1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Richard D. Ackerman (171900) 4129 Main Street, Suite B17 Riverside, CA 92502 (951) 304-9348

Attorneys for Plaintiff GREEN HOUSE CANNABIS COLLECTIVE, An Association of Private Medical Patient Members, Operating under the California Compassionate Use Act.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Green House Cannabis Collective, Plaintiff, vs.

16 City of Murrieta, and DOES 1 100, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendant 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND OTHER RELIEF PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES (Unlimited Action Arising out of Torts Occurring within this Judicial District)

Plaintiff, GREEN HOUSE CANNABIS COLLECTIVE alleges: 1. Plaintiff, GREEN HOUSE CANNABIS COLLECTIVE, An Association of Qualified Private Medical Patient Members, operating under the California Compassionate Use Act, is an association of persons commonly known as a collective under Californias Compassionate Use Act. entirely private membership roster which is It maintains an pursuant to

protected

California medical privacy laws (Civil Code 56, et seq.) and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, an entity existing in

- 1 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Riverside County, California. progeny of cases falling in

Membership is also protected under the line with NAACP v. Button (creating

constitutional protection against the disclosure of membership roles for First Amendment protected club/associational activities). Members of the Plaintiff-organization are qualified medical patients who are able to receive THC-based treatment modalities for a myriad of conditions, including, but not limited to, chronic pain, MS, cancer, and other diseases or ailments recognized by California physicians as being treatable by medical THC application or ingestion. Since the enactment by marijuana can be has proven

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

the

People

of a

the

State of

of

California,

medical

efficacy

for

number

medical

conditions

which

extremely

debilitating in the absence of appropriate medical treatment regimens. MURRIETAs dispensary. own laws allow for the operation of a medical marijuana

MURRIETAs own laws allow for nonprofit entities to avoid MURRIETAs own laws acknowledge the privacy

business licenses/taxes.

rights of all citizens including its own employees (See attached). 2. Plaintiffs members each have private medical records which are maintained by the Plaintiff. Under California law, as a health care

provider entity, Plaintiff has a legal duty to assert privileges and to bring this lawsuit to protect the interests of patients who have reposed trust in the ability of Plaintiff to maintain the privacy of records. Those records belong to, under California law, the patient-members of the

24 25 26 27 28

collective.

No defendant or other person can claim a right to inspect

said records or other medically-related information concerning any of the patient-members. The CITY OF MURRIETA has, through its policies,

practices and procedures, violated the privacy rights of at least 2 dozen

- 2 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

patients by pulling the patient over under the pretext of a traffic violation, but only for the purpose of inquiring into entirely protected private matters of a medical nature. The CITY OF MURRIETA has been placed

on notice of the illegality of their conduct by written postings on the premises of the Plaintiff, verbal warnings, letters from counsel, public records requests, and a myriad of other statements which stated the legal basis for asserting the constitutional rights of the patient-members of the Plaintiff-Organization. 3. Defendant, CITY OF MURRIETA, is a corporate municipal agency and

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

does constitute a place of business within the meaning of California Civil Rights laws and per federal civil rights enforcement acts. governed procedures by a CITY have COUNCIL which issues led to policies, the It is and

practices, of

which

foreseeably

violations

rights

referenced throughout this complaint. 4. Plaintiff does not know the full true names of defendants, Doe 1 through Doe 100, inclusive, and therefore sues them by these fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to include their names and capacities once they are known. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that each of the defendants designated as a Doe is legally responsible in some manner for the

occurrences alleged in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to plaintiff as alleged in this complaint. Most of these DOE

24 25 26 27 28

defendants are officers of the CITY OF MURRIETA and were acting at all times at the behest and orders of the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MURRIETA.

Plaintiff fears naming these individuals at this time since the One or more officers have

likelihood of severe retaliation is very high.

- 3 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

engaged in conduct that can ONLY be described as violent, intimidating, knowing, callous, intentional, and the direct result of orders from

someone on the COUNCIL or the CHIEF OF POLICE (in conjunction with one or more COUNCIL MEMBERS). 5. At all times mentioned in this complaint, unless otherwise

alleged, each defendant was the agent, partner, or employee of every other defendant, and in doing the acts alleged in this complaint, was acting within the course, scope, and authority of that agency, partnership, or employment, and with the knowledge and consent of each of the other

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

defendants.

One or more of the individuals involved were sworn public Upon information

officers in whom much public trust was and is reposed.

and belief, it is alleged that all five (5) COUNCIL MEMBERS are of a conservative moral theology which is entrenched deeply in the idea that all marijuana or its derivative medically beneficial effects are evil or a scourge on society. While having full knowledge of the fact that

California law expressly allows for experimental treatments (including those that are outside of per se federal approval, such as embryonic research, the COUNCIL nevertheless has targeted Plaintiff and others

simply because they have been recommended a medical treatment that the COUNCIL MEMBERS are morally opposed to. This same COUNCIL just recently

gave unbridled approval to the availability of more alcohol dispensaries in the CITY OF MURRIETA (and made related findings that there are no

24 25 26 27 28

significant secondary effects on the community as a result of increased alcohol availability). While required to do so, CITY OF MURRIETA has

failed to conduct any proper studies, evaluation, or analysis of actual secondary effect information for purposes of its wide-ranging moratorium
- 4 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

on medical products affecting THC receptors which are natural to the human body. 6. Defendants are engaged in what they believe to be drug-

enforcement raids against medical patient groups within the borders of the City of Murrieta. During the course of these raids, the rights of

Plaintiffs members have been outright violated, even after full knowledge of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the affected patient members. Moreover, the CITY OF MURRIETAs personnel have intentionally trawled for private medical information, followed persons as they went to medical

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

appointments, arrested persons as a direct result of police officers beliefs that a patient was necessarily buying marijuana (when there may have just been a consultation, political advocacy meeting, attorney-client meeting, or other protected activity which is otherwise permitted at the subject premises where GHCC is located). * VIOLATIONS OF MEDICAL PRIVACY BY THE CITY OF MURRIETA 7. More specifically, the CITY OF MURRIETA discriminates against a specifically identifiable group of persons because of known or perceived characteristics about their health or medical condition (i.e., having some reason to seek medical THC treatment modalities). Specifically, the CITY

OF MURRIETA believes that it has a right to invade patient privacy to determine if a person coming into the operations of the Plaintiff

association has anything to do with medical marijuana.

24 25 26 27 28 - 5 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

Under California

law, there is no known exception to medical records privacy protections simply because someone uses medical marijuana. There is no known federal

exception to HIPPA protections simply because a patient may have a history

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

of using a particular regional medical treatment or experimental treatment as permitted by California law. Where CITY police officers simply believe that one is a medical marijuana patient coming to Plaintiff for doctor-recommended treatment, then the CITY OF MURRIETA has developed a custom, practice and policy of pulling the person over for pre-textual violations of traffic laws or other minor infractions of law. Said conduct has been occurring since Once pulled over, activities and

January of this year and continues to this very day. the suspect patient is grilled about their

medical

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

conditions.

One middle-aged woman was followed for miles and finally

pulled over at a Ralphs grocery store to be interrogated about her private medical affairs. There is no probable cause for invading the

sacrosanct privacy rights of the dozens of members of the PlaintiffAssociation who have been pulled over and forced to disclose private medical information for fear of arrest or other mistreatment at the hands of the sworn law enforcement officers of the CITY OF MURRIETA. Each and

every collective member, and, indeed, every citizen of MURRIETA, has a right to be free of harassment and unreasonable violations of medical privacy. The mere presence of a state-legal substance, or even possession

of a state-legal substance, is not grounds for making a determination of probable cause for purposes of detention, questioning as to purely private matters, or searches of the person or property.

24 25 26 27 28

8.

By acts of picking out anyone associated with Plaintiff, which

by definition, generally includes the characteristic of being a medical patient with a right to seek THC-based treatment, defendants have violated plaintiff's right to be free from discrimination as guaranteed by Civ.
- 6 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Code, 51.

If one were to strip the CITY of any predispositions toward

what they believe to be marijuana users, there would not have been any valid reason for the violations of privacy that so many qualified patients have suffered at the hands of the CITY OF MURRIETA. 9. As a direct and proximate result of conduct of defendants, and

each of them, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of contractual opportunity, rights in leasehold damage to interests, the privacy lost medical of treatment patient

irreparable

rights

the

members, and other compensable harms.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Defendants have no right to demand

private medical information from patients simply because they show up for receipt of medical treatment modalities at GHCC. Worse yet is the reality

that many persons come to the Plaintiff for discussion about private issues, consultation on the use of a particular medical product allowed under California law, and for other First Amendment protected purposes. The current policies, practices, and procedures of pulling over anyone seen at Plaintiffs location are overbroad, vague, and unable to be

constitutionally applied to neither MURRIETA CITIZENS nor anyone else for that matter. 10. Defendants' violation of plaintiff's rights as guaranteed by Civ. Code 51 entitles plaintiff to receive compensatory damages,

attorney's fees, and injunctive relief, all of which are provided for in Civ. Code 52 and are prayed for below. An amount no less than

24 25 26 27 28

$5,000,000 is necessary as exemplary damages to be assessed against the individuals who are responsible for the arrests, detention, interrogation, harassment, and emotional raping that occurs where a disabled patient is humiliated by being pretextually pulled over, ordered out of a car, and
- 7 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

intensively

interrogated

about

what

can

only

be

described

as

medical

information which would otherwise be protected from almost any invasion outside of inquiries relating to the actual provision of medical treatment (as opposed to the deprivation or denial caused by the CITY OF MURRIETA). THE CITY OF MURRIETA is intentionally dissuading, interfering with, acting with intimidation against, extorting, and punishing all efforts to enjoy the therapeutic effects of certain medical treatment. This violates the

Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Civil Code, Title VII anti-discrimination provisions, and a myriad of other laws designed to

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

protect the right to seek appropriate medical treatment in a private, humane, and dignified manner. 11. In doing the acts alleged in this complaint, defendants knew or should have known that their actions were likely to injure the plaintiff and its collective members. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that defendants intended to cause injury to plaintiff and acted with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights as secured by Civ. Code 51, thereby entitling plaintiff to recover treble damages, or a minimum of $4,000, pursuant to Civ. Code 52, subd. (a). 12. Unless defendants are restrained by a preliminary and permanent injunction, Plaintiff-Association and its members will continue to suffer unjustified intrusions into patient-member privacy and the inexplicable and continuing publication of private medical information in pleadings and

24 25 26 27 28

other documents being filed by the City of Murrieta in its enforcement actions against the Plaintiff-Association. Plaintiff has no adequate

remedy at law because monetary damages, which may compensate for past violence or threats of violence, will not afford adequate relief for the
- 8 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

fear, humiliation, and risk of injury that a continuation of defendants' conduct, in denial of plaintiff's rights, will cause. OF MURRIETA has continued to issue unlawful Moreover, the CITY against the

citations

Plaintiff group without lawful justification or excuse. 13. that the Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, incidents described in paragraphs through, inclusive, were

motivated by defendants' hatred and prejudice medical marijuana patients. There is no regard for the fact that many California patients are

professionals, municipal employees, officers of the Courts, and come from

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

a variety of backgrounds that, in no way, suggest some moral unfitness as a human being or cause for selective enforcement of inane traffic

infraction laws (while a person is coming out of a private parking lot). 14. Pursuant to custom and practice at defendant corporation,

medical records are considered confidential and are not released to third parties MURRIETA without has not for the had subject a VALID the patient-members(s) subpoena, privacy warrant, of written or other consent. lawful

justification

invading

individual

patients.

Nevertheless, the CITY OF MURRIETA has looked right past the very rights it demands be respected for its own employees and will not extend the same respect toward other citizens. When asked to identify any and all CITY

personnel who were on mind-altering drugs, the CITY OF MURRIETA refused (See attached). One is left to wonder how it is that a baton-carrying

24 25 26 27 28

officer can be hopped up on narcotics while on duty, but a private citizen who may have cancer cannot pick up a lawfully recommended treatment and take it home without harassment and unreasonable inquiry into entirely private matters.
- 9 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. Given the circumstances described above, plaintiff has a legally protected privacy interest in the confidentiality of the subject records, and a reasonable expectation of privacy that those records will not be disclosed to third parties without plaintiff's consent or the consent of each member affected by the gravely disturbing policies and procedures of the CITY OF MURRIETA in its crusade against medical treatment it

unilaterally deems immoral.

The only outside justification for doing what

they are doing is that the CITY OF MURRIETA is receiving federal grant monies for unconstitutionally hunting down medical patients it has a moral

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

problem with. 16. In or about January 2012 and continuing to the present day, defendants released GHCC Member files to various persons and even

publicized in open court documents the medical histories and treatment activities of many members of GHCC in violation of the privacy rights of all patients involved. 17. Defendant released information without providing patients with

any prior notice or an opportunity to protest the disclosure, so that plaintiffs collective members had no opportunity to protect certain, if not all, of the information contained within confidential medical records from unjustified release to third parties. The right to medical privacy is well established under federal and state law. [Urbaniak v. Newton, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 277 Cal. Rptr. 354 (1st Dist. 1991) (unauthorized

24 25 26 27 28

disclosure

of

patient's

AIDS-related

condition);

see

also

Cutter

v.

Brownbridge, 183 Cal. App. 3d 836, 228 Cal. Rptr. 545 (1st Dist. 1986); Jones v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 3d 534, 174 Cal. Rptr. 148 (1st Dist. 1981); Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal.
- 10 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

App. 3d 669, 156 Cal. Rptr. 55 (4th Dist. 1979) (individual's right to privacy encompasses not only state of his or her mind, but also his or her viscera, detailed complaints of physical ills, and emotional overtones); Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. App. 4th 288, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169 (2d Dist. 2011)]. Medical marijuana has been recognized as a valid treatment for many of the conditions referenced in these cases where the right to privacy is given its proper legal respect. 18. The disclosure described above constitutes a serious invasion of plaintiff's privacy interest and violates plaintiff's right to privacy, as

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

protected by Cal. Const. art. I, 1. [Also see, White v. Davis, 13 Cal. 3d 757, 120 Cal. Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222 (1975) (right to be free of government surveillance on college campus where no suspicion of criminal activity)]. Here, the mere presence/possession of medical marijuana is

hardly sufficient to establish probable cause that some state or local law is being violated within the jurisdictional authority of the CITY OF MURRIETAs law enforcement arm. 19. Even if a court were to conclude that the patient information viewed/acquired and disclosed by the CITY OF MURRIETA is relevant for discovery purposes or for some other purpose, the details the GHCC members complain of in the separate court case could have been redacted so that the intimate matters involved could have been protected from unwarranted disclosure. Defendants, however, took no steps to preserve the In

24 25 26 27 28

confidential information contained in plaintiff's personnel file.

fact, the Defendants actually take great pride in publicizing the private medical histories of the patients pulled over simply because the

Defendants believe that anyone coming out of Plaintiffs location must

- 11 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

somehow be a drug user and non-patient. organization are qualified medical

All members of the Plaintiff who are entitled to full

patients

respect for their rights of privacy.

The conduct of the CITY OF MURRIETA

further interferes with the lawful contractual obligations owed to the patient-members by the Plaintiff Association. * THREATS OF VIOLENCE, ARREST, AND DETENTION OF MEDICAL PATIENTS 20. Civ. Code, 52.1 protects the Plaintiff-Association members from violence or the threat of violence as a means of intimidation against the exercise of the right to seek and receive private medical treatment

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

and advice under applicable civil rights laws.

Here, the CITY OF MURRIETA

has embarked on a course which includes outright intimidation, silencing, interference with the free flow of medically approved substances for

qualified patients, and has extorted citizens into dropping a course(s) of approved medical treatment in contravention to medical orders and

recommendations of licensed physicians.

There is no legitimate state

interest which would justify such an intrusion into the medical lives of the Plaintiff-Associations members and operators (all of whom are medical patients by definition). 21. Defendants have threatened detention of medical marijuana

patients in the last several months, have actually detained a number of Plaintiffs members against their will, interrogated patients about

intensely private matters without any reading of rights relating to the

24 25 26 27 28 - 12 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

privacy

rights

being

violated

under

federal

and

state

law,

and

the

Defendants have placed at least one GPS device on a patient vehicle in violation of the privacy rights of that member.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

22.

Defendants, by their use of violence or threats of violence

against plaintiff-members because of their status as medical THC patients violated the members right to be free from violence or intimidation by threats of violence as guaranteed by Civ. Code 51.7. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants,

and each of them, plaintiff has suffered damages and other harm. 24. Defendants' violation of plaintiff's rights as guaranteed by Civ. Code 51.7 entitles plaintiff to compensatory and punitive damages, a $25,000 civil penalty, attorney fees, and injunctive relief, all of

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

which are provided for in Civ. Code 52 and are requested below. 25. In doing the acts alleged in this complaint, defendants knew or should have known that their actions were likely to injure plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that

defendants intended to cause injury to plaintiff and acted with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights as secured by Civ. Code 51.7, thus entitling plaintiff to recover punitive damages pursuant to Civ. Code 52, subd. (b)(1). 26. Defendants and each of them were well aware, by written notice,

and constructive notice, of the fact that the rights of the members of Plaintiff-Association were being egregiously violated. of the Defendants violate at least 30 known civil In fact, the acts rights interests,

including, but not limited to, privacy rights, property rights, freedom
24 25 26 27 28

from

unreasonable

searches,

freedom

from

unreasonable

seizures

of

property, and from procedural violations which prevent any meaningful appeal of any of the actions taken by the Defendants against the Plaintiff group.
- 13 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

27. defendants profiling,

An as as

actual to

controversy

now

exists practice

between of

plaintiff

and

whether

defendants'

medical rights,

condition and the

described

herein,

violates

plaintiff's

rights of the class, under the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution (Cal. Const. art. I, 7). A person's medical records are

well within the zone of privacy. [Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal. App. 3d 669, 156 Cal. Rptr. 55 (4th Dist. 1979); see also Roe v. Superior Court, 229 Cal. App. 3d 832, 280 Cal. Rptr. 380 (2d Dist. 1991) (psychotherapy records); Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46, 61 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 975, 12 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 74 (1st Dist. 1996), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Oct. 15, 1996)

(psychiatric records)]. 28. The parties require a judicial declaration of rights in order

to properly address plaintiff's complaints about defendants practices. Specifically, the parties require a declaration from the court regarding whether defendants practices, as alleged herein, violate the state Equal Protection Clause and/or Due Process Clause, and, if so, in what manner. 29. An actual controversy now exists between plaintiff and

defendants as to whether defendants' seizure policies, which provide for the seizure of private medical information without prior notice having been given to their owners and without the owners having a right to contest the seizure in a hearing of any sort, violate Due Process of law

24 25 26 27 28

as guaranteed by the United States and California Constitutions. 30. Unless the court issues an appropriate declaration of rights, the parties will not know whether defendants' seizure policy complies with the due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions,
- 14 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

and there will continue to be disputes and controversy surrounding the defendants' policies, procedures and practices. medical deprived patients of in Southern California in may In addition, hundreds of potentially be illegally with no

their

privacy

interests

medical

information,

opportunity for a reasonably prompt hearing at which they can prove that the seizure is improper or as the case may be. WHEREFORE, follows: 1. For general damages according to proof; plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants as

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2. For special damages according to proof; 3. For treble damages pursuant to Civ. Code 52, subd. (a); 4. For reasonable attorney's fees, according to proof, pursuant to Civ. Code 52, subd. (a); 5. For a preliminary injunction against defendants, and each of them, enjoining defendants from continuing illegal conduct; 6. For a permanent injunction against defendants, and each of them, enjoining defendants from engaging in continuing illegal conduct; 7. For plaintiff's cost of suit; and 8. For such other relief as the court may deem just and proper; 9. For punitive damages in an amount not less than $3,000,000.00 as against any and all CITY OF MURRIETA employee DOE-DEFENDANTS who have violated the constitutional rights of any of Plaintiff-Associations

24 25 26 27 28

members. 10. For as an order striking down vague, MURRIETAs overbroad, moratorium illegal, and on in

dispensaries

unconstitutional,

violation of federal and state privacy protections.

- 15 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 16 (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

Dated 16 April 2012.

---------------------------RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, Attorney for Plaintiff.