is complying with building, fire, zoning and civil codes.
Warrants are issued by a judge and a list of items seized has to be filed with the court, said Jen McGrath, another attorney representing Costa Mesa Collective.
If a business refuses access, a city may have grounds to obtain an inspection warrant and seek a judge’s permission to make forcible entry, but investigators can’t seize evidence for a criminal case, McGrath said. The lawsuit alleges police may have “omitted, misrepresented or withheld material facts” to obtain an inspection warrant.
Entry with an inspection warrant would be lawful. Finding gobs of evidence of unlawful activity in plain sight while inspecting for compliance with building, fire, zoning and civil codes would enable further action. A finding that it was a medical dispensary within the limits of Costa Mesa would make the whole operation illegal. The first purported defense, since abandoned, seems to have been a claim that it was really a church. The explanation that the dispensary had failed to convert to a church, appears to admit that it was an illegal dispensary. The Free Thought Project didn't find it convenient to report that dispensaries are not allowed within the limits of Costa Mesa. They are illegal.
It's another yellow half story. I would like the other half.
The OC Register has not been able to find any type of warrant for the operation, and Chief Sharpnack has refused to provide a copy of the supposed warrant used to carry out the raid.
Costa Mesa Raid That Put Dispensary Workers In Jail May Have Been Illegal
1 month ago By: Zach Smith
An attorney claims Costa Mesa police did not have a warrant when they raided a dispensary and put five employees in jail.
On January 27, officers stormed into medical dispensary Costa Mesa Collective with guns drawn and forced employees and customers to get on the ground.
Security footage shows the officers shouting upon entry:
“Search warrant, police department. Hands up!”
After removing a video recorder, the officers searched the dispensary, seized items from safes and arrested five people, both employees and customers, for suspicion of possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
The arrested individuals were in jail for four days before being released since it turned out no charges had actually been filed, according to the Orange County Register.
Susan Schroeder, chief of staff for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, said the case had been referred back to police because it required further investigation.
Medical marijuana dispensaries are illegal in Costa Mesa, so it’s not clear why Costa Mesa Collective was even operating at the time.
But Long Beach lawyer Matthew Pappas believes the raid should not have been conducted since it is unclear whether the officers had a warrant.
He told the OC Register:
“These guys were doing this to shut down a business without due process because they don’t like it. They became judge, jury and executioner.”
Costa Mesa Police Chief Rob Sharpnack is “100 percent certain” the officers had a “code enforcement inspection warrant” but Pappas insists no such warrant was presented to Costa Mesa Collective operators during the raid.
Pappas said on August 4 he plans to file a lawsuit this week challenging the officers’ legal authority to burst through the dispensary’s door and seize items.
He says he is yet to see this supposed warrant along with an inventory of seized items, which Costa Mesa Collective operators should have received as well.
Much like the cops in the Sky High raid, the CMPD was also caught breaking surveillance cameras and looking for other hidden cameras to destroy. "If the cops were doing everything legally and within compliance of the law, there would be nothing to hide," says McGrath. "They wouldn't have gone for the cameras."
Wait - the cops in the Sky High raid were shown stealing and eating pot-laced edibles by the cameras (the ones not destroyed that is).
Why aren't they being charged for that?
never mind - in nolu chan "cops are gods" Bizarro World, they can do any fucking thing they want.
2014 US Code Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Part IV - Jurisdiction and Venue Chapter 89 - District Courts; Removal of Cases From State Courts Sec. 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 (2014)
§1441. Removal of civil actions
(a) Generally.—Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
(b) Removal Based on Diversity of Citizenship.—(1) In determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.
(2) A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
(c) Joinder of Federal Law Claims and State Law Claims.—(1) If a civil action includes—
(A) a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (within the meaning of section 1331 of this title), and
(B) a claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute,
the entire action may be removed if the action would be removable without the inclusion of the claim described in subparagraph (B).
(2) Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1), the district court shall sever from the action all claims described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the severed claims to the State court from which the action was removed. Only defendants against whom a claim described in paragraph (1)(A) has been asserted are required to join in or consent to the removal under paragraph (1).
(d) Actions Against Foreign States.—Any civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. Upon removal the action shall be tried by the court without jury. Where removal is based upon this subsection, the time limitations of section 1446(b) of this chapter may be enlarged at any time for cause shown.
(e) Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, a defendant in a civil action in a State court may remove the action to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action is pending if—
(A) the action could have been brought in a United States district court under section 1369 of this title; or
(B) the defendant is a party to an action which is or could have been brought, in whole or in part, under section 1369 in a United States district court and arises from the same accident as the action in State court, even if the action to be removed could not have been brought in a district court as an original matter.
The removal of an action under this subsection shall be made in accordance with section 1446 of this title, except that a notice of removal may also be filed before trial of the action in State court within 30 days after the date on which the defendant first becomes a party to an action under section 1369 in a United States district court that arises from the same accident as the action in State court, or at a later time with leave of the district court.
(2) Whenever an action is removed under this subsection and the district court to which it is removed or transferred under section 1407(j) 1 has made a liability determination requiring further proceedings as to damages, the district court shall remand the action to the State court from which it had been removed for the determination of damages, unless the court finds that, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the action should be retained for the determination of damages.
(3) Any remand under paragraph (2) shall not be effective until 60 days after the district court has issued an order determining liability and has certified its intention to remand the removed action for the determination of damages. An appeal with respect to the liability determination of the district court may be taken during that 60-day period to the court of appeals with appellate jurisdiction over the district court. In the event a party files such an appeal, the remand shall not be effective until the appeal has been finally disposed of. Once the remand has become effective, the liability determination shall not be subject to further review by appeal or otherwise.
(4) Any decision under this subsection concerning remand for the determination of damages shall not be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.
(5) An action removed under this subsection shall be deemed to be an action under section 1369 and an action in which jurisdiction is based on section 1369 of this title for purposes of this section and sections 1407, 1697, and 1785 of this title.
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the authority of the district court to transfer or dismiss an action on the ground of inconvenient forum.
(f) Derivative Removal Jurisdiction.—The court to which a civil action is removed under this section is not precluded from hearing and determining any claim in such civil action because the State court from which such civil action is removed did not have jurisdiction over that claim.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 937; Pub. L. 94–583, §6, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2898; Pub. L. 99–336, §3(a), June 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 637; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1016(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4669; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §312, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5114; Pub. L. 102–198, §4, Dec. 9, 1991, 105 Stat. 1623; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11020(b)(3), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1827; Pub. L. 112–63, title I, §103(a), Dec. 7, 2011, 125 Stat. 759.)
