1. Arraignment

Your first court appearance will be an arraignment where the judge will ask you to plead Guilty or Not-Guilty. Most citations will give an exact day to appear, and you should do so in person. However, if the citation says "on or before" a certain date, call the relevant criminal court if you have questions about appearing on a specific day, or simply walk into court and present your citation to the court clerk to try to get on the docket that day. We advise that you show up well-dressed and early to your arraignment (ideally a half-hour before), and to make contact with the Public Defender on duty who will likely appear in the front of the courtroom addressing the audience. Please be aware that Public Defenders have many cases, so be polite. Keep in Mind: This Public Defender on duty will only represent you at this appearance, and you will likely receive a different Public Defender for the duration of your case after pleading Not Guilty if you qualify under your county's standards.

Please bring with you two (2) copies of the following to give to the Public Defender on duty:

• your recommendation (and any other relevant recommendations for collective situations); also, bring the original recommendation for verification purposes, just in case.


• your State identification card, if you have one (See this list of counties participating in the State id card program)


• People v. Wright, 40 Cal. 4th 81 (2006) , a recent California Supreme Court decision that reiterates the right of a qualified patient to possess, cultivate or transport at least 8 oz. of medical marijuana and 6 mature or 12 immature plants and to assert the protections of the Compassionate Use Act and S.B. 420 as an affirmative defense to related charges. Use the above link to print copies of the case.

Give the Public Defender on duty these documents, note the quantities involved in your case, and explain that, as a CA qualified patient with less medical marijuana than the minimum allowed under the guidelines, you were simply exercising your rights under the law, and have done nothing illegal. Then, ask the Public Defender to bring your documentation to the District Attorney (D.A.) on duty before your arraignment, and attempt to explain your situation in an effort to get the D.A. to dismiss the case without even having to plead.

Sometimes, this will work, and the D.A. will decline to pursue charges. However, often, because of a D.A. or a judge who refuses to recognize settled law, the case will continue. If so, you will be arraigned, and, when standing in front of the judge, you are likely advised to plead Not Guilty, and can always choose to accept a deal and plead Guilty later in the process. At this point (or soon after), if you qualify, you are likely to be assigned a Public Defender to represent you for the duration of the case.

Some Public Defenders will try to pressure patients into pleading Guilty and accepting a plea bargain offer. Sometimes, this is sound legal advice, while other times, this is just a reflection of the Public Defender's high workload, lack of knowledge of medical marijuana law, or bias against medical marijuana. If you were under the guidelines and had an up-to-date recommendation, and there is not evidence of any wrongdoing, and you believe you were acting under the law, you do not need to plead guilty and can assert your patient status, and take your case to trial. For more information about how to evaluate a plea bargain offer, see IV.E. of this FAQ. Hopefully, you and your knowledge of California law and strong conviction that you have not broken it will assist the Public Defender in representing you to the fullest of his or her capacity.

2. Preliminary Hearing, Motions Hearings, Pre-Trial Conference

After your Arraignment, your Public Defender will end up representing you at several hearings at which she/he can argue motions, and set the parameters for trial.

• You should ask your Public Defender to raise the medical marijuana defense at your Preliminary Hearing by making a Motion to Set Aside the Indictment or Information under Penal Code § 995, otherwise known as a "Section 995 Motion to Dismiss" or a "Mower Motion". In order to get your case dismissed using a Mower Motion, named after the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Mower, your Public Defender must show that you, a qualified patient or primary caregiver, were indicted "without reasonable or probable cause" to believe that you were guilty of the unlawful possession or cultivation of marijuana. Simply put, your Public Defender should present evidence of your status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, such as your recommendation or State identification card. If the Public Defender seems resistant to the idea of filing a Mower Motion, ask him or her for the reasoning behind that legal strategic decision.


• Make an appointment with your Public Defender to discuss your case at least several days before your Preliminary Hearing. Present a printed copy of one of these sample Mower motions (Motion_to_dismiss_Margolin.pdf, Motion_to_dismiss_Figueroa.pdf) to give her or him a model off of which to work and email the links as well, if appropriate. Additionally, you can bring a copy of People v. Wright.


• If your Public Defender is being unhelpful, or if for some reason you end up representing yourself (working "pro se"), you should know that you can make an "informal request" to dismiss the complaint "in furtherance of justice" under Cal Penal Code § 1385. See People v. Konow 32 Cal.4th 995, 1022 (2004). To do so, simply present the previously discussed evidence that you are a qualified patient or caregiver.


• If asserting the medical marijuana defense is running into major obstacles, your lawyer should also think about challenging the search in various ways, either in these preliminary proceedings, or at trial. For more information about whether or not law enforcement performed a "Good Search" on you, see this document prepared by ASA ally, Alexis Wilson. However, it is important to note that, with the April 23, 2008 Virginia v. Moore decision by the Supreme Court, even if law enforcement breaks California search and seizure law, the search may later be ruled constitutional under federal law, and the evidence seized may be admitted. Additionally, in the 2008 California Court of Appeal decision (1st District), People v. Hua, the court found that law enforcement agents conducted an unreasonable search and seizure when they entered the defendant's home without a warrant based only on their observation that someone inside was smoking marijuana.


• Attorneys looking for more information, please see Pretrial Proceedings of "How to Defend a Medical Marijuana Case".

Authenticating a Recommendation

In some cases, after you present your up-to-date recommendation to the court, the judge will refuse to find it credible and will demand that your doctor testify in order to authenticate your recommendation and prove that you are "qualified patient". A court appearance by the doctor is not actually necessary and you should not need to do this to win your case. There is case law that addresses this issue. In People v. Jones, a 2003 CA Appellate Court (3rd District) case, the court held that a defendant's testimony, confirming an "approval" or "recommendation" by a doctor to use medical marijuana, is sufficient, without verification from the doctor, for the jury to determine the defendant's status as a medical marijuana patient.

Instead of forcing your doctor to testify, get your recommendation authenticated and present it at court. You do not even need a notary to do so. Simply get the doctor to sign a declaration of the authenticity of the recommendation as a business record. As a record kept in the normal course of business, your authenticated recommendation should be considered admissible hearsay evidence and should be admitted. The doctor should make a certain number of copies of the recommendation in an envelope, and sign the declaration and tape it to the front of the envelope. For more on the authentication procedure, see the California Evidence Code.

That being said, some judges will insist on a doctor's testimony and will ignore People v. Jones and an authenticated recommendation. For these judges, it may be helpful if the doctor does make an appearance, or at least creates a secondary affidavit that states that he or she diagnosed you and found it reasonable that marijuana could relieve the symptoms of your condition.

Also, whether it is a doctor's testimony or yours, you should also be able to refuse to disclose details of your medical records or history, as there is established caselaw protecting your medical records and the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship in exactly these circumstances. See Bearman v. Superior Cour of Los Angeles (2004).

Expert Witnesses

Additionally, at your Preliminary Hearing or later, you may need to provide evidence to correct mistaken law enforcement regarding weight or plant numbers based on improper yield predictions, inclusion of water weight and unrooted clones (non-plants), or you may need medical testimony concerning specific amounts needed for personal use given your condition. The solution is often to get your Public Defender or private attorney to bring in an expert witness to testify. In order to apply to the court to get an expert witness, you can use a motion, found on Chris Conrad's site, called an Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Expert Witness and for Funding and Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. Here is a partial list of common medical marijuana expert witnesses:

• Chris Conrad (CA)
• Jason Browne (Tehama County, CA) 707-974-8264 cannabisconsult@sbcglobal.net
• Bill Britt (Orange County, CA)
• Ed Rosenthal (CA)
• Dr. William Courtney (Mendocino County, CA) 707-456-0420
• Dr. David Bearman (CA)
• Dr. Eugene Schoenfeld (CA)
• Dr. Frank Lucido (CA)
• John Sajo (OR)
• Doug Mcvay (Northeast)
• Ben Masel (Midwest)

3. Trial

Most cases of patients charged with crimes in California are dismissed long before the trial stage, but if you are dealing with a particularly stubborn judge or D.A., or there are other complicating factors, feel free to email ASA's Legal Services Coordinator and include what steps your Public Defender has taken so far, and when the trial is set to start. If you are particularly concerned with the knowledge or the performance of your Public Defender, one of the services that we offer is to have our Chief Counsel reach out to your Public Defender to confer about trial strategy and general medical marijuana law. If this is something you might be interested in, please also include the name and number of your Public Defender in your email to the Legal Services Coordinator, realizing that we do not have the resources to respond to every request.

Additionally, you should also provide your Public Defender with a copy of "Defense at Trial of How to Defend a Medical Marijuana Case".

1. Arraignment

Your first court appearance will be an arraignment where the judge will ask you to plead Guilty or Not-Guilty. Most citations will give an exact day to appear, and you should do so in person. However, if the citation says "on or before" a certain date, call the relevant criminal court if you have questions about appearing on a specific day, or simply walk into court and present your citation to the court clerk to try to get on the docket that day. We advise that you show up well-dressed and early to your arraignment (ideally a half-hour before), and to make contact with the Public Defender on duty who will likely appear in the front of the courtroom addressing the audience. Please be aware that Public Defenders have many cases, so be polite. Keep in Mind: This Public Defender on duty will only represent you at this appearance, and you will likely receive a different Public Defender for the duration of your case after pleading Not Guilty if you qualify under your county's standards.

Please bring with you two (2) copies of the following to give to the Public Defender on duty:

• your recommendation (and any other relevant recommendations for collective situations); also, bring the original recommendation for verification purposes, just in case. If your doctor had given you an exemption to the guidelines, you should also inform the Public Defender on duty that your doctor had affirmatively allowed you to use more medical marijuana than the guidelines suggest, This exemption can be either oral or written on your recommendation or as a separate document.
• your State identification card, if you have one (See this list of counties participating in the State id card program)
• People v. Wright, 40 Cal. 4th 81 (2006), a recent California Supreme Court decision that reiterates the right of a qualified patient to possess, cultivate or transport at least 8 oz. of medical marijuana and 6 mature or 12 immature plants and to assert the protections of the Compassionate Use Act and S.B. 420 as an affirmative defense to related charges. Use the above link to print copies of the case.

Give the Public Defender on duty these documents, note the quantities involved in your case, and explain why you, as a CA qualified patient were possessing more than the guidelines suggest (personal use, exemption, collective cultivation). Then, ask the Public Defender to bring your documentation to the District Attorney (D.A.) on duty before your arraignment, and attempt to explain your situation in an effort to get the D.A. to dismiss the case without even having to plead.

Sometimes, this will work, and the D.A. will decline to pursue charges. However, often, because of a D.A. or a judge who refuses to recognize settled law, the case will continue. Because higher plant numbers/quantities are involved, the D.A. and the judge are less likely to agree to dismiss the case in its early stages. You will then be arraigned, and, when standing in front of the judge, are allowed to plead Guilty or Not-Guilty. If you plead Not Guilty, if you qualify, you are likely to be assigned a Public Defender to represent you for the duration of the case.

Some Public Defenders will try to pressure patients into pleading Guilty and accepting a plea bargain offer. Sometimes, this is sound legal advice, while other times, this is just a reflection of the Public Defender's high workload, lack of knowledge of medical marijuana law, or bias against medical marijuana. For more information about how to evaluate a plea bargain offer, see IV.E. of this FAQ. If you decide to plead Not Guilty, say the words, "I plead Not Guilty, as I am a Medical Marijuana Patient." Hopefully, you and your knowledge of California law and strong conviction that you have not broken it will assist the Public Defender in representing you to the fullest of his or her capacity.

2. Preliminary Hearing, Motions Hearing, Pre-Trial Conference

After your Arraignment, your Public Defender will end up representing you at several hearings at which she/he can argue motions, and set the parameters for trial.

• You should ask your Public Defender to raise the medical marijuana defense at your Preliminary Hearing by making a Motion to Set Aside the Indictment or Information under Penal Code § 995, otherwise known as a "Section 995 Motion to Dismiss" or a "Mower Motion." In order to get your case dismissed using a Mower Motion, named after the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Mower, your Public Defender must show that you, a qualified patient or primary caregiver, were indicted "without reasonable or probable cause" to believe that you were guilty of the unlawful possession or cultivation of marijuana. Simply put, your Public Defender should present evidence of your status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, such as your recommendation or State identification card. If the Public Defender seems resistant to the idea of filing a Mower Motion, ask him or her for the reasoning behind that legal strategic decision.
• Make an appointment with your Public Defender to discuss your case at least several days before your Preliminary Hearing. Present a printed copy of one of these sample Mower motions (Motion_to_dismiss_Margolin.pdf, Motion_to_dismiss_Figueroa.pdf) to give her or him a model off of which to work and email the links as well, if appropriate. Additionally, you can bring a copy of People v. Wright.
• If your Public Defender is being unhelpful, or if for some reason you end up representing yourself (working "pro se"), you should know that you can make an "informal request" to dismiss the complaint "in furtherance of justice" under Cal Penal Code § 1385. See People v. Konow 32 Cal.4th 995, 1022 (2004). To do so, simply present the previously discussed evidence that you are a qualified patient or caregiver.
• If the D.A. is charging you with felony possession with intent to sell, and has so-called "physical evidence" of that intent, such as scales, baggies, or "pay-owe sheets", be prepared to explain how these seized items were actually used for legitimate medical purposes. Additionally, courts will have a harder time relying on "expert testimony" of a police officer that the presence of certain items create a presumption of an intent to sell after the 2007 People v. Chakos decision. In this ruling, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) found that "expert testimony" of a police officer that a six ounces of marijuana, a scale, baggies, and a small sum of cash was insufficient to uphold a conviction for marijuana distribution because the police officer lacked understanding of the patterns of use of marijuana by qualified patients and was therefore unqualified to testify as an expert.


• If you believe that the D.A. is wrongly calculating how much processed medical marijuana (bud) you have, please note that "only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining allowable quantities of marijuana" under S.B. 420 (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.77(d) ).


• If your doctor has given you permission to use more medical marijuana than is prescribed by your local guidelines, especially because you cook with your medical marijuana, it is important to note this in your motion. According to SB 420 patients may possess more medical marijuana than the guideline amounts with permission from their doctors. Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11362.77. The best evidence of this permission is when the doctor has written a note to this effect directly on your recommendation, but sometimes a doctor will give permission orally, without a written record. In such cases, it is helpful to ask the doctor if he/she would be willing to testify to such permission at one of your hearings.


• Finally, if you are collectively cultivating/possessing as a group of patients, it is important to provide all of the relevant recommendations in this motion. However, note that you should always receive express permission to do this from the other patients and you should inform them that all patients claiming to be part of a collective should be aware that they are possibly opening themselves up to similar charges by including themselves in your legal action.


• Another case that may be helpful is People v. Kelly, a May 22, 2008 California Court of Appeal (2nd District) decision that overturned the defendant's conviction for possessing 12 oz. of marijuana. At trial, the prosecutor had successfully argued to the jury that Kelly's possession of the marijuana was illegal because he had exceeded the "caps established by Health & Safety Code § 11362.77 of S.B. 420" without a relevant doctor's exemption. The appellate court reversed the conviction because it found that the S.B. 420 guidelines were "caps" on the amount of marijuana a patient may possess and such "caps" were an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 215. This is a published decision, but the California Supreme Court has agreed to review it, and so, while patients should consider using it in their defense, until there is a final ruling, patients should not rely on it and everyone should continue to obey their county's guidelines, and obtain any appropriate exemptions.


• If asserting the medical marijuana defense is running into major obstacles, your lawyer should also think about challenging the search in various ways, either in these preliminary proceedings, or at trial. For more information about whether or not law enforcement performed a "Good Search" on you, see this document prepared by ASA ally, Alexis Wilson. However, it is important to note that, with the April 23, 2008 Virginia v. Moore decision by the Supreme Court, even if law enforcement breaks California search and seizure law, the search may later be ruled constitutional under federal law, and the evidence seized may be admitted. Additionally, in the 2008 California Court of Appeal decision (1st District), People v. Hua, the court found that law enforcement agents conducted an unreasonable search and seizure when they entered the defendant's home without a warrant based only on their observation that someone inside was smoking marijuana.


• Attorneys looking for more information, please see Pretrial Proceedings of "How to Defend a Medical Marijuana Case".

Authenticating a Recommendation

In some cases, after you present your up-to-date recommendation to the court, the judge will refuse to find it credible and will demand that your doctor testify in order to authenticate your recommendation and prove that you are "qualified patient". A court appearance by the doctor is not actually necessary and you should not need to do this to win your case. There is case law that addresses this issue. In People v. Jones, a 2003 CA Appellate Court (3rd District) case, the court held that a defendant's testimony, confirming an "approval" or "recommendation" by a doctor to use medical marijuana, is sufficient, without verification from the doctor, for the jury to determine the defendant's status as a medical marijuana patient.

Instead of forcing your doctor to testify, get your recommendation authenticated and present it at court. You do not even need a notary to do so. Simply get the doctor to sign a declaration of the authenticity of the recommendation as a business record. As a record kept in the normal course of business, your authenticated recommendation should be considered admissible hearsay evidence and should be admitted. The doctor should make a certain number of copies of the recommendation in an envelope, and sign the declaration and tape it to the front of the envelope. For more on the authentication procedure, see the California Evidence Code.

That being said, some judges will insist on a doctor's testimony and will ignore People v. Jones and an authenticated recommendation. For these judges, it may be helpful if the doctor does make an appearance, or at least creates a secondary affidavit that states that he or she diagnosed you and found it reasonable that marijuana could relieve the symptoms of your condition.

Also, whether it is a doctor's testimony or yours, you should also be able to refuse to disclose details of your medical records or history, as there is established caselaw protecting your medical records and the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship in exactly these circumstances. See Bearman v. Superior Cour of Los Angeles (2004).

Expert Witnesses

Additionally, at your Preliminary Hearing or later, you may need to provide evidence to correct mistaken law enforcement regarding weight or plant numbers based on improper yield predictions, inclusion of water weight and unrooted clones (non-plants), or you may need medical testimony concerning specific amounts needed for personal use given your condition. The solution is often to get your Public Defender or private attorney to bring in an expert witness to testify. In order to apply to the court to get an expert witness, you can use a motion, found on Chris Conrad's site, called an Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Expert Witness and for Funding and Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. Here is a partial list of common medical marijuana expert witnesses:

• Chris Conrad (CA)
• Jason Browne (Tehama County, CA) 707-974-8264 cannabisconsult@sbcglobal.net
• Bill Britt (Orange County, CA)
• Ed Rosenthal (CA)
• Dr. William Courtney (Mendocino County, CA) 707-456-0420
• Dr. David Bearman (CA)
• Dr. Eugene Schoenfeld (CA)
• Dr. Frank Lucido (CA)
• John Sajo (OR)
• Doug Mcvay (Northeast)
• Ben Masel (Midwest)

3. Trial

If it looks like the case might go to trial, email ASA's Legal Services Coordinator, and include what steps your Public Defender has taken so far, and when the trial is set to start. If you are particularly concerned with the knowledge or the performance of your Public Defender, one of the services that we offer is to have our Chief Counsel reach out to your Public Defender to confer about trial strategy and general medical marijuana law. If this is something you might be interested in, please also include the name and number of your Public Defender in your email to the Legal Services Coordinator, realizing that we do not have the resources to respond to every request.

Additionally, you should also provide your Public Defender with a copy of "Defense at Trial of How to Defend a Medical Marijuana Case" and you should think about whether securing an expert witness to testify about plant numbers and personal use versus sales would be appropriate in your situation. Email the Legal Services Coordinator for information regarding expert witnesses.

Simply follow the relevant instructions in I.A. (for ≤ 8 oz. of hash) or in I.B. (for > 8 oz. of hash) of this FAQ with one small change. In addition to the other documentation that you present, also print and present Attorney General Opinion 03-411 which states that the Compassionate Use Act also exempts the use of concentrated cannabis (C.C.), or "hash", from criminal sanctions. Although it is ASA's position that a patient may possess a combination of C.C. and processed bud that is consistent with the local guidelines (e.g., 7.5 oz. of marijuana and .5 oz. Of C.C), there is a risk associated with possessing C.C., as the law is unsettled and law enforcement tend to be biased against C.C. and may escalate an encounter after finding even trace amounts of it.

If so, follow the relevant instructions in I.A. for the Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11360 transportation charge, and note to your Public Defender that while this crime is not one of the listed crimes that patients are specifically exempted from in S.B. 420, its omission was clearly not deliberate, as it would be illogical to exempt patients from felony transportation (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11360), a much more frequently charged offense, and to refuse to exempt patients from a Vehicle Code infraction. The Court of Appeal (4th District) in Garden Grove v. Superior Court (p. 19-20) made this argument official in 2007 when it concluded that Vehicle Code 23222(b) should not be applied to medical marijuana patients with up to date recommendations. Print Garden Grove v. Superior Court and present it with the other materials.

A recent trend in law enforcement has been for police to stop drivers, find marijuana and, after realizing that possession/transportation charges will be futile, the officer will often charge patients with DUI as a last resort, even when the patient has not medicated for a long time. Sadly, these patients are then arrested, brought to the police station, and forced to give blood/urine samples without any other evidence aside from their patient status. These are much more complicated cases, and require more individual attention. If you have been involved in one of these situations, please email ASA's Legal Services Coordinator and include as many details about the interaction as possible, including:

• any statements made to the officer about when you last medicated
• the location of any medicine in the car
• specific recollection of your performance on the Field Sobriety Tests
• any details regarding any blood or urine tests performed
• anything else that the officer might bring up to suggest impairment on your part

Remember: the burden of proof will be on the officer to prove that you were impaired.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, police officers should be using the totality of circumstances to evaluate whether a medical marijuana patient is impaired and should be charged with DUI-Marijuana. Here are some good facts that your lawyer should highlight, if present (as opposed to some bad facts that your lawyer may need to explain):

• The police officer is only able to assert that he/she smelled the general smell of marijuana in the passenger compartment, which would come from an unopened package (as opposed to asserting the presence or smell of smoke in the passenger compartment from recently consumed marijuana)
• All marijuana was stored, in closed bags, in the trunk (as opposed to the marijuana's presence in the passenger compartment, readily accessible).
• There is no resinated paraphernalia in the car, especially in the passenger compartment (as opposed to the resinated paraphernalia's presence in the passenger compartment).
• Your recommendation and State ID Card were present in the car with the medicine (as opposed to your recommendation and/or State ID Card were somewhere else, or perhaps, expired).
• You did not make any statements to the police about the last time you medicated, or you admitted that you had not medicated for a long period of time--e.g. 12 hours (as opposed to admitting that you medicated recently, such as in the past 2.5 hours)
• Field Sobriety Tests were not administered, or the tests were administered, but you can prove you passed all of them, or were unable to because of your specific disability (as opposed to a clear record of your failure of the Field Sobriety Tests with no extenuating circumstances)

Generally, most blood and urine tests test for the simple presence of marijuana metabolites and it is up to the jury to determine impairment. If your lawyer is attempting to argue that your ng/ml amount does not constitute impairment, you should give this report on Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the Influence-Marijuana to your Public Defender or private DUI attorney. This report suggests that impairment may not occur until 3-5 ng/ml THC in blood.

There are also several studies that show that marijuana use does not raise your risk of road trauma. Use these resources and print and present them to your attorney.

Because DUI-marijuana cases are often very fact-specific, if your Public Defender does not have any relevant experience, you may want to consider looking at attorneys who specialize in DUI-Alcohol & Drugs cases, if you can afford one. Also, if, at any point, the DMV also begins proceedings to take away your driver's license based solely on your patient status, go to this FAQ to read more about DMV issues.

If so, look to I.A. of this FAQ for instructions on the court process and what to present, and in addition, print and present Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.765. This code section from S.B. 420 says that an individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient in administering medical marijuana to the qualified patient is exempted from criminal liability from the listed offenses. You and your lawyer should argue that while Health & Safety Code § 11364 is not specifically exempted in S.B. 420, if you are a qualified patient using the paraphernalia to administer medical marijuana to yourself, you qualify for S.B. 420's exemption, and it would be illogical to allow you to possess medical marijuana but not a means to administer it.

If so, look to I.A. of this FAQ for instructions on the court process and print and present Attorney General Opinion 03-411. Unfortunately, the law is more complex on this topic than the simple possession of concentrates, and a court may deny you the ability to assert a medical marijuana defense because this statute is not specifically named in S.B. 420.

Additionally, according to a recent appellate court decision, People v. Niall Bergen, there is a distinction between manufacturing concentrated cannabis with chemicals (e,g, using alcohol, butane, or another chemical solvent) as opposed to manufacturing it naturally (e.g. using pressure, screening, ice water/freezing, butter, or vegetable oil). Naturally manufactured concentrated cannabis is almost certainly protected under the medical marijuana laws, whereas chemically manufactured concentrated cannabis may not be.

Finally, please note that ASA has received reports from patients that law enforcement has used this charge simply for the presence of butane and a length of PVC pipe, stored in different parts of the house, even with no other evidence of manufacturing, so be careful.

If so, look to I.A. of this FAQ for instructions on the court process and print and present any relevant materials. Presumedly, law enforcement found that you have a young child or children, and is asserting that because there was marijuana or plants in the house, you were permitting your child "to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered," which is criminalized in Cal. Penal Code §273a

Hence, this will be a very fact-specific case, and you will have to assert that the living environment of the child or children did not endanger their health, that your use of your medicine did not affect your ability to be a good parent, and that you kept your medicine very separate from your children. Here is a list of tips that demonstrate best practices for a responsible patient-parent, and you should highlight any to your attorney that are relevant to your situation.

• When residing in a house with a child, possess or cultivate less than your local guidelines suggest, if your condition allows.
• Keep all medical marijuana out of plain sight, ideally in clearly labeled medicinal jars and with other prescription medications, in a place that children cannot access. Do not cultivate any more than is minimally necessary for your medical condition (the ideal number is 1-2 plants, but if you need more for your condition, cultivate what you need). If you cultivate outdoors, surround your garden surrounded with an impermeable fence that will deny access to children. If you cultivate indoors, do not include lamps or other fire hazards, and secure the garden in a locked room or devise another way to deny access to children.
• If you cook with medical marijuana, clearly label any resultant food products as medicinal, and keep them far away from any children's food.
• Use discretion when medicating, and do not do so when your child is present or in the view of persons who might be looking for a reason to report you to CPS. Specifically, think about medicating when you have several hours open before any interaction with the child or after he/she is already in bed.
• If your child can understand, specifically explain to her/him that the marijuana is your medicine and that it is not for her/him (much like any other prescription medication). Furthermore, let him/her know that your patient status and medicine is a private matter, just like any other medical condition, and that he/she should not volunteer information about it to anyone.
• In a dual-patient-parent household, work out a routine with your partner where one parent is always unmedicated in case any unexpected issues arise.
• Never drive with your children in the car after medicating.
• Consider keeping notes for yourself regarding the precautions you have taken, so that you are prepared to inform the court about them if asked.

S.B. 420 also specifically exempts medical marijuana patients from criminal sanctions under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11366 (Maintaining a place to sell marijuana), 11366.5 (Allowing a building to be used for distribution of a controlled substance), & (11570 (Nuisance of building used for distribution of a controlled substance).

If you have a different California criminal charge related to your use of medical marijuana, contact the Legal Services Coordinator to discuss your situation.