BlogTalkRadio uses cookies. By using our services, you're agreeing to our Cookies Policy. Got it

Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have changed. We think you'll like them better this way.

Fontana Defacto Cultivation Ban Eviscerated by Court

  • Broadcast in News
Marijuana Compassion Common Sense

Marijuana Compassion Common Sense

×  

Follow This Show

If you liked this show, you should follow Marijuana Compassion Common Sense.
h:724619
s:11060511
archived

A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge has eviscerated an ordaninance enacted by the city of Fontana that was so onerous and resitrictive that it was effectively a defacto ban. In the two years it was in force, not one single resident applied for a permit to cultivate the six plants indoors as permitted under Prop. 64.

A lawsuit filed on behalf of Fontana resident Micheal Harris by the Drug Policy Alliance and the ACLU contended that the ordinance contradicts state law, sets unreasonable personal conduct and growing space restrictions and charges an arbitrarily high fee to obtain and renew a permit.

That the intent of the Fontana ordiance was to restrict rather then regulate was made clear in January when City Manager Ken Hunt told council members “It is our intent behind this that this ordinance is not a permissive regulation, it is a restrictive regulation, By adopting this, you are placing more restrictions on the personal growth of marijuana.”

Judge Cohn agreed the ordinance was too restrictive and was not "reasonable" as required by Prop. 64. Among the many provisions the judged tossed included the need to have a separate room for growing, paying for fingerprinting/background checks, having no felony convictions within the previous five years, having no outstanding payments due to the city, obtaining a landlord’s permission to grow as well as the permitting fee itself.

Mike Harris, the victorious plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose appearance on the previous show explained the background of the ordinance and the lawsuit, now illuminates what happened during the trial on Oct. 5, the arguements made by the attorneys from BB&K on behalf of Fontana, the arugements put forth by his lawyers and the subsequent rulling by Judge Cohn invalidating most of the ordinance.

What it all means is explained with an analysis of what is expected next.

Comments