S
SmartGecko
Guest
What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA
After my possession case for marijuana was dismissed, I sought the return of my $250 marijuana bubbler (a bong-pipe, in essence) since a California Court of Appeals decision (4th district, div. 2 ) on April 8th of '03 seems to have asserted the legality of devices used to smoke marijuana. I want to know if, once the DA gets around to finially sending a release of property notice sometime next week to the Scotts Valley PD, I will have a case against the police dept. to get either my pipe back, or the $250+fees+extra expenses like gas b/c I now live in Reno, NV. I have spoken in detail with a seargent friend of mine who works there, as well as their property clerk. While the Sgt. was receptive, he said he couldnt do anything about it and the woman in charge of property was both discourteous and firm in her refusal to release it to me even once the notice is received, due to the fact that "resin" was inside it. Number 1, that "resin" is nothing more than gummed ash resulting from the water filtration, and Number 2, I don't even think resin matters b/c not only have police/ chp/ deputies on multiple stops and searches given my pipes back to me, full of resin, but the Appeals court decision seems to encompass all marijuana pipes, which would all be naturally resinated. Also, I offered to clean the piece spotlessly with isopropyl alcohol before they released it so as to assuage their concerns, yet they were still unreceptive to this idea, insitising they needed a release of prop. notice before they could even consider giving it back to me. Is this a small claims case due to the small amount of money involved? Do I even have a case against the dept.? I think the appeals court's docket number is E031600, if anyone is interested in looking at the complete decision. The last line in the court's decision reads "We therefore conclude that the possession of a device for smoking marijuana, without more, is not a crime in California." So... what now? Thank you greatly for your input,
Stefan Reich, 19
After my possession case for marijuana was dismissed, I sought the return of my $250 marijuana bubbler (a bong-pipe, in essence) since a California Court of Appeals decision (4th district, div. 2 ) on April 8th of '03 seems to have asserted the legality of devices used to smoke marijuana. I want to know if, once the DA gets around to finially sending a release of property notice sometime next week to the Scotts Valley PD, I will have a case against the police dept. to get either my pipe back, or the $250+fees+extra expenses like gas b/c I now live in Reno, NV. I have spoken in detail with a seargent friend of mine who works there, as well as their property clerk. While the Sgt. was receptive, he said he couldnt do anything about it and the woman in charge of property was both discourteous and firm in her refusal to release it to me even once the notice is received, due to the fact that "resin" was inside it. Number 1, that "resin" is nothing more than gummed ash resulting from the water filtration, and Number 2, I don't even think resin matters b/c not only have police/ chp/ deputies on multiple stops and searches given my pipes back to me, full of resin, but the Appeals court decision seems to encompass all marijuana pipes, which would all be naturally resinated. Also, I offered to clean the piece spotlessly with isopropyl alcohol before they released it so as to assuage their concerns, yet they were still unreceptive to this idea, insitising they needed a release of prop. notice before they could even consider giving it back to me. Is this a small claims case due to the small amount of money involved? Do I even have a case against the dept.? I think the appeals court's docket number is E031600, if anyone is interested in looking at the complete decision. The last line in the court's decision reads "We therefore conclude that the possession of a device for smoking marijuana, without more, is not a crime in California." So... what now? Thank you greatly for your input,
Stefan Reich, 19