Transportation of marijuana by patients is limited up to only amounts necessary for current medical needs
By Bruce Margolin
The California Court of Appeals has again interpreted the medical marijuana laws strictly. In People v. Wayman, (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th page 215, the patient/defendant testified that he kept his entire supply of marijuana solely for his own personal medical use inside the trunk of his car to appease his mother who did not want him to keep in his house. The appellate court up held his conviction because storing his cannabis in his trunk (even if it was for his medical use) was not “transportation” for his current medical needs. The defendant had about four ounces in 26 baggies (3.5 grams each), 14 small bottles of hash, an electronic scale and $120 in cash.
However, the court noted that had Wayman been leaving town for an extended vacation, his possession of four ounces might fall within the protections of the Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) and Medical Marijuana Program (SB420).
In two previous appellate rulings on the issue of transportation, the court held that it is permissible under the protections afforded by the medical marijuana laws.
Transportation of medical marijuana is otherwise permitted.
People v. Trippet, 1997 (56 Cal app 4th 1532).
The quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, must be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs and Prop.215-implied transportation
People v. Wright, 2006 (40 Cal. App. 4th p.259).
Transportation for personal medical use is protected. Here the defendant/patient denied he had marijuana in the car, but the officer found numerous baggies totaling slightly over a pound, a scale and no smoking devices. Wright was charged with possession for sale and transportation. His doctor testified that he approved self-regulating doses and that a pound every two or three months was consistent with his medical needs. The defendant testified that the marijuana was for his own use, The court held that the defendant was entitled to assert the defense under 11362.77b H&S and that transpiration is not and was not limited to any particular amount, but only that the amounts are consistent with his current medical needs. Patients are also protected from charges under Vehicle Code 23222, possession of marijuana in a vehicle.
Be Aware: Traveling on airplanes, because the FAA (Federal Aviation Association) is a federal agency, with medical marijuana is a violation of federal law, even if your state’s laws allow marijuana for medical use. However, I am not aware of any federal charges brought involving traveling with small quantities. When charges are filed, they are done by the state prosecutor’s offices.
Our law firm is bringing to the courts due process estoppel motions to dismiss all marijuana offenses involving the rights of patients due to the vagueness of medical marijuana laws. Therefore, they are so unfair that they deny patients due process of law.
BRUCE MARGOLIN is a criminal defense attorney based in West Hollywood since 1967. He has served as director of Los Angeles NORML since 1973 and helped write Proposition 215. You may reach him and his partner, Allison Margolin Esq., at (800) 420-LAWS (5297), (310) 276-2231or through their website at www.1800420laws.com.
