- About About
Medical Patient Resources Becoming a State-Authorized Patient Talking to your doctor Which conditions qualify? The Medical Cannabis Patient’s Guide for U.S. Travel Patient's Guide to CBD Patient's Guide to Medical Cannabis Guide to Using Medical Cannabis Condition-based Booklets Growing Cannabis Cannabis Tincture, Salve, Butter and Oil Recipes Leaf411 Affordability Program Tracking Treatment & Gathering Data with Releaf App Medical Professional Resources CME for Medical Professionals Cannabis Safety Medical Cannabis Research
- Legal Legal
Advocacy ASA Chapters Start an ASA Chapter Take Action Campaigns No Patient Left Behind End Pain, Not Lives Vote Medical Marijuana Medical Cannabis Advocate's Training Center Resources for Tabling and Lobby Days Strategic Planning Civics 101 Strategic Messaging Citizen Lobbying Participating in Implementation Movement Building Organizing a Demonstration Organizing Turnout for Civic Meetings Public Speaking Media 101 Patient's History of Medical Cannabis
Policy Model Federal Legislation Download Ending The Federal Conflict Public Comments by ASA Industry Standards Guide to Regulating Industry Standards Recognizing Science using the Data Quality Act Fact Sheet on ASA's Data Quality Act Petition to HHS Data Quality Act Briefs ASA Data Quality Act petition to HHS Information on Lawyers and Named Patients in the Data Quality Act Lawsuit Reports 2020 State of the States Medical Cannabis in America Medical Cannabis Access for Pain Treatment
- News News
- Join Join
Garden Grove patient Felix Kha was pulled over by local police on June 10, 2005 for not making a full stop. The police searched Kha’s vehicle without consent and found his approximately 8 grams of medical marijuana. Kha proceeded to show the GGPD officers his doctor’s recommendation, which was met with the response that the then-recent [U.S. Supreme Court] Raich decision made medical marijuana illegal. Kha’s case was dismissed in August 2005, and he immediately asked for the return of his medical marijuana. The next day, Kha obtained a court order for return of property from the Orange County Superior Court. However, when Kha attempted to get his 8 grams back from GGPD, they refused. ASA intervened and wrote two letters to the City of Garden Grove on Kha’s behalf, demanding that it relinquish property that was rightfully his. ASA’s final letter to the City of Garden Grove threatened contempt proceedings.
On October 31, 2005, in an unprecedented move, the City of Garden Grove appealed the Orange County Superior Court ruling to return Kha’s marijuana, filing in the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District. Then on January 7, 2006, ASA filed an informal opposition on behalf of Kha, who is the real party in interest. Of particular note, California Attorney General (AG) Bill Lockyer filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief on November 1, 2006 in support of Kha and the return of his property. On December 19, 2006, the California Police Chiefs Association filed an amicus brief in support of the City of Garden Grove.
In a momentous ruling, on November 28, 2007, the Fourth Appellate District issued a unanimous 41-page published decision vindicating the rights of medical marijuana patients in no uncertain terms. On March 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the City of Garden Grove's Petition for Review, as well as a request for depublication.
- ASA letter to City of Garden Grove threatening contempt (sent 10/20/05)
- Garden Grove Appeal of Orange County Superior Court Order for Return of Property (filed 10/31/05)
- ASA opposition to Garden Grove Appeal (filed 1/7/06)
- Garden Grove reply (filed 1/19/06)
- Attorney General amicus brief in support of Kha (filed 11/1/06)
- California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) amicus brief in support of Garden Grove (filed 12/19/06)
- ASA opposition to CPCA amicus brief (filed 1/3/07)
- Fourth Appellate District ruling (filed 11/28/07)
- Garden Grove petition for review (filed 1/7/08)
- ASA answer to petition for review (filed 1/28/08)
- Law enforcement request to grant petition for review (filed 2/8/08)
- Supreme Court order denying review (filed 3/19/08)