Judges: BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General
Filed Date: 6/23/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
BILL LOCKYER Attorney General DANIEL G. STONE Deputy Attorney General
THE HONORABLE CHRISTINE KEHOE, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following questions:
1. Does the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempt the operation of a city's own registry and identification program?
2. May a city continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide registry and identification card program is implemented in the county in which the city is located?
3. May a county designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users?
2. A city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide registry and identification card program is implemented in the county in which the city is located, except to the extent that the operation of the city's program would be inconsistent with state law.
3. A county may not designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users.
The chief purposes of Proposition 215 are: (1) to give Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana in the medical treatment of illnesses for which it provides appropriate relief, as recommended by a physician, (2) to protect patients and primary caregivers, as defined, from criminal prosecution or other sanctions based on their possession, use, or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, and (3) to encourage implementation of a cooperative governmental plan to make marijuana available and affordable to all patients in medical need thereof. (§ 11362.5, subd. (b)(1); see also § 11362.5, subd. (c) [barring punishment of physicians for recommending marijuana to patients]; 86 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 180, 181 (2003).)
The three questions presented for analysis concern a recently established state program to facilitate implementation of Proposition 215. In 2003, the Legislature enacted sections 11362.7 through 11362.83 to provide a uniform system of "identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution . . . ." (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1.) Under this legislation, the state Department of Health Services ("Department") is directed to "establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards" to qualified patients and primary caregivers, and to provide a process through which state and local law enforcement officers may immediately verify a card's validity. (§ 11362.71, subd. (a); see also § 11362.71, subd. (d)(3).) Each county health department, or other "health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization" designated by the county (§ 11362.71, subd. (c)), is to provide applications, receive and process completed applications, and issue identification cards. (§§ 11362.71, subd. (b); 11362.72-11362.74.)3 Section 11362.77, subdivision (a), sets forth the maximum amount of marijuana and number of marijuana plants that a qualified patient or caregiver may possess without prosecution; however, local governments are expressly authorized to allow greater amounts. Subdivision (c) of section 11362.77 provides: "Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a)."4 Section 11362.83 additionally provides: "Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article."
1. Preemption of Local Programs
The first question to be resolved is whether the statewide registry and identification card program preempts the operation of a city's own registry and identification card program. We conclude that the statewide program preempts the operation of any local programs, but that cities may adopt and enforce other related ordinances if they are consistent with state law.
Under the California Constitution, each city and county is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) In Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985)
"Under the police power granted by the Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise their power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. (Cal. Const., art. XI, §§ 7.) Apart from this limitation, the `police power [of a county or city] under this provision . . . is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself.' [Citation.]"
In addition, charter cities may adopt and enforce ordinances that conflict with general state laws, if the subject matter is a "municipal affair" and not a "statewide concern." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5; see American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005)
A conflict between a state law and a local ordinance exits where "the ordinance duplicates or is coextensive therewith, is contradictory or inimical thereto, or enters an area either expressly or impliedly fully occupied by general law." (American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1251; see Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993)
Initially, we note that the Legislature expressly did not intend to "fully occupy" all areas of law concerning the use of medical marijuana when it enacted the statewide registry and identification card program. To the contrary, the 2003 legislation affirmatively authorizes local governments to retain or establish guidelines permitting possession of greater amounts of marijuana (§ 11362.77, subd. (c)) and to adopt and enforce other "laws consistent with this article" (§ 11362.83). Hence, the state statutes at issue here do not expressly or impliedly preempt this entire field of regulation. (See Malish v. City of San Diego (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 725,728-729 [state law expressly permits local regulation of pawnbrokers and other secondhand dealers].)
On the other hand, the Legislature has demonstrated its intention to fully occupy a narrower, more specific field of regulation with respect to the use of medical marijuana: the establishment of a registry and identification card program designed to "facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers . . . ." (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(1).) This statewide program includes a mechanism by which law enforcement officers throughout the state "have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of an identification card." (§ 11362.71, subd. (b).) The statutory provisions are elaborate, detailed, and comprehensive. (See, e.g., §§ 11362.7 [definitions]; 11362.77 [implementation duties of Department and each county health department]; 11362.715 [information required for applications]; 11362.72 [required steps for processing and issuing applications]; 11362.735 [required contents of identification cards]; 11362.74 [limited reasons for denial of application; appeal; waiting period to reapply]; 11362.745 [annual renewal of card]; 11362.755 [application and renewal fees].) While patients' and caregivers' participation in the program is voluntary (§ 11362.71, subds. (a)(1), (f)), the statutes mandate that all necessary steps be taken by the Department and each county to make the program available to all applicants statewide (§ 11362.71, subds. (a)-(d)).
The statewide program is intended to "[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state." (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(2).)5 It follows that a local identification card program will be preempted, and rendered void, once the state program is implemented in the locality. At that point, any local program will "exceed the scope of local regulation permitted by" sections 11362.7 through 11362.83. (Malish v. City of San Diego, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 729.)6
We conclude that the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempts the operation of a city's own registry and identification card program, but a city may adopt and enforce other ordinances consistent with the statewide program.
2. Preemption Prior to Implementation of Statewide Program
The second question we are asked to address is whether a city may continue to operate its own program until the statewide program is implemented. We conclude that a local program may continue to be operated temporarily except for any element that is "contradictory to" state law.
A local ordinance, regulation, or program is contradictory to state law if it is ". . . inimical to state law; i.e., it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids." (Suter v. City of Lafayette, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 1124; see Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 898; 77 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 147, 148 (1994).) Here, we are asked to consider a city ordinance that (1) provides identification cards for patients and primary caregivers, (2) requires attending physicians to practice within the county where the city is located, (3) prohibits anyone under 18 years of age from receiving a card as a primary caregiver, (4) prohibits cardholders from being detained by city police officers longer than necessary to verify their status, (5) prohibits the seizure of medical marijuana by city police officers, (6) allows possession of marijuana in amounts different from the quantity specified in the statewide program, and (7) prohibits smoking marijuana in any public place. Do any of these elements of the local ordinance permit conduct that is prohibited by state law or forbid conduct that is permitted under state law?
We believe that a city may (1) continue to operate a local registry and identification program, (2) prohibit cardholders from being arrested by city police officers, (3) prohibit the seizure of medical marijuana by city police officers, and (4) allow possession of marijuana in amounts greater than specified in the 2003 legislation. These elements of a local program would be consistent with state law. (See §§ 11362.71, subd. (e); 11362.77, subds. (a), (b), (c), (f); Dublin v. City of Alameda (1993)
On the other hand, a city would be preempted from allowing possession of marijuana at levels less than what the state law permits and making identification cards a mandatory prerequisite for prohibiting detention and seizure, because such provisions would directly contradict state law. (See § 11362.77 [qualified patient or caregiver may have at least eight ounces of marijuana per patient; cities and counties may permit quantities that exceed state amounts]; § 11362.71, subd. (f) [identification card not required to claim Act's protections].) Similarly, a city program that defined "attending physician" and "primary caregiver" more narrowly than state law would be preempted to the extent that it prohibited what state law expressly permitted. (Cf. §§ 11362.7, subd. (a) [defining "attending physician"], 11362.7, subd. (e) [permitting "primary caregiver" to be under 18 years of age under specified circumstances].)
Finally, with respect to regulating where persons may use medical marijuana, the Legislature has provided in section 11362.79:
"Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
"(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
A city thus would not be preempted from continuing to prohibit marijuana use in any public place; such local limitation may in fact remain after the statewide program has been implemented. (See also § 11362.765, subd. (a); cf. City of San Jose v. Department of Health Services (1998)
We conclude in answer to the second question that a city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide program is implemented in the county in which the city is located, except to the extent that the operation of the city's program would be inconsistent with state law.
3. Designated Health-Related Entity or Organization
The final question to be addressed concerns whether a city may be designated to perform the duties of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. We conclude that a city would not be eligible for such designation.
Section 11362.71, subdivision (b), sets forth a number of duties to be performed by a county health department or by the county's "designee" in implementing the statewide registry and identification card program:
"Every county health department, or the county's designee, shall do all of the following:
"(1) Provide applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program.
"(2) Receive and process completed applications in accordance with Section 11362.72.
"(3) Maintain records of identification card programs.
"(4) Utilize protocols developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
"(5) Issue identification cards developed by the department to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers."7
Section 11362.71, subdivision (c), specifies the entities from which a "county designee," as used in subdivision (b), may be selected:
"The county board of supervisors may designate another health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization to perform the functions described in subdivision (b), except for an entity or organization that cultivates or distributes marijuana."
The term "health-related . . . entity or organization" is not defined in the 2003 legislation (cf. § 11362.7), nor was the term used in Proposition 215 itself. (See § 11362.5.) A county health department would, of course, be such an entity, as reflected by the Legislature's use of the term "another" in section 11362.71, subdivision (c). Such department operates under the direction of the county health officer, who must be a graduate of a medical school. (§§ 101000, 101105; see Gov. Code, §§ 24000, subd. (s), 33201.) A county health department is responsible for preserving and protecting public health and sanitation, and for responding to public health emergencies. (§§ 101030-101085.) County mental health departments and welfare departments may also be considered health-related governmental entities. (See Gov. Code, § 33201.)
In this case, we think the phrase "health-related . . . entity or organization" is ordinarily understood to mean an organization whose principal focus is on matters involving physical and mental health, including directly providing medical and health services or administering public health programs, disease detection and prevention programs, and therapeutic and educational programs. (See Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict. (2002) at pp. 1043 ["health," "health department"], 1916 ["related"].)8
We reject the suggestion that a city may be characterized as a "health-related governmental . . . entity" because it has the authority to enact ordinances and take other measures for the protection and preservation of public health. To be sure, section 101450 does give cities certain health related responsibilities:
"The governing body of a city shall take measures necessary to preserve and protect the public health, including the regulation of sanitary matters in the city, and including if indicated, the adoption of ordinances, regulations and orders not in conflict with general laws."
A city council may appoint a city health officer to discharge these responsibilities. (See §§ 101460-101470.)
However, unlike a county health department or another organization that specializes in matters of public health, a city is accountable for a broad spectrum of local activities, responsibilities, and programs that are not primarily "of, relating to, or engaged in welfare work directed to the cure and prevention of disease." (Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict., supra, at p. 1043.) Consequently, we do not believe that a city would meet the usual definition of the term "health-related . . . entity or organization."
Moreover, such a designation would result in a city's undertaking countywide responsibilities for implementing the statewide program. In 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 8 (1980), we concluded that a city could perform health related responsibilities for a county outside the city's boundaries if authorized by the Legislature. (Id. at p. 10.) Here, we find that the 2003 legislation has not authorized a city to perform these services outside its boundaries. (Cf. People v. Pina (1977) 72 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 35, 39-40 [county sheriff has statutory authority to empower city police officers to act as peace officers in any place within the county, including other cities].)9 In the absence of such a legislative grant of extra-territorial authority, a city's power to act is confined to its own boundaries absent "the urgency of extreme expediency or necessity." (Harden v. Superior Court (1955)
We conclude in answer to the third question that a county may not designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users.
Cohen v. Board of Supervisors , 40 Cal. 3d 277 ( 1985 )
Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School ... , 39 Cal. 3d 878 ( 1985 )
DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. , 2 Cal. 4th 593 ( 1992 )
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles , 4 Cal. 4th 893 ( 1993 )
California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los ... , 54 Cal. 3d 1 ( 1991 )
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative , 121 S. Ct. 1711 ( 2001 )