The Law Does Not Require A Grow Room To Be Locked.

[peanutbutter]

It makes good sense to look your grow .. heck .. build a concrete reenforced bunker that takes a fingerprint swipe to enter it.

 

What kind of security would be required to refuse access to police equipped with a warrant? There is no security devices that will do that. So it becomes a matter of how secure the location. A reasonable amount of security is what is required.

 

Most of the time such a warrant is issued, it is a document that requires a law abiding citizen to break the law and 'permit' entrance into the growing area by unlicensed law enforcement officers.

 

A written order from a judge compelling a citizen to break the law.

 

It's called a "Enclosed, locked facility." Because it's named that way we assume it means locked. That is not true.

 

The law defines exactly what that phrase means.

 

Section 3 © "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

Since the law defines exactly what that phrase means, we are not allowed to consider other sources for defining exactly what that phrase means.

 

To be such a thing, the area must be EQUIPPED with locks. OR OR OR OR OR equipped with 'other security devices."

 

The area doesn't even have to have a lock. Let alone that it must be locked.

 

Look closely ..

[Dr. Bob]

Who cares what the law says. What do the COURTS say the law says?

 

This is a common problem- most folks run afoul by trying to show a court how the police or another court got it wrong so what we did was really ok under OUR interpretation of the law. Let's have a major shift of attitude in here. Rather than tell them why their point of view is wrong, why don't we show them how we complied with it?

 

Lock your grows starting with the room, then the house, then the front gate at the drive. Instead of showing why you don't need to lock it up, dump all the locks LEO had to cut to get to your plants on the judge's desk and ask 'what more do you expect me to do?'.

 

I'll dump the cut locks on the desk, you can argue why you don't have to lock your girls up. Which of us are going to jail? Quit splitting hairs and lock up grows.

 

Dr. Bob

[Hydraulic Jack]

I think the point he's trying to make here is the similar to saying you have to lock your meds in the trunk of your car.......If you say it enough people will think that it IS law.....That is the problem here....HJ

[The Digital Nomad]

Title was misleading, you should lock your grow.

I see he was trying to make a point..

 

-DN

[Dr. Bob]

I think the point he's trying to make here is the similar to saying you have to lock your meds in the trunk of your car.......If you say it enough people will think that it IS law.....That is the problem here....HJ

 

There are other laws that come into play as well. Do you have easy access to MMJ while driving? If you can possess a loaded fire arm, does that mean you can carry it openly on the seat next to you when you drive? Can you have an open beer in your cup holder even if you aren't drinking it?

 

I'll turn it right back at you. I'll grant you it isn't in the law, but if it is locked in the trunk vs on the seat next to you, which is the better defense? Pick battles, don't split hairs. It is precisely think kind of thought process that leads directly to adverse court opinions, bad zoning laws and bad public perception.

 

Read elsewhere on this board. There is a substantial bit of opinion that is saying protesters promoting jury nullification etc at a recent trial ALLOWED the judge to influence the jury to convict. I am not commenting on the protest or the case, just pointing out what is being said about it.

 

My point is that if we approach this from an attitude of safety demonstrating how we complied with what they want, we may never end up in court to begin with. Lock the grow, lock it in the trunk, etc. The old adage with speeding tickets comes to mind. The best way to fight one is not to get it in the first place. After that it is an uphill battle and I don't want to joust windmills if I don't have to. I don't want to be in court unless it is my choice to be there, and I don't choose to be there unless it is a slam dunk win from my side and I can overcome any possible argument from theirs.

 

Dr. Bob

[Green-Nubie]

Screw having a crap ton of locks.. my front door only need's a door handle lock right..

 

But then again i have security beams on all property lines, complete alarm system on the house, cameras with motion tracking, and all of this info gets sent off site to a secure server.. what does a lock really do?? but camera footage.............makes everyone watch there P and Q's

I do install these systems for a living so most don't have this option.

 

So whether its a thief or the law it will be filmed!! And i will know whats up before they kick in the door and shoot my dogs!!!! (maybe have enough time to lock dogs up) maybe??

all for a plant that I'm allowed to have..

[Dr. Bob]

Title was misleading, you should lock your grow.

I see he was trying to make a point..

 

-DN

 

The point being made is that the law doesn't require it and therefore it shouldn't be viewed as a requirement. Ok, I'll grant that. I am wearing shoes but I am not walking right now either. People are not perfect, either is the law. Problems occur when folks try and apply a law they know very well in the absence of looking at other laws that come to bear as well. Hair splitting vs common sense.

 

The law of ballistics is clear, if I am pointing a loaded gun 91 degrees off a line between me and the officer, there is NO WAY I can hit him and the muzzle is pointing 'away' from him, and there is not a jury in the state that would convict him for taking me out.

 

I don't read the law looking for hairs, I look at how the courts view it because that is what matters. Pointing out the fact a lock per se isn't require could put the idea in the heads of some folks that if they don't lock up they are ok, because they can argue the point in court. It is a poor and unnecessary argument. That is my point.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Screw having a crap ton of locks.. my front door only need's a door handle lock right..

 

But then again i have security beams on all property lines, complete alarm system on the house, cameras with motion tracking, and all of this info gets sent off site to a secure server.. what does a lock really do?? but camera footage.............makes everyone watch there P and Q's

I do install these systems for a living so most don't have this option.

 

So whether its a thief or the law it will be filmed!! And i will know whats up before they kick in the door and shoot my dogs!!!! (maybe have enough time to lock dogs up) maybe??

all for a plant that I'm allowed to have..

 

Good point, you have easily complied with the law and can prove it. You make my argument with a lot of security devices you can dump on the judge's desk. But you know, I bet you lock them too, just to be safe.

 

Dr. Bob

[Estimated Prophet]

All of this literal interpretation of the MM law reminds me a lot of theologists who dissect each passage of our spiritual texts. Over analyzing the words in search of a meaning to suit your needs does nothing but distort the true message and intent. I don't see a debate over semantics as being any kind of defense for growing in an unlocked facility.

[CedarSpringsCG]

I have a lock on the room that has my grow closet in it. Because of the heat I often leave that door open when I am at home to help vent hot air from the surrounding room (I know, after this grow I will work on more ventilation... it was fine in winter when I built it ). But when I am home, I am the security device, as well as all my outside doors stay locked now.

 

When I leave the house, all of my doors are locked. I do feel that I am following the law, because without breaking and entering, there isn't a way in and once in they have another door lock to break. However I also am realistic in that I am not trying to put steel doors in, because a steel door next to a 3/8" drywall wall, if someone really wants in they will get there. 10 seconds with a sledge hammer and they will get through the wall anyway.

 

I do believe the intent was to be locked. The "other security devices" I believe was put in there so that someone could have a finger print scanner if they wanted. Cameras and alarms, while awesome and helpful, do not actually prevent access. A lock, be it mechanical, electronic, padlocks, etc, do prevent access. the law says the security device has to allow access only by a PT or CG.

 

Think about a toolbox. You put a camera outside the toolbox, and one inside the toolbox, and an alarm, anyone can still walk right up, open it and take what's inside. They may not get far, but they still did. But put a padlock on it, now they have to break the padlock first. That is a secure toolbox.

 

Once they invent forcefields, we will be able to use those, but that's a few years away from consumer use yet

 

I think mostly the law was set to prevent access from neighborhood kids etc sneaking in and taking without you knowing, but still, alarms fail, power can be lost, batteries die.

 

With the highest tech alarm, cameras sending images out to 37 offsite locations, and motion sensors, etc, they are all just add ons. They do not allow access only by a PT and CG. If you had NO locks and the highest tech alarm around with a 110db siren and flashing lights, that immediately phoned the police, I could still walk right in. You might know it, your neighbors might know it, but I could do it.

 

Everyone gets hung up on the "other security devices", but those security devices, reading the letter of the law, says they must prevent access.

 

So some could argue a guard dog would suffice, but you would probably have to prove proper training, etc. A Watch dog is just another alarm. A Guard dog will actually prevent someone, there is a difference.

[CedarSpringsCG]

Screw having a crap ton of locks.. my front door only need's a door handle lock right..

 

But then again i have security beams on all property lines, complete alarm system on the house, cameras with motion tracking, and all of this info gets sent off site to a secure server.. what does a lock really do?? but camera footage.............makes everyone watch there P and Q's

I do install these systems for a living so most don't have this option.

 

So whether its a thief or the law it will be filmed!! And i will know whats up before they kick in the door and shoot my dogs!!!! (maybe have enough time to lock dogs up) maybe??

all for a plant that I'm allowed to have..

I would LOVE a system like that... What would something like that cost? Once I find out what it costs, my next question will be, can it make me breakfast in the morning?

[Green-Nubie]

Good point, you have easily complied with the law and can prove it. You make my argument with a lot of security devices you can dump on the judge's desk. But you know, I bet you lock them too, just to be safe.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

 

 

I guess my point was locks can be cut... but video tells no lies..

Unlike the cops before&after they kick in your door...

 

 

Bob yes i do lock them, but only with a card swipe system. one lock per door.

[peanutbutter]

All of this literal interpretation of the MM law reminds me a lot of theologists who dissect each passage of our spiritual texts. Over analyzing the words in search of a meaning to suit your needs does nothing but distort the true message and intent. I don't see a debate over semantics as being any kind of defense for growing in an unlocked facility.

 

The simple statement is what the voters themselves said yes to

 

Shall any patient or caregiver, registered or unregistered, be able to present a medical defense to ANY prosecution for marijuana?

 

Barbra Agro was denied the ability to present this defense. The reason they refused to allow her to do so was that the front door of her house was unlocked when the police arrived to conduct a search.

[peanutbutter]

All of this literal interpretation of the MM law reminds me a lot of theologists who dissect each passage of our spiritual texts. Over analyzing the words in search of a meaning to suit your needs does nothing but distort the true message and intent. I don't see a debate over semantics as being any kind of defense for growing in an unlocked facility.

 

"Be ye a workman of God .. Rightly dividing the Word of truth."

[peanutbutter]

Everyone gets hung up on the "other security devices", but those security devices, reading the letter of the law, says they must prevent access.

 

So some could argue a guard dog would suffice, but you would probably have to prove proper training, etc. A Watch dog is just another alarm. A Guard dog will actually prevent someone, there is a difference.

 

And so an evaluation needs to be done on a case by case basis to determine if the location is secure ENOUGH.

 

That is the kind of thing that is supposed to be determined by a jury.

[peanutbutter]

And PLEASE understand. I'm NOT saying to leave your grow unlocked.

 

Lord knows, they will use that as an EXCUSE to ignore the people of the state.

 

What I'm saying here is that an unlocked door is not a justifiable reason to send someone to prison. Even more so when locks are not even required in the law.

[CedarSpringsCG]

And PLEASE understand. I'm NOT saying to leave your grow unlocked.

 

Lord knows, they will use that as an EXCUSE to ignore the people of the state.

 

What I'm saying here is that an unlocked door is not a justifiable reason to send someone to prison. Even more so when locks are not even required in the law.

Yeah, there is no way I would convict someone for not having a lock locked. Especially if someone was at home, because that person now becomes the security device in my eyes. I personally consider inside someone's home secure, even if there are no locks as that is their home.

 

But whereas a "lock" is not required, some security device that permits only access by a CG or PT has to be in place according to the law. Be that a guard at the door who checks ID's, a guard dog that only allows YOU in the room, or a "non-registered person homing missle", there has to be a security device that allows only access by a CG or PT according to the law. I still would acquit anyone I was on a jury for, as it is a nit-picky technicality.

 

Please be advised that a homing missle as such, while not developed yet, might be construed as a "booby trap" and may be illegal in certain parts of the state.

 

There is a term I use in my job, security through obscurity. Basically it means that something can be secured, if you have no way to tell what it is. Hidden doors that look like a book case can be considered secure, even though it is in plain sight with no lock, everyone thinks it is a bookcase and not a door and therefore it can be considered secure. With a grow room you can assume the same thing. If no one knows you have a grow, it can be considered secure in my eyes.

[lawyercaregiver]

Hmm, I thought it said something about an enclosed locked facility. I will have to reread it.

 

I keep my room locked- with the key in the lock as if to say eat me, I am following the law....

[peanutbutter]

Hmm, I thought it said something about an enclosed locked facility. I will have to reread it.

 

I keep my room locked- with the key in the lock as if to say eat me, I am following the law....

 

Well .. the lock doesn't function to keep people out that way.

 

Keep your places locked. Even though they are not required in the law, it will be an excuse to arrest and try you.

 

At a minimum, they would likely destroy your plants and grow area.

 

I know many don't like me talking about it. It seems that I'm promoting leaving areas unsecured.

 

If I don't say something about, those locks will always be assumed to be part of the law. Check out Larry Kings case. A judge decided his grow wasn't secure enough. I think they figure we need a fall out shelter from the 1950's to be able to grow.

[peanutbutter]

Folks remember. The system is trying to reduce our law as much as possible.

 

Each detail in the law will become null without someone standing up for the law itself.

 

Every detail. Any detail that we don't stand about will be tossed out.

 

That is the pattern they have told everyone they will follow.

[Guest Happy Guy]

What will be the final stance where we all can agree will be that the grow room has to keep out people who are not supposed to have access to the medical cannabis. It all comes down to a simple common sense issue. That is what the general public will be on board with and that is what counts. Just ask yourself if you have your room secure from anyone who can enter your home. If there is a locked door, that only the people authorized to access the grow can pass through, then you are bulletproof. On the other hand, if your neighbor's kids can walk right in and check it out then you are out of compliance. This is how it has to be to win the hearts and minds of the general public. They have to feel secure too, not worrying about their kids getting into your grow.

[Dr. Bob]

Well .. the lock doesn't function to keep people out that way.

 

Keep your places locked. Even though they are not required in the law, it will be an excuse to arrest and try you.

 

At a minimum, they would likely destroy your plants and grow area.

 

I know many don't like me talking about it. It seems that I'm promoting leaving areas unsecured.

 

If I don't say something about, those locks will always be assumed to be part of the law. Check out Larry Kings case. A judge decided his grow wasn't secure enough. I think they figure we need a fall out shelter from the 1950's to be able to grow.

 

King got in trouble because his grow room was not locked and either was his back door. Take home message, the COURTS interpret the law to mean locks- so lock the house and put a lock on the grow room, end of discussion. That is what they consider secure.

 

He also ran into trouble with an outdoor grow in a dog kennel. To issues they had with that, it wasn't covered, and you could easily lift the corner off the ground and gain access to the plants. Again, if you have an outdoor grow, cover it and make sure the fencing cannot be lifted (stake it or otherwise secure it to the ground). That is what the COURTS consider secured, so do it.

 

Now for a moment consider you are my 73 year old, non MMJ using mom (A VOTER) and she reads someone's analogy that the yard at Jackson isn't covered so the kennel didn't need to be covered. Does the kennel have guard towers, snipers and concertina at the top of an 18 foot wall? Would ANY reasonable person consider locking up felons for years in a dog kennel that they could lift off the ground or climb over? What are the chances she would read about these arguments and think 'silly pot heads' and move on? Do we really want the public thinking we are 'silly pot heads'? Now compare that to her reading our leaders, like PB, reviewed the case and put out recommendations to lock it up properly to be in compliance, cover and stake the kennels, and perhaps fence the area like a public swimming pool to make sure several barriers were in place. I bet she would think 'Ok they learned from a mistake, and are truly trying to stay legal, perhaps LEO is going overboard on this, cause these patients are doing everything they can.'

 

Like the argument about the revenue and profits the MMMP is making, the wisest amongst us grasped the significance of that as evidence of a positive benefit to the state's finances and some leverage with lawmakers to counter all the negativity they have been hearing from Jones and company. Let's use it and consider it the cost of business to us for having the ability to medicate and relieve our suffering. Pioneers moved West with hardship, suffering and at great cost to open new country, the smooth, paved roads and burger joints came LATER. We are still in the hardship phase, we are pioneers making the world better for our kids. Yes we can pick details and focus on them, but we gain more by looking at the big picture and picking the right fights. This issue on security of grows IS NOT one of those fights. And I think the general public will agree and view it as 'those silly pothead'.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

What will be the final stance where we all can agree will be that the grow room has to keep out people who are not supposed to have access to the medical cannabis. It all comes down to a simple common sense issue. That is what the general public will be on board with and that is what counts. Just ask yourself if you have your room secure from anyone who can enter your home. If there is a locked door, that only the people authorized to access the grow can pass through, then you are bulletproof. On the other hand, if your neighbor's kids can walk right in and check it out then you are out of compliance. This is how it has to be to win the hearts and minds of the general public. They have to feel secure too, not worrying about their kids getting into your grow.

 

Right on.

[jimbojinx]

Like Mitch Albom says: " Common sense is not all that common, anymore."

 

"Secure" means "secure".....and not something built upon a wish nor a handshake nor a guess !!!

 

Dr. Jinx

 

"We must at all times remember that we all have butts which are best kept covered !! "

[peanutbutter]

Oh well .. I guess we lost a chunk of the law ..

 

Lets have a party.