Quote Originally Posted by justpics
It would except later in the Draft you have this;


"(4) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has converted cannabis produced or obtained for the qualifying patient
for his or her own personal use or benefit; and
(5) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has served as a designated provider to more than one qualifying
patient within a ninety-day period."



Is a confidential informant telling an officer he thinks you acted as a DP to two people in 90 days, "evidence"? Is a cop thinking you violated this clause for some other silly reason "evidence"?

I think in a lot of counties it will be.
EVIDENCE??

This is what they mean:

Harris argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it. Evidence is sufficient when, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992) (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 220-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980)). All reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201 (citing State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906-07, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977)). The intent to deliver a controlled substance must follow logically ??as a matter or probability from the evidence.? State v. Campos, 100 Wn. App. 218, 222, 998 P.2d 893 (citing State v. Davis, 79 Wn. App. 591, 594, 904 P.2d 306 (1995)), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1006 (2000). In assessing that intent, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, scales, baggies or packaging material, and pieces [*4] of paper with potential customer information. See Campos, 100 Wn. App. at 219, 224 (2.5 grams of cocaine and 25 grams in rock, $ 1,750, piece of paper that could have been a record of sales, pager, cell phone, and cell phone charger were sufficient to infer intent to deliver); see also State v. Zamora, 63 Wn. App. 220, 223, 817 P.2d 880 (1991) (large quantity of drugs along with cash, scales, gloves, and repackaging materials is sufficient to infer intent to deliver), abrogated by State v. Silva-Baltazar, 125 Wn.2d 472, 886 P.2d 138 (1994).

¶6 The evidence contained in the stipulation of facts and the police report is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it. Along with the marijuana, the officers seized baggies, a scale, $ 800 in cash ??donations,? [*5] and a notebook with weights and prices. Any rational trier of fact could infer, from that evidence, that Harris possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it, not to use it all personally. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to find Harris guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. We affirm.

Block text.lol.
jamessr Reviewed by jamessr on . Latest MMJ Law Draft Here is the latest revision. All 33 pages of it. Lot of pages over a little plant!! There is going to be a meeting in Seattle later this month for mmj community input. Most of you will have gotten a notice I imagine. :D Rating: 5