MATTHEW S. PAPPAS A T T O R N E Y

1719 E. BROADWAY

E-MAIL: LONG BEACH, CA 90802 (949) 382-1485 OFFICE@MATTPAPPASLAW.COM FACSIMILE: (949) 382-1512

August 30, 2015 VIA U.S. MAIL, E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE Shasta County Board of Supervisors 1450 Court St # 308B Redding, CA 96001 Re: Medical Marijuana Outdoor Cultivation Ban Dear Board of Supervisor members: It has come to my attention that the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department has been engaged in regular raids of outdoor medical marijuana cultivation sites following the passage of a county initiative banning the outdoor growing of marijuana. In any area not related to medical cannabis, counties and cities in California seem to generally understand the taking of a property right without compensation violates basic constitutional principles. Here, this previously conforming use by hundreds of cultivating patients that has been ongoing and allowed for many years has been deemed non-conforming. When a city or county makes non-conforming a previously conforming use of property, it must either pay compensation for the taking or provide amortization, normally two to three years, for the property owner. Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1519. In this case, no such compensation has been offered nor has there been an adequate amortization period based on the recent passage of the code section in question. A similar issue to the one here has been previously determined by a federal court in Santa Barbara Patients’ Collective Health Cooperative v. City of Santa Barbara (2010) 911 F.Supp.2d 884. In addition to the property right taking issue, the Sheriff’s Department has been engaged in these raids without warrants or with warrants that mislead the magistrates or judges signing them in order to show there is a felony taking place on the respective properties being raided. Indeed, the affiants swearing out these warrants are well-aware

Shasta County Board of Supervisors August 30, 2015 Page Two there is no probable cause to believe felonies are occurring. Moreover, the Sheriff’s reliance on a county ordinance that attempts to convey a right to enter onto property and search as well as seize property without a warrant is improper -- a county ordinance cannot override the state or federal constitutions. Each of the deputies swearing under penalty of perjury that they have basis to believe there is a felony afoot knowing there is not should be subject to perjury charges. Those deputies, the Sheriff and you know the activities on the properties are not felonious and you further know the Sheriff is enforcing a municipal code section that, at maximum, carries with it, upon conviction, a small fine and results in misdemeanor liability. Knowing this, the Sheriff has dispatched deputies in military gear carrying assault weapons who enter onto property with guns drawn as if a serious felony is in progress. In terms of these excessive force raids, Robinson v. Solano County (9th Cir. 2002) 278 F.3d 1007 helps illustrate the principle that less serious crimes do not justify an officer’s display and pointing of a weapon absent an immediate threat. In that case, the police seized an apparently unarmed 64-year-old man, a retired police officer, at gunpoint. The former officer lived in a farmhouse on five acres of land and owned various livestock. He had apparently shot two dogs belonging to his neighbor after observing them attacking and killing livestock on his property, which was surrounded by a fence. He killed one dog and wounded the other and then went off his land with his shotgun looking for the wounded dog. When police came to his home later, he went out to talk with them while unarmed. He claimed he was calm but the officers reported he was agitated. He complied with their orders to put his hands up while an officer pointed his gun at him. Then an officer thrust his pointed gun within three or four feet of his head. The ex-officer was then handcuffed and placed in a police vehicle for a few minutes while officers talked to neighbors. The Ninth Circuit found that none of the factors justifying the use of force were present. The crime being investigated was “at most a misdemeanor,” and the suspect was apparently unarmed and approaching the officers peacefully. The court held the police officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment by pointing the firearm at Robinson. Even more concerning are the warrant affidavits sworn out by deputies where they know there is no felony taking place on the property in question. “The Fourth Amendment is violated when a facially valid search warrant contains deliberate or reckless omissions of facts that tend to mislead.” Garcia v. County of Merced (9th Cir

Shasta County Board of Supervisors August 30, 2015 Page Three 2011) 639 F.3d 1206, 1212. “Just as the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches generally, so too does it prohibit a search conducted pursuant to an ill-begotten or otherwise invalid warrant.” Bravo v. City of Santa Maria (9th Cir 2011) 665 F.3d 1076, 1083. “Even when only a portion of a search warrant is invalid, the subject of the search suffers a constitutional violation.” Millender v. County of L.A. (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 1016, 1024 (en banc). There is no basis for the continuing violation of these property owners’ rights. The plants that have been destroyed by the County are subject not only to equitable actions for replevin and compensation quantum valedum, but also for legal claims related to the vested rights of property owners who have had their previously established conforming use made non-conforming through legislative action. Likewise, the seizures by the Sheriff without warrants or based on warrants that are misleading or that recklessly omit facts have already and will continue to subject county taxpayers to significant pecuniary liability. To date, these takings exceed $20,000,000.00. I have further estimated damages for constitutional violations of property owners who have lost or sold their property based on the passage of your ban ordinance without compensation or amortization provisions to be as much or more. Recently, I’ve been at odds with the Santa Ana Police Department because of a totally inappropriate raid of the Sky High Holistic medical cannabis collective in that city. There, hundreds of thousands of dollars of property damage was done by officers for what was solely alleged violation of a local city ordinance that is the same in terms of severity and purpose as one requiring a permit for a sign. While I’ve filed cases against the City of Santa Ana in that case for compensation, your Sheriff recently requested military gear, including what looks to be a military tank, in addition to the assault weapons and military style tools he is already using, to further support an effort to enforce what is simply a municipal ordinance. There is no basis for the militarization of local police officers. It is only because this issue involves cannabis that deputies feel they are above the law and able to violate various provisions of the state and federal constitutions, use military style weapons, gear and tanks and violate the rights of citizens. The illegal actions of the Sheriff need to stop immediately. If they do not, it will be necessary for me to file an action in federal court to enjoin continuing and ongoing substantial state and federal constitutional violations taking place in Shasta County. Furthermore, this letter will serve as notice to you that I intend to file suit to seek

Shasta County Board of Supervisors August 30, 2015 Page Four damages for the taking and destruction of property. For every marijuana plant destroyed, the lawsuit will seek compensation at market prices for three (3) pounds of marijuana. Given the widespread destruction already done, “witch-hunt” like prosecutions being pursued with no basis and ongoing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations, the damages county taxpayers will be responsible to pay are massive. Since you have not offered or paid compensation after making a conforming use non-conforming under your law, a minimum three (3) year amortization period is also necessary and must be implemented immediately. Extended litigation will make compensating the people you have harmed even more costly for taxpayers. Should you have any questions or if you would like to discuss a resolution of this matter, please contact me at (949) 382-1485. I will be available to meet with members of the Board, citizens and public officials on September 15th and 16th. It is important the constitutional violations end immediately and that we work toward a resolution that will be less costly for taxpayers as well as fairly compensate those damaged by the County’s illegal actions.

Very truly yours,

Matthew S. Pappas

MSP:jm cc: Sheriff, Shasta County Sheriff, Tehama County Sheriff, Butte County