Jeff Rodrigs, Eugene Schoenfeld v. City of Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, Mike Friebel, James Hart
Published: Jun. 29, 2002 | Result Date: Apr. 15, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV139674 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
Santa Cruz Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The plaintiff Rodrigs stated that on Oct. 8, 1999, he contacted the Capitola Police Dept. to report a theft regarding
his marijuana plant. He reported to the co-defendant, Officer Friebel, that one of his plants had been stolen
from his backyard.
Officer Friebel went to the plaintiffÆs house to investigate the theft. In the backyard, the officer noticed several
large marijuana plants measuring one to eight feet in height, being cultivated by the plaintiff.
The police officer also observed that the plaintiff had in open view in his house about 3 pounds of marijuana in
various stages of processing.
The plaintiff told the officer he used the marijuana for the treatment of his medical condition, multiple sclerosis
and that he had a prescription for its use.
The plaintiff told Friebel that he used approximately one-eighth of an ounce of marijuana daily. Based on his
calculation that the plaintiff would require only 2.8 pounds of marijuana per year and that the large quantity of
marijuana present at the plaintiffÆs residence far exceeded the plaintiffÆs annual personal needs (the standard
under the Compassionate Use Act) (Health & Safety Code Section 113652.5) the officer contacted the Santa
Cruz County SheriffÆs Marijuana Enforcement Team and returned to the plaintiffÆs property on Oct. 13, 1999
with the co-defendant Jim Hart of the sheriffÆs Department.
The plaintiff showed the defendant Friebel his scale for weighing marijuana. When asked why he possessed a
quantity of marijuana far in excess of his annual personal needs, the plaintiff told the defendants that he gave
marijuana to his friends.
The defendants believed that the plaintiff was in violation of Health & Safety Code Sections 11358 and 11359
for possession and cultivation of marijuana. RodrigsÆ admission of giving marijuana to his friends was also a
violation of Health & Safety Code Section 11360 (distribution).
Rodrigs gave consent for Friebel to remove the marijuana from his house. Based on the large quantity of
marijuana present, the amount of marijuana required by Rodrigs for his medical use, and RodrigsÆ admission
that he gives marijuana to friends, the co-defendant Friebel confiscated all of the growing marijuana plants
from the backyard, all of the marijuana inside the house, as well as the scale and a book on marijuana
cultivation. The total weight of the marijuana (dried, stem, plants, etc.) was 84 pounds.
Friebel took all of the confiscated materials to the Capitola Police Dept. where he marked some samples of the
substance for evidence and marked the remaining large amount of marijuana for destruction.
A large quantity of RodrigsÆ marijuana was destroyed on Nov. 16, 1999 pursuant to a court order and
CapitolaÆs standard operating procedures for the destruction of contraband.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration removed all of the evidence samples of RodrigÆs marijuana from
Capitola, according to its standard procedure.
At summary judgment, the court ruled the Compassionate Use Act provides only an affirmative defense to
criminal charges, not a private right of action in tort against public entities and employees for confiscation
and/or destruction of marijuana.
The court also ruled that the statutory scheme created no mandatory duties for governmental employees or
entities, and that no cause of action for damages was proper for alleged due process violations under the
California Constitution.
Furthermore, the court found that both law enforcement officers were immune from suit.
The plaintiff Schoenfeld stated that he was described by the co-defendant Hart as a "quack" in reference to Dr.
SchoenfeldÆs recommendation that the co-plaintiff use marijuana.
Others at the scene denied hearing the co-defendant making such remarks.
The defendant contended that HartÆs alleged statement was found to be constitutionally-
protected opinion, and not defamatory.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $150,000 on Nov. 12, 2001 prior to any depositions.
Damages
The plaintiff Rodrigs claimed emotional distress, property damage and punitive damages. Rodrigs sought street value of the marijuana (approximately $32,000 based on $4,000 per pound for his admitted eight pounds of marijuana). The plaintiff Schoenfeld sought general and special damages, lost profits and punitive damages.
Other Information
At summary judgment the court ruled the Compassionate Use Act provided only an affirmative defense to criminal prosecution, not a private right of action in tort against public entities and employees for confiscation and/or destruction of marijuana. The court also ruled that the statutory scheme created no mandatory duties for governmental employees or entities, and that no cause of action for damages was proper for alleged due process violations under the California Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found that both law enforcement officers were immune from suit. As for the plaintiff Schoenfeld, at summary judgment, the plaintiff attempted to use a declaration establishing that the co-defendant Hart had made other statements about him, at other times, none of which were included in the plaintiffÆs complaint. The court ruled that the declaration was untrustworthy, without foundation and was procedurally defective and therefore inadmissible. This case is considered novel - a medical marijuana user seeking tort damages relating to the confiscation of his marijuana.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390