City SPD and Prosecutor’s Office Blame Each Other for Seized Pot
posted by on July 23 at 15:54 PM
The Seattle Police Department and the King County prosecutor’s office have been pointing fingers at each other, trying to explain why the marijuana seized from an authorized medical marijuana patient last week still hasn’t been returned. (Background is over here.) In a nutshell, Seattle police searched Martin Martinez’s storefront on The Ave on July 15 looking for pot plants. They didn’t find any, but they did seize 12 ounces of Martinez’s pot, a laptop, and hundreds of pages of medical records for patients involved in a medical-marijuana group.
But, in a statement last week, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg announced that “no criminal charges should be brought against the person renting that commercial space.” He added, “[T]he amount of pot within Martinez’s possession was “arguably within the ’60-day supply’ permitted by [the medical marijuana] statute.”
SPD returned the computer and medical records last week. So why not the pot?
Yesterday, SPD spokeswoman Renee Witt told me that officers hadn’t returned the pot because Martinez’s cases was “an open and active investigation.” Therefore, she said, any further questions had to be directed to Satterberg’s office. I informed her that the prosecutor’s office wasn’t charging Martinez and they believed his pot was legit. Witt said she would call me back.
She left a voicemail, clarifying—but not really. Said Witt: “After making our initial arrest and drug seizure, we forwarded the case to the prosecutor’s offices for charges and they declined. So, at this point, again, any inquiries would be directed to their office.”
Does this mean SPD was still investigating based on evidence that hadn’t gone to the prosecutor’s office? That would be strange—the search warrant (shaky as it was) was based on probable cause that Martinez was growing pot. Even after ripping out a wall, police didn’t find any plants. But if SPD did recover additional evidence, they would have presumably given it to the prosecutor’s office and there could be an ongoing case. So I took Witt’s advice and called the prosecutor’s office. I asked, “Is your office pursuing this case?”
“No,” says prosecutor’s office spokesman Dan Donohoe. “We’ve already decided that there will be no criminal charges.” That’s what I thought, I told him, but SPD says calls about the unreturned marijuana should go to his office. “On the return of the marijuana,” he says, “you need to contact SPD on that question.”
Seriously? I just talked to the SPD and was told to call Donohoe. So Donohoe said he’d get back to me. And moments later, my phone rang. It was Sergeant Sean Whitcomb from SPD.
“The marijuana is still in our evidence section,” says Whitcomb. “We are reviewing the marijuana’s final disposition.” He can’t say exactly how long it will be until SPD returns the marijuana to Martinez, who suffers from intractable nerve pain caused by cranial damage he suffered in a motorcycle accident, but estimates it will be within a week. He says the pot wasn’t returned along with the other items because it is a controlled substance; the SPD is investigating whether returning it would conflict with any laws. In an email plea asking supporters to call Chief Kerlikowske, Martinez wrote: “There is no investigation, and the property must be returned. We will be forced to sue for this action if police do not comply with the law.”
The SPD will be no doubt happy to know that they needn’t face a lawsuit nor ponder the issue another moment. Courts and police departments in medical marijuana states have been returning marijuana without any legal problems. So if Martinez doesn’t get his pot back within a week, he should do what these medical marijuana patients are doing: sue.
4:40 PM UPDATE: I just got a call from Douglas Hiatt, the attorney for Martin Martinez, who is prepared to sue. “I think it’s pretty clear from precedent in other states that the marijuana should be returned,” says Hiatt. He cites cases in California and Oregon that indicate no conflict with federal law. “I expect to file a motion next week if they don’t return it,” says Hiatt. “Probably wait until next Monday.”
This is all code because the cops already smoked it or sold it to their friends.
I know this isn't really on topic, but can anyone explain why University Way is called the Ave? It's been bugging me literally all my life.
Oh yeah, and I hope the guy gets his pot back.
That's like $2400 worth of weed. I hope the cops are keeping it sealed in jars in a freezer.
One thing that no one, at least that I've seen, has brought up is what does Martinez's landlord think of all this? If he knows and is ok with it, that's great, but his landlord could potentially kick him out of the space for this. Possession of marijuana is still a crime, at least federally, and most leases are voided by criminal conduct occurring on the premises. I wonder if the goal of the SPD was to get him kicked out by his landlord? I can't imagine that the landlord would be able to keep that building insured if his insurance company knew that one of the tenants was consistently and regularly bringing illegal drugs onto the premises, even if the local and state governments deem it ok.
#2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ave
max @3's $2400 estimate is much lower than the guess from the last thread, but my response is basically the same.
@4 the point here is that it is not a crime.
who pays for the destroyed wall? the pd, right, ie: taxpayers, right?
I wish they'd stop fighting and slip me some. I'm out.
@2 It was originally 14th Ave. before it was renamed University Wy.
Someone needs to get a recall petition ...
And get some police on who is leaving dog poo on my parking strip! That's supposed to be a higher priority than MJ smokers according to our LAWS.
in this sort of situation, the cops get bud, and return leaf, stems and seeds
wait and see you all, I told you so
of course, no corruption in our law enforcement
informed sources tell me the cops do not like Satterberg .... seems to be in play here
nice reporting Dom .... all that Hempfest work is paying off in the new gig
I want to know:
1. Did the cops pay to repair the damage to the wall?
2. Was there a judge who signed the warrant, and if so does that judge have any explanation why it was issued?
3. Do the police have any comment as to why the money was spent on this low-priority raid?
SPD Chief Gil Kerlikowski will be on KUOW's Weekday at 10:00 a.m. today (Thursday, July 24, 2008). Maybe he can provide some answers.
@7
My point was that a federal crime is still a crime. Based on what's happened, the landlord is probably within his legal rights to tell Martinez to get the fuck out, and the landlord's insurance company is within their legal rights to cancel the insurance for the whole building.
I'm not saying any of that is morally right, but what I was positing was those reasons right there may be why the SPD and the prosecutors office raided in the first place. Essentially to make it practically impossible for Martinez to stay.
@ 15) The federal illegality of marijuana is applicable generally only in cases that would be charged and tried in federal court. Although some cases could be appealed to a federal court, it's a safe bet that any landlord tenant dispute would be litigated or prosecuted at the state level, where Washington's Medical Use of Marijuana Act is the law of the land.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.