Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
WashingtonStateSupremeCourt
MAY - 5 1 ~
RonaldR.Carpenter
Clerk
Courtof AppealsNo. 70396-0-1
WASIDNGTONSTATESUPREMECOURT
JOHNWORTHINGTONETAL,
Appellant
v.
CITYOFKENTETAL,
Respondent
PETITIONFORREVIEW
JOHNWORTHINGTON
4500SE2ND PL
RENTON,WA.98059
425-917-2235
[] COpy
Courtof AppealsNo. 70396-0-1
WASHINGTONSTATESUPREMECOURT
JOHNWORTHINGTONETAL,
Appellant
V.
CITYOFKENTETAL,
Respondent
PETITIONFORREVIEW
JOHNWORTHINGTON
4500SE2ND PL
RENTON,WA.98059
425-917-2235
A. IDENTITYOFPETITIONER
AppellantJohnWorthingtonrespectfullyforreliefdesignatedin
PartBof thispetition.
B. RELIEFREQUESTED
Worthingtonrespectfullyrequestsreviewofthedecisionofthe
WashingtonStateCourtofAppealsforDivisionIinCaseNo. 70396-
0-1 filedMarch31,2014.InitspublishedopinionupholdingtheCity
ofKent'sbanonmedicalcannabiscollectivegardens,theDivisionI
Courtmakeserrorsoffactandlaw.Thedecisionmeetsthecriteriafor
RAP1304 (b)TheWashingtonStateSupremeCourtshouldaccept
review,andreversetheDivisionIpublishedopinionandremandthe
case. Acopyof theMarch31,2014decisionisintheAppendixA.
C. SUMMARY&WHYREVIEWSHOULDBE
ACCEPTED
RAP 13o4(b) setsforththefollowinggroundsforreviewof
appellatedecisions:
ApetitionforreviewwillbeacceptedbytheSupremeCourtonly:
(1) IfthedecisionoftheCourtof Appealsis inconflictwitha
decisionoftheSupremeCourt;or
(2)If thedecisionof theCourtofAppealsis inconflictwitha
decisionbyanotherdivisionoftheCourtofAppeals;or
(3)IfasignificantquestionoflawundertheConstitutionofthe
StateofWashingtonoroftheUnitedStatesisinvolved;or
1
(4)Ifthepetitioninvolvesanissueofsubstantialpublicinterest
thatshouldbedetenninedbytheSupremeCourt.
Thiscaseshouldbeconsideredunderprongsone,threeandfourof
thisrule.Theissueofhannonizingcommercialproductionandnon-
commercialofcannabistothepointof intertwiningthoseactivitiesto
allowlocalgovernmenttohaveconcurrentauthoritytosetpenalties
fornon-commercialmedicalcannabisactivities,allowingthe
eliminationofallnon-commercialproduction
1
, isanissueof
substantialinteresttothepublicthatshouldbedecidedbythe
SupremeCourt.TheAppealsCourtrulingcreatedanewpenalty
settingauthorityforRCW69.51A.140,whichpreviouslyonly
containedonlylanguagepennittingzoning.Thisrulingconflictswith
theWashingtonStateConstitutionArticleIISectionI,andArticleII
Section18,andisamatterthatshouldbecorrectedbytheSupreme
Court.TheSupremeCourtshouldalsoacceptreviewbecausethe
AppealsCourtrulingbelowconflictswiththiscourt'srulingsin
DEP'TOFECOLOGYv.THEODORATUS 583 135 Wn.2d582
(1998)2,BROWN.v.YAKIMA
3
, 116Wn.2d556Wn.2d556,807
P.2d353(1991),DIAMONDPARKING-INC.v. SEATTLE, 78
I Includingallindividualhomemedicalcannabisgrows.
2
Wn.2d778,781,479P.2d47(1971)andSTATEv. KURTZ
No.87078-14. MANARYv. ANDERSON, 176Wash.2d342,350,292
P.3d96(2013);CAMPBELL&GWINN, 146Wash.2dat9,43 P.3d
4.(2002)
D. ISSUESPRESENTED
1. Givingauthoritytolocalgovernmentstobanandset
penaltiesforthenon-commercialproductionof medical
cannabis,allowingthebanningofhomemedicinalgrowsis
anissueofsubstantialpublicimportance.
2. AppealsCourtdecisionbelowconflictswiththeWashington
StateConstitution,andtheabilityofthelegislaturetocreate
alllaws.
3. AppealsCourtdecisionbelowconflictswithpriorSupreme
Courtcaserulingsholdingthatthecourtscannotrendera
sectionmeaningless,and,thatthestatutesmustbe
harmonized,and,thatthecourtsmustgiveproper
considerationtotheintentof Governor'svetolanguage,and,
thatthecityordinancemustyieldtothestatelawif thestate
lawleftnoroomforconcurrentjurisdiction,and,The
statutoryinterpretationmustconsiderlegislativehistory,
and,thatESSB5073createdacompletebartoprosecution.
E. STATEMENTOFTHECASE
Thiscasearisesoutof adisputeregardingtheenforcementofa
2 ThereviewingcourtconsiderstheintentoftheGovernorwhenhevetoesa
section.StateexreI.Royalv. BoardofYakimaCountyCommlrs, 123 Wn.2d451.
462,869P.2d56(1994);
3 Thus,theordinancemustyieldtoastatuteonthesamesubjecteitherif the
statutepreemptsthefield,leavingnoroomforconcurrentjurisdiction,Diamond
Parking,Inc. v. Seattle, 78Wn.2d778,781,479P.2d47(1971),orif aconflict
existssuchthatthetwocannotbeharmonized. Spokanev. J-RDistribs.,Inc., 90
Wn.2d722,730,585 P.2d784(1978),Adirectandirreconcilableconflictwitha
statuteviolatesConst.art. 11,11.Brown, at561.
4 ESSSB5073createsacompletebar toprosecution.
3
City of Kent ban on medical cannabis collectives. In 2011, the
Legislature adopted Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bi115073,
(Heretofore ESSSB 5073), amending Washington's laws pertaining to
the medical use of cannabis. The City of Kent passed ordinance KCC
15.08.290, on June 5, 2012. CP 28, 34, 335-341.
On June 5, 2012, Worthington joined other plaintiff's and filed
suit in King County Superior Court challenging the City of Kent's
moratorium and ordinance banning medical marijuana collectives. CP
1-18.
On June 20, 2012, Worthington and the other plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, (CP 19-34), arguing amongst other things, that
section 403, RCW 69.51A.085, did not contain any language
permitting city or county regulatory
On July 12,2012, Worthington and the other plaintiff's filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, (CP 652- 657), arguing again that
there was no local control over RCW 69.51A.085 or federal
preemption.
On August 15,2012, the City of Kent also filed a motion for
Summary Judgment, (CP 135-168), and asked for a Permanent
Injunction against the plaintiff's, to uphold their ban. The City of Kent
argued, that RCW 69.51A.140 contained language that allowed them
to ban medical marijuana collectives, and insisted that the Governor
4
--......- ......._----
leftsection 1102intact,specificallyforthepurposeofbanning
productionof allcannabis.
OnOctober5,2012,KingCountySuperiorCourtJudgeJay
WhiteruledtheCityofKentcouldenforcetheordinancebanning
medicalcannabiscollectivesandissuedpermanentinjunctions
againstalltheplaintiffs.CP558-560.
OnOctober15,2012,Worthingtonandtheotherplaintiffs,
filedamotiontoreconsider,(CP563-580),arguingfederal lawdid
notpreemptstatelaw,andtheordinanceviolatedstatelaw.
WorthingtonalsoarguedRCW69.5IA.025containedlanguagethat
protectedtherightsofqualifiedpatientsanddesignatedproviders
fromlocalcontroloranoutrightban,iftheycompliedwithRCW
69.5IA.040.
OnMarch31,2014,theWashingtonStateCourtofAppeals
upheldtheCityofKent'sbanonmedicalmarijuanacollective
gardenswitha26pagepublishedOpinion.OnMay5,2014
WorthingtonfilesthistimelyPetitionforReviewtotheWashington
StateSupremeCourt.
F. ARGUMENTWHYREVIEWSHOULDBE
ACCEPTED
A. Ifthepetitioninvolvesanissueofsubstantialpublic
interestthatshouldbedeterminedbytheSupreme
Court.
Givingauthoritytolocalgovernmentstobanandsetpenaltiesfor
5
thenon-commercialproductionof medicalcannabis,allowingthe
banningof homemedicinalgrowsisanissueofsubstantialpublic
importance.TheCourtofappealsdecisionhascreatedapanicinthe
medicalcannabiscommunity,whowereundertheimpressionthe
issuesatstakewouldnotaffectindividualpatienthomegrows.
Whenconstruingstatutes,thegoalistoascertainandeffectuate
legislativeintent.
5
ThelegislatureandtheGovernorbothintendedto
createaddedstatelawprotectionsforthenon-commercialproduction
ofmedicalcannabis.
6
Thelegislativeversion,eventhoughtetheredto
thepatientregistry,containedaseverabilityclausethatwouldhave
protectedthelegislativeintentofaddedstatelawprotections,evenif
theregistryportionofthelawweretobefoundinvalid.
7
TheGovernor'sversioninhervetomessageclearlycreateadded
statelawprotectionsforqualifiedpatientsanddesignatedproviders
uponthesigningofESSSB5073,evenwiththevetoofthepatient
registryinthesecondhalfofthevetomessage.
Couldtheaddedstatelawprotectionshavebeengivenaffect
withoutapatientregistry?Theanswertothatisyes,becausethe
5 BYLSMAv. BURGERKINGCORP., 176Wash.2d555,
558,293P.3d1168(2013);DEP'TOFECOLOGYv. CAMPBELLGWINN
LLC, 146Wash.2d1,9,43P.3d4(2002)
6 RCW69.51A.025.
7 RCW69.51A.903.
6
Governor's veto message declared she was adding state law
protections in addition to the affirmative defense patients and their
designated providers already had prior to the enactment ofESSB
5073, despite her veto ofthe patient registry. Plus, patients were
not required to register in order to legally possess controlled
substances.} (See RCW 69.50.302 shown below on page 12-13)
The Appeals Court ruling gives weight to only the second half of
the Governor's veto message that takes away the patient registry, and
ignores the first half ofthe Governor's veto message in which she
declares she is adding state law protections despite vetoing the patient
registry, all the while knowing she intended to veto the patient
registry. She had to do this in the manner in which she did because it
was too intertwined
8
with the commercial cannabis production and
distribution system, not because she intended to give the local
jurisdictions concurrent jurisdiction to set criminal or civil penalties.
There is no clear indication in the legislative intent nor the
Governor's veto message intent that the legislative intent for either
8 Unfortunately, the provisions of Section 901 that would provide a registry for
qualifying patients and designated providers beginning in January 2013 are
intertwined with requirements for registration of licensed commercial
producers, processors and dispensers of cannabis. Consequently, I have vetoed
section 901 as noted above.
7
creatingorleavingSection1102intactaftertheGovernor'sveto,was
tocreateaconcurrentjurisdictiontocreateapenaltysettingauthority
thatcouldbanmedicalmarijuanacollectivegardens.
Furthermore,thelegislativehistoryshowsthattheGovernorleft
Section1102intact,nottocreateconcurrentjurisdictionandapenalty
settingauthorityforlocalgovernment
9
, buttocreateanon-profit
commercialapplicationforthecommercialproductionofmedical
cannabis.Clearly,thelegislatureunderstoodthistobethecasesince
theyattemptedtoaccommodatetheGovernor'swishesbycreating
suchlanguageinSB5955.10Thelegislatureandthegovernordidso
withtheintentthatlocalgovernmentscouldnotprecludesiting
licenseddispensers.
B. HthedecisionoftheWSBAReviewCommitteeisin
conflictwithadecisionoftheSupremeCourt.
TheAppealsCourtdecisionbelowconflictswiththeWashington
StateConstitution,andtheabilityofthelegislaturetocreatealllaws.
TheSupremeCourthasconsistentlyruledthatthereviewingcourt
9RCW69.51A.140***********solongassuchrequirementsdonotprecludethe
possibilityofsitinglicenseddispenserswithinthejurisdiction
10(CP530-545)Thedefendantsfailedtodenythisallegationinthetrialcourtand
theAppealsCourtfailedtoruleontheissue.PursuanttoCR8(d)failuretodeny,
itisnowfactthatthelegislatureandGovernorintendedthatRCW69.51A.140
wasleftintozonenon-profitcommercialproductionof medicalcannabis,notto
createconcurrentjurisdictiontoallowcriminalandcivilpenaltysettingfornon-
commercialandcommercialproduction.
8
considerstheintentof theGovernorwhenhevetoesasection.State
exreI. Royalv. BoardofYakimaCountyComm'rs,123 Wn.2d451,
462,869P.2d56(1994).TheGovernor'svetomessagedidnot
includeanyclearindicationshewascreatingconcurrentjurisdiction
toauthorizelocalgovernmenttocreateandenforcecivilpenalties.
NordidtheGovernor'svetomessageincludethelanguagethatshe
intendedlocaljurisdictionstohaveconcurrentjurisdictiontobannon-
commercialproductionof medicalcannabis.TheCityof Kent,andthe
AppealsCourtsimplypullsconcurrentjurisdictionandpenaltysetting
authorityoutof thinair.LikewisetheCityandtheAppealscourtpulls
controlofnon-commercialproductionofmedicalcannabisoutof
nowhereinordertoaccommodatetheCityof Kent'sordinance
banningmedicalcannabiscollectives.
Inpreviousrulings,theSupremeCourthasruledthatnosectionof
astatutecanberenderedmeaninglessorsuperfluous. I I However,that
iswhattheCityofKentordinanceandAppealsCourtrulingdoes.
ThispublishedopinionrenderersthelanguageinRCW69.51A.025
11 DEP'TOFECOLOGYv.THEODORATUS 583 135 Wn.2d582 (1998):
Collectingcases,WHATCOMCOUNTYv. CITYOFBELLINGHAM,128
Wash.2d537,546,909P.2d 1303 (1996).(CITYOFSEATTLEv. STATE,136
Wn.2d693 (1998).
9
meaninglessandsuperfluous,basedonthefailuretoproperlyinterpret
andgiveeffectto theplainmeaningofthestatute.
12
TheAppeals
Court'sinterpretationclearlyfailstoconsiderthatthewordorB in
RCW69.S1A.02S wasuseddisjunctively,andinterpretsthestatuteto
be"intherulesinterpretingit,"andexcludesthephrase"nothingin
thischapter"ThisrulingisinconsistentwithSupremeCourtstatutory
interpretationcaselawthatrequiresthecourtsgiveeffecttoplain
meaningof thestatute. Theplainmeaningofthestatutemeantthat
nothinginthechapter,includinganylanguageinRCW69.S1A.140or
69.S1A.040.Thislanguagewaswrittento separateandprotectnon-
commercialproductionfromcommercialproduction.TheCourtof
Appealsremovedthisprotectionandcreatedanewlawthatfrustrated
thelegislativeintentandconsciouspolicydecisiontoseparate
commercialproductionfromnon-commercialproduction
l4