What happens when a dispenary is raided?

[Cheechster]

I'm a little paranoid as to what happens if the DEA raids a dispensary, aside from all of the medicine being taken. What happens to all the patient records, are they confiscated and kept by the police?

Cheechster Reviewed by Cheechster on 02-16-2009. What happens when a dispenary is raided? I'm a little paranoid as to what happens if the DEA raids a dispensary, aside from all of the medicine being taken. What happens to all the patient records, are they confiscated and kept by the police? Rating: 5

[gypski]

I'm a little paranoid as to what happens if the DEA raids a dispensary, aside from all of the medicine being taken. What happens to all the patient records, are they confiscated and kept by the police?

According to a 9th Circuit decision issued out of Yakima concerning patient records and the THC Foundation if I remember correctly, the patient's records are protected and the cops can't get inside them. Search for the actual decision since I don't have a link but have read it. :thumbsup:

[the image reaper]

the recent dispensary busts in Los Angeles, the TV news reporter said the Patient Records, and store computers, were all 'tagged & bagged' (confiscated) ...

[gypski]

I know that the police in Seattle had to return record, tec when they raided a co-op in the U district. Now whether they goes in California or not I don't know, but according to the 9th Circuit (covers all or most Western States) it should. Yes, they were seized in Seattle raid, but they were returned and any thing gleaned had to be destroyed. :thumbsup:

[gypski]

Found it.

Medical Marijuana Patient Records Are Private, Court Rules
September 13, 2007

Yakima, WA

A federal court in Yakima has quashed a subpoena that demanded the medical information of 17 medical marijuana patients, citing the need to protect their privacy. The ACLU represented the medical clinic that holds the patientsâ?? records.

Robert Whaley, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington, issued an order on Sept. 4, rejecting an effort by the federal government to obtain copies of medical files kept by The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation Medical Clinic (THCF). The clinic maintains offices in 11 states where patients can be seen by doctors who specialize in the medical use of marijuana.

"This ruling recognizes the importance of the medical marijuana laws in Washington and Oregon," said Alison Holcomb, director of the ACLU of Washington Marijuana Education Protect, who represented the clinic along with Adam Wolf and Graham Boyd of the national ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "Allowing the federal government to go after the records of patients would deter people from exercising their rights under the medical marijuana laws. Patients would be afraid to seek medical marijuana, and physicians would hesitate to recommend it."

On May 24, a federal grand jury issued subpoenas to the state of Oregonâ??s medical marijuana program and to the THCF, demanding applications for registration, doctor recommendations and other documents regarding 17 medical marijuana patients. The subpoena was tied to a federal investigation of an alleged marijuana distributor. The government claimed that it needed the records to estimate the quantities of marijuana distributed by the suspect.

The ACLU said that the governmentâ??s request was too broad. Releasing the records would put at risk sensitive information about the patientsâ?? conditions, and would violate the confidentiality privilege between patients and doctors. The state of Oregon also argued that its own laws required it to protect the privacy of patients registered in the stateâ??s medical marijuana program. Both parties said the records would be irrelevant to the investigation anyway, since they did not include specific amounts of cannabis distributed to patients.

In his ruling, Judge Whaley agreed that the governmentâ??s subpoena was overly broad, and that the need to protect the privacy of patients outweighed the governmentâ??s need to access the records.

"Absent a further showing of necessity and relevance, compliance with the subpoena would impact significant State and medical privacy interests and is unreasonable," Whaley wrote. :thumbsup: