NEWS: Upland medical marijuana cases may hinge on Anaheim case

UPLAND - Lawyers on both sides of the city's case against two medical marijuana cooperatives are holding their breath for a potentially game-changing ruling in an Anaheim case.
A three-year-long case against Anaheim by Qualified Patients Association could come to an end by Monday, setting a precedent by which judges may follow in future cases in the state.

Qualified Patients, an Anaheim-based medical marijuana dispensary sued the city in 2007, when the city was attempting to implement an ordinance banning all medical marijuana dispensaries.

Upland city officials are attempting to shut down G3 Holistic in the 1700 block of West Foothill Boulevard and Upland Herbal Patient Co-op in the 900 block of North Central Avenue.

City zoning rules prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.

"There doesn't really appear to be any legal reason the city shouldn't continue to win and since Upland's formal ordinance is very similar to Anaheim's - if they win, we win," said Upland City Attorney William Curley.

Upland has filed an injunction against the cooperatives aiming to shut them down before the trial. A hearing was held Tuesday for one of the cooperatives. Roger Jon Diamond, an attorney representing G3 and UHPC, requested the hearing be pushed until after the Anaheim ruling.

The hearing for the second cooperative was to be held Wednesday, but both judges agreed to wait until Aug. 13.

"I believe the cases are basically the same or at least similar enough that judge in Rancho would want to hear what the state appellate court has to say," said Diamond.
After Qualified Patients filed its lawsuit, the city was granted a demur, terminating the lawsuit. Qualified Patients appealed the decision in the Court of Appeals in Santa Ana.

The case was argued in the Court of Appeals in September and a ruling would have come 90 days later, but the court required further time to look over the case. A ruling is expected by Monday, which will be 90 days after the continuance.

"If the appellate court strikes down the Anaheim ordinance it will create a whole new playing field. It will change the medical marijuana landscape," said Anthony Curiale, the lawyer representing Qualified Patients in Anaheim.

Should Anaheim prevail, Curiale believes it will void the state's compassionate use act, which was approved by voters in 1996 to de-criminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"That essentially means cities regardless of what state law says, will be able to completely ban medical marijuana in their cities," he said.

State law permits the operation of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, which are required to follow a set of guidelines by the Attorney General's Office.

The use of medical marijuana is still prohibited under federal law, and some cities chose to side with the feds by banning dispensaries.

The outcome of the case could determine if the state's law could pre-empt all cities' bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, said Moses Johnson, Anaheim city attorney.

"It could be far reaching, but we're not going to know until we see it. It's a very complicated issue," Johnson said. The Court of Appeal had it for a long time and everybody's just anxiously awaiting for a ruling."

Medical marijuana patients filled the Upland City Hall council chambers Monday in support of the cooperatives.

Several members shared their personal stories and expressed their concerns over the possibly of their clubs being shut down.

Aaron Sandusky, president of G3 Holistic also spoke. He said 690 of his members live in Upland and that the cooperative has paid more than $80,000 in taxes since they opened in November.

"We've done a really good job," Sandusky said. "We've taken the Attorney General's guidelines and tightened them up even more. We make great strides in making sure that what we're doing is above board."

However, the council does not believe the majority of Upland residents would support the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city.

"It's kind of difficult because on one hand you feel for them and want to see them helped, on the other hand is helping them going to create a situation for people in our community which would not be a benefit to our children and would not be a benefit in other ways?" said Councilman Ken Willis.

Several Inland Empire cities - including Fontana, Claremont, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Montclair, San Bernardino, Yucaipa, Rialto and Redlands - also prohibit dispensaries as a possible land use.

Jan Werner, an operator of the Inland Empire Patients Group in Bloomington, hit several road blocks before opening a year ago.

Warner settled on the unincorporated town because so many cities had bans on dispensaries.

"It's really unfortunate that through the whole state, very few counties and very few cities have authorized the operation of the facilities," he said.

Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

NEWS: Fontana City Council passes resolution against pot proposition

FONTANA - The City Council approved a resolution Wednesday night against a November ballot proposition that would legalize marijuana for those 21 and over.


View Larger Map

Officials passed the resolution against Proposition 19, the so-called Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, which aims to legalize marijuana use in a similar way as alcohol.

The resolution was drafted by Police Chief Rodney Jones, with some language borrowed from the California Police Chiefs Association's talking points against the proposition.

It states that the proposition is little more than a complete legalization of marijuana.

"The parts that are really concerning is an employer cannot take action against an employee unless they show impairment," Jones said.

The resolution also says that billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies will be lost to the state because California employers will no longer be able to comply with the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act of 1998.

California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996 when they passed Proposition 215.

But local leaders throughout the state have struggled to balance the policy with a federal law that bans marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance.

Marijuana advocates maintain that besides its medicinal benefits, marijuana does not lead to violence like alcohol and other drugs.

Lanny Swerdlow, clinic manager of the THCF Medical Clinic in Riverside, said there are a variety of reasons why he supports the proposition, besides the potential tax revenue it would bring to local governments.

"There's a civil-rights issue," Swerdlow said. "The marijuana laws are unfairly enforced. What a waste of time for police and the courts that are overcrowded."

Swerdlow said that those who use marijuana typically cut back their use of alcohol. There will be an increase in marijuana use if the proposition passes, and that will be in direct proportion to the decrease of alcohol use, he said.

Jones said using marijuana for medical purposes is something that should be determined in the field of medical science, not in the ballot box.

"One of the points I think people are missing is we don't identify a medicine by a popular vote," he said.

Source: The Sun

NEWS: The Latest Fiscal Buzz? Medical Marijuana

Here's a sure sign that marijuana dispensaries are on their way to becoming big business: On July 13 the city council of Berkeley, Calif., asked voters to approve a 2.5 percent tax on the city's marijuana outlets, three of which grossed a total of $19 million last year, all cash. "This is huge," says Mayor Tom Bates. The tax will not only help close a $16.2 million budget gap, but it also makes sure that as the sale of pot goes mass market, the local community benefits, not outside business interests, Bates says. "We don't want to have Philip Morris coming in here, sucking up all the money."

Taxing pot sales is a growing trend across the nation as fiscally challenged cities eye the public's budding acceptance of marijuana use. Denver has generated $1.2 million since December, when the city began collecting sales taxes from its 256 dispensaries. On June 15, Washington, D.C., approved a 6 percent tax on what will eventually be five dispensaries.

Eighteen states now have laws allowing marijuana use for medical purposes. Nowhere is the revenue opportunity as large as in California. Therapeutic marijuana was originally intended to relieve cancer and AIDS patients' pain and nausea; California now allows it for insomnia, appetite loss, or any condition a licensed physician thinks marijuana would ease. The Board of Equalization, which supervises tax collection in the state, estimated in October that fully legalized marijuana consumption could generate $1.4 billion a year in state and local taxes. On the same night that Berkeley officials acted, the Sacramento City Council passed a similar measure, and the city of Long Beach adopted one on July 6.

More Golden State communities may follow if California voters approve a ballot initiative in November that would make it legal to possess an ounce or less of marijuana for recreational use. That measure, known as Proposition 19, allows cities to regulate and tax recreational uses of pot. Recent polls suggest voters are evenly divided in their support for it, although Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on July 12 said she would oppose the measure. If the initiative passes, marijuana advocates and researchers describe a scenario in which drug tourism floods the state, resulting in tasting rooms and specialized bed and breakfasts in the Northern California counties of Mendocino and Humboldt, where the plant is cultivated.

Marijuana advocates are conflicted. They want to see more respectability for the drug and at the same time don't want to pay more for it. "We're struggling with this," says Kris Hermes, legal campaign director at Americans for Safe Access, an Oakland (Calif.)-based nonprofit. "We know local governments are cash-strapped and looking for creative ways to raise revenue." Others see taxation as a sign of progress. "Citizens pay taxes, criminals don't," says Steve DeAngelo, the executive director of the Harborside HealthCenter, a marijuana dispensary in Oakland that campaigned for and won a marijuana tax in that city last year. "We should step up to the plate and pay our fair share."

The bottom line: Cash-strapped cities increasingly are turning to marijuana dispensaries to raise tax revenue and close budget gaps.

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek

NEWS: Supes approve medical marijuana zoning, ordinance in San Diego

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the county’s Zoning Ordinance to cover medical marijuana facilities and also approved a regulatory ordinance for the licensing and operation requirements for such facilities.

The county supervisors approved the first reading and introduction of the regulatory ordinance June 23 and the second reading and adoption June 30. Both votes were by 4-1 margins with Supervisor Ron Roberts in opposition. A Zoning Ordinance amendment does not require a second reading and takes effect immediately, and the zoning component was approved June 30 on the 4-1 vote. The regulatory ordinance will take effect July 30.

"I think that what staff has brought before us is probably the best that we can do," said Supervisor Dianne Jacob.

Some public speakers opposed the ordinance as being too strict while others felt it was too lenient.

"I didn’t hear a lot of unqualified support for what’s before us," Jacob said.

In November 1996 the state’s voters passed Proposition 215, which allows the cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes, although under federal law the sale of marijuana for any purpose is illegal. Proposition 215 did not

address the sale of medical marijuana, although in 2003 the state legislature adopted Senate Bill 420, which prohibits prosecution of sales to persons with a prescription. Those authorized to possess or cultivate marijuana for personal medical purposes

include qualified patients, primary caregivers, and patients and caregivers who associate to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.

By August 2009 three medical marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated San Diego County were confirmed: two in Spring Valley and one in unincorporated Vista. On August 5, 2009, the Board of Supervisors adopted an urgency ordinance which enacted a moratorium on all new marijuana dispensaries. The moratorium was

intended to allow county staff time to study where such dispensaries should be allowed and determine appropriate use regulations.

A workgroup including staff members from the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU), County Counsel, and the Sheriff’s Department worked to develop two companion ordinances, the regulatory and the zoning measures, to regulate medical marijuana facilities.

In 2001 DPLU granted an administrative permit for a topless dancing facility in unincorporated El Cajon across from a shopping center which included a children’s dance studio, an arcade, and a pizza parlor. In response to that situation, in 2002 the county supervisors amended the Zoning Ordinance to remove commercial zoning areas as potential sites for adult entertainment businesses and limit adult establishments not

grandfathered to land with industrial M50, M52, M54, and M58 zoning.

The adult entertainment ordinance also prohibited such establishments within 500 feet of a residential area, 600 feet of a school, church, or public park, or 1,000 feet from another adult entertainment establishment.

The zoning for medical marijuana dispensary facilities limits such dispensaries to the same M50, M52, M54, and M58 land as adult entertainment facilities while imposing separation requirements of 1,000 feet from each other, a church, school, public park, or residential area.

DPLU identified 187 possible industrial properties, although the 1,000-foot separation from other dispensaries reduces that number to between 15 and 25

sites. Although the county has a C46 Medical Center zoning category intended to create a concentration of medical and compatible uses, permitted civic uses in areas with C46 zoning include child care services and small schools as well as medical services. The allowance for medical-related facilities in C46 zones is not absolute; ambulance services are only allowed with a Major Use Permit. All development in C46 zones must have a site plan.

The restriction to industrial areas also makes cultivation facilities more compatible with surrounding businesses. The cultivation process requires heavy Advertisement

Youngren Construction Inc. electrical, air venting and circulation, fertilizing, and water usage requirements for which commercial buildings might not be suitable.

The Zoning Ordinance also requires dispensaries to be designed and constructed so that no area or portion where marijuana is cultivated or stored can be visible from the exterior while requiring the entrance to be visible from the public street. Dispensaries in commercial locations established prior to the moratorium must cease operations at that site prior to August 1, 2013, while facilities which opened illegally after the moratorium was enacted do not have such an amortization period.

Medical marijuana dispensaries do not require discretionary permits but will require building permits, licenses, and other ministerial authorizations.

Due to free speech issues the county cannot regulate the content of signage, although signage as well as parking requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries must conform to regulations for other businesses with similar zoning.

The county’s Planning Commission recommended distances equal to those stipulated in the adult entertainment ordinance, although the county supervisors reinstated the 1,000-foot separations proposed by DPLU staff.

"I just believe a thousand feet is a better distance requirement," Jacob said.

The ordinance to amend the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances involves law enforcement and was not covered in the May 14 Planning Commission hearing which focused on the zoning amendment.

The regulatory amendments include an operating certificate requirement which involves processing through the Sheriff’s Department licensing division and includes form submission, background checks and fee payment. Infrastructure requirements to ensure public safety include alarms, closed-circuit television, door, window, and visibility standards.

Operating requirements include record-keeping designed to show that the facility is operating as a non-profit collective and serving qualified patients; other operating requirements include hours of operation, age limitations, security guard presence, and prohibitions against on-site ingestion and the sale of food or drink containing marijuana.

"If they’re out of compliance with the new regulations, then they have no protection under either California law or Federal law," said Commander E.J. Pendergast of the Sheriff’s Department.

The County of San Diego does not have land use jurisdiction in incorporated cities.

"The cities have their own regulations," said Supervisor Pam Slater-Price.

The industrial zoning requirement and 1,000-foot restrictions led to the identification of sites in Ramona, Lakeside, Alpine, San Dieguito, unincorporated El Cajon, Julian, Borrego, and Spring Valley. Advocates of medical marijuana questioned the terrain and access of the sites.

"You’re lumping medical marijuana patients with the purveyors and patrons of porn," said Martha Sullivan of Del Mar.

The Lakeside sites are near Slaughterhouse Canyon and the San Vicente Dam. "It’s halfway between the 67 and Poway. There’s no public access. There’s no buses," said Lakeside resident Adela Falk. "It’s on a dirt road."

DPLU deputy director Jeff Murphy notes that the sites have both vehicular access and utility access.

"We feel that these sites meet that criteria," he said. "We’re not required to

identify sites and buildings which are turnkey ready."

Tom Hetherington, who owns a business in Bonsall, noted that the fees are necessary for enforcement.

"Money’s a big issue," he said. "I’m concerned about making rules and regulations that you won’t or can’t enforce."

Chemotherapy veteran Donna Lambert believes that the fees are overly restrictive.

"It’s the job of the local jurisdiction to facilitate the safe and affordable distribution," she said. "The high fees will encourage cartels and drug profiteers to be

the only groups who can afford to operate."

Lambert told the county supervisors that patients who are sick will need exemptions from the fees and that the fees could be waived under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"I’m more concerned than ever that what we’re doing is the wrong thing," Roberts said.

Source: The Fallbrook Village News

VIDEO: Joshua Krane's testimony on a medical marijuana ban in unincorporated areas of LA County

Joshua Krane testifies on medical marijuana collective ban in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Meeting on July 6, 2010.

NEWS: Big union supports California measure to legalize marijuana

The council that oversees the political work of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union endorses Proposition 19 on the November ballot, giving proponents a significant campaign boost.

Proponents of the marijuana legalization initiative on the November ballot won the endorsement Wednesday of the council that oversees the political work of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in California, as well as one of the union's major locals, giving proponents a significant boost to their campaign.

They also had hoped to win the endorsement of the California Labor Federation, which met this week in San Diego, but decided not to press for a vote and settled instead on persuading the powerful organization to remain neutral — which it did.

"Obviously, I would have liked to have had a full endorsement," said Dan Rush, who oversees special operations for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5, and has pushed efforts to gain union support for the measure. But he noted that the neutral stance means the 1,200 member unions are now free to endorse the initiative, and contribute money and campaign volunteers.

» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

"I'm expecting to garner the endorsements of most of the major unions in California over the next several weeks," Rush said.

Proposition 19 would allow adults 21 and older to possess, grow and transport marijuana, and it would allow cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial sales. It also would allow the production of hemp, which union leaders believe could generate thousands of agricultural jobs.

The union's Local 5 has assigned Rush to work on the initiative.

"I'll be handling the strategy to bring in other unions, and their endorsements and resources," he said.

The local has about 26,000 members in California and has launched efforts to organize workers in the expanding marijuana industry, counting about 100 as members.

The local, along with the union's Western States Council, which works with union locals in California and four other states to coordinate political activities, endorsed Proposition 19.

George Landers, the council's executive director, said in a statement that the endorsement was a natural outgrowth of the council's support for the medical marijuana initiative in 1996.

"We view Proposition 19 as an enhanced version of the previous proposition that creates taxable revenue, and produces jobs in agriculture, healthcare, retail and possibly textile," he said.

The state's unions, if they decided to commit substantial money and hours, could play a major role in the campaign. Besides money, union workers often operate phone banks and walk door-to-door.

The union support also helps the proponents underscore one of their main messages: that marijuana ought to be treated as a business that could create jobs and bring in much needed new tax revenues.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Tax Marijuana Only If It’s For Recreation

Long Beach’s City Council will decide, probably next week, whether to ask the voters if the city should tax medicinal marijuana collectives — and outlets selling recreational marijuana, should the state’s voters decide to legalize that use.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. It never is. For example, the tax would be a business license fee because the city gets to keep all of that, whereas a sales tax is split between the city, county and state. It seems clear, though, that the consumer ultimately pays the bill in all cases.

City officials are fairly straightforward about the motive for the timing of this effort. A decision has to be made in November if the city wants to capture tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales as soon as possible, should that use be legalized. If the tax isn’t in place, it has to wait until the next election.

But it is easier to pass a tax on something that already exists, so medicinal marijuana gets involved. And that’s the rub, at least as far as we’re concerned.

Several council members attempted to differentiate between medicinal and recreational marijuana during the first debate about the tax. It appears likely that there would be a different, higher rate of taxation on recreational marijuana versus medical marijuana — city staff suggested 10% versus 5%, while Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’Donnell (a teacher) went further, looking for 15%.

Those percentages would be charged on gross income. We’re not sure how the business license fee would be calculated the first year, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

Here’s where it the moral argument comes in. Advocates of medical marijuana argue that no taxes are charged currently on prescription drugs, and medicinal marijuana currently is a prescription drug. Why should marijuana be singled out?

The strongest argument is the one left unspoken — that for the majority of users, the whole medicinal marijuana approach is simply a smokescreen for people who want to get high without risk. The documented ease with which many get prescriptions, and the number of cooperatives in operation before Los Angeles and Long Beach (among others) moved to regulate them, adds credence to this belief.

We believe that there are legitimate uses for marijuana as a medicine, and plenty of people who benefit from its availability for that purpose. Further, we believe that legitimate medicinal use should not be taxed.

It follows that, according to the law, current marijuana cooperatives should not be subject to an additional business license fee. The proper approach to abuse of the law would be enforcement of the law — strong oversight of prescription writers, etc., — not taxation of all involved.

So does that leave the cash-strapped city looking for every potential revenue source out of luck when it comes to marijuana? Hardly.

There is established precedent for ballot issues formatted in a “if that happens, this will happen” structure. A prime example is the concurrent vote on a recall and a replacement for the person being recalled. “If Gray Davis is recalled as governor, I vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him.” If the Davis recall had been unsuccessful, the votes for Schwarzenegger would not have meant anything.

We support the concept of taxing recreational marijuana, should it be legalized, and we definitely support the effort of Long Beach to get its fair share. That can be accomplished with a straightforward if-then proposition, putting the process of taxing marijuana outlets in place if, and only if, the voters legalize its use.

If the state proposition passes, we predict the state will lose little time in passing a sales tax similar to that on alcohol or tobacco. It makes sense for Long Beach to try to get at the head of the line.

We’re not sure how medicinal marijuana will be differentiated from recreational marijuana, should both become legal.

We’re told that there would be a difference based on strains and specific effects, so there still will be grounds for specific medical use.

If that’s the case, we still would oppose taxation of medicinal marijuana. If you don’t tax some prescription medicine, don’t tax any prescription medicine

Finally, it’s important to be honest with the voters. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a ballot proposition that actually asks to do what its proponents want to do?

Source: Gazettes Town-News

A PATIENT STORY: I’m Broke. I Need My Keys.

On August 3, 2009, Colin Kent app-roached the front door of his home in the Lakefront Mobile Home Park in Lakeside that he shared with his middle-aged son to find an eviction notice. Kent, who was 88, had just returned home from a meeting with his son’s probation officer at which his son had been arrested on an outstanding felony warrant. Unable to drive and with his primary caregiver in custody, Kent had called a friend for a ride home.

The eviction notice was taped to the aluminum siding. Kent tried to insert his key into the lock, but it wouldn’t fit. The lock was broken and the door was stuck. After several attempts, he pried the door open. He stepped inside and found his home in disarray: furniture on its side, papers scattered across the floor, his son’s guitars thrown on the ground, boxes of belongings upended, the contents spilling out on the floor.

“The house was in shambles. The beds were all torn apart. The drawers were all pulled out. Everything was strewn all over,” said Kent during a June 10 interview at his new mobile home on Los Coches Road East, north of El Cajon. Kent sat at a small dining room table near the kitchen. On the walls of the mobile home were wooden carvings of birds. Two medals Kent received while serving in the Canadian Army during World War II hung on the living room wall.

“I thought we’d been burglarized, you see,” recalled Kent. “They tore the bloody place apart.” His voice quivered and his hands trembled as he described the scene. Kent, a former employee of Host International at Lindbergh Field, was tall despite a slouch in his back. His full head of white hair was combed straight back. He wore cutoff shorts and a white pinstriped button-down shirt. His rolled-up sleeves revealed black and blue freckles and scars on both arms. The octogenarian said he was prone to diabetic seizures. He was quick to let you know his age and his ailments but did so in a joking manner.

His son Christopher stood in the kitchen wearing shorts and a tank top. His straight, gray hair hung to his shoulders. He fidgeted while his father described that day last August.

Once inside his home, Kent stepped over the objects on the floor and went straight to his bedroom to check his safe, where he kept his most valuable possessions: the pieces of jewelry that he and his wife, who passed away in 2006, had purchased for each other during their 65-year marriage; rare coins that he collected; and what he called Hummels, decorative porcelain figurines his wife had purchased during their trips to Europe. Kent kept the keys to the safe’s many compartments in a copper tray on top of his desk. The keys were missing. He searched his home but couldn’t find them.

“I was panicky. You know, I’m old,” said Kent. “I didn’t know who the hell to call.”

He called the sheriff’s department to report the break-in. The dispatcher looked up his address and informed him that his house was not burglarized but was searched by federal agents.

The search came 13 months after Christopher, frustrated that a judge had denied his disability claim, had placed a call to the federal Office of Disability Adjudication and Review and left a message threatening the judge. According to an investigation report from the district attorney’s office, Christopher’s message was as follows: “Tell him I’m going to f*ing kill him. He will die if he doesn’t get out of town soon, and I mean soon.”

Christopher was charged under California penal code section 422, criminal threat. While he was being arrested, an investigator from the district attorney’s office and three federal agents from the Federal Protective Service — an agency under the Department of Homeland Security tasked with protecting federal buildings and the people inside them — entered Kent’s mobile home. Once inside, agents seized property from the residence. Later that day, four items were logged into court inventory. Those four items included one Sears Roebuck .22 LR rifle, a Ruger .22 LR pistol with a magazine clip with six rounds of ammo, one “green tinted pill bottle with a green, leafy substance inside,” and one medical marijuana identification card issued to Christopher Kent.

According to a “Municipal Court of California” inventory document, no keys were confiscated.

Colin Kent believed that the document was inaccurate. And he said the rifle and pistol belonged to him, not his son. But because of Christopher’s prior conviction, he was prohibited from having access to guns.

“They haven’t been fired in 30 or 40 years,” said Colin Kent. “I bought the rifle from Sears for $18, and one of my sons gave me the Ruger as a gift 35 years ago. But I don’t really care about the guns, anyways. I want my keys. I need money. I need to get in my safe so I can buy my medicine. I’m diabetic. I have seizures. I don’t even know what’s in the safe anymore. I have no idea what they took. I don’t know where my property is.”

One week after federal agents searched his home, Kent called the district attorney’s office to ask about his keys. “The district attorney told me to get a locksmith. I am broke, you see. I live off of Social Security, and it’s not enough. Plus, a locksmith won’t make those types of keys.”

In the following months, Kent wrote letters to California attorney general Jerry Brown. He called the Department of Homeland Security but didn’t receive a response. He wrote to Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, yet again his queries were unanswered. Kent and his son went to the FBI field office on Aero Drive.

“They wouldn’t let me in the building,” said Kent. “They sent a lady out to talk to us. She said she’d look into it and call me. They never did. They wanted nothing to do with me. I’m broke. I need my keys.”

On June 15, Kent received a letter from the state attorney general’s office. “We regret that we are unable to assist you,” said the letter, suggesting that Kent write to senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

In a June 16 email, Matt Chandler, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, responded to questions about the case. “In August 2009, Department of Homeland Security Federal Protective Service officials served a criminal warrant to an individual wanted for threatening a judge,” wrote Chandler. “Several items were confiscated, including firearms the individual was not allowed to possess due to a prior felony conviction. All confiscated items were cataloged according to protocol and an inventory was filed with the court. Federal Protective Service has no record of the aforementioned keys being confiscated.”

When asked if Kent would be allowed to retrieve his property or look for his keys in inventory, Chandler responded: “We do not have any further comment. If you need further information, I would suggest contacting the San Diego District Attorney’s Office.”

In a series of emails, Paul Levikow, spokesperson for the San Diego County district attorney’s office, directed all questions back to the Department of Homeland Security. “We were not the impounding agency, rather our District Attorney Investigator assisted the federal officers tasked with protection of administrative courts,” he wrote.

Asked if the district attorney’s office has a record of Kent’s requests for his property. Levikow responded, “No.”

When asked where the confiscated items were taken, Levikow responded, “DHS.”

On June 16, sitting at his small dining room table, Kent appeared frail. He held the letter from Attorney General Brown’s office and copies of the letters he wrote to the Department of Homeland Security. He was discouraged and convinced that he would never get answers from public officials. He said he had run out of options.

“I don’t think I’ll ever be getting my keys back,” said Kent. “It pisses me off. I am entitled to my property. It’s the law, but I can’t enforce it.”

Colin Kent died on June 29 after suffering a diabetic seizure.

Source: San Diego Reader