SR-104-088 (5)
'8 .-
~CitYOf
Santa Monica'"
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: July 25,2006
Agenda Item: B-B
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
City Clerk, Director of Records and Election Services
Subject:
Impact Report on Qualified Initiative Petition for Proposed Ordinance
Entitled Lowest Police Priority for Marijuana Ordinance
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council review the attached impact report, accept the
qualified initiative petition for a proposed ordinance entitled "lowest Police Priority for
Marijuana Ordinance," as verified by the los Angeles County Clerk/Registrar Recorder
and do one of the following: adopt the ordinance as submitted, or direct staff to return
with a resolution and ballot language to place the measure on the November 7, 2006,
municipal election ballot.
Executive Summary
At the meeting of June 27, 2006, staff presented the qualified Initiative petition to
Council. Council directed staff to prepare an impact report on the effects of the
measure. The impact report has been prepared and is attached for Council's review.
1
Prepared by:
Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk
Attachment:
Impact Report
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
Maria M. Stewart
Director, Records and Election Services
2
City Council Meeting: July xx, 2006
Agenda Item: X-X
To:
Maria Stewart, City Clerk for Submission to City Council
From:
Chief of Police, James T. Butts, Jr.
Subject:
Impact Report on Public Safety of Proposed Ordinance Entitled Lowest Priority
for Marijuana Ordinance
Executive Summary
In March of 2006, the police department received notice that signature gathering had begun in
support of an initiative petition for a proposed ordinance entitled "Lowest Priority for Marijuana
Ordinance." The police department obtained the text of the proposed ordinance and began an
analysis of the impact of the ordinance as written. The proposed ordinance seeks to limit the
ability of the police department to investigate marijuana possession by adults, defined as
persons 21 years and older. The proposed ordinance requires strict reporting requirements if
the police department takes enforcement action for marijuana possession by adults. The police
department would be required to prove that there were no other requests for police services at
the time that the marijuana enforcement action occurred. The proposed ordinance would
prohibit the police department from cooperating with any other law enforcement agencies that
were investigating or may investigate marijuana possession by an adult. The text of the
proposed ordinance seeks to broaden the definition of marijuana to include: " . . . every
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative...al! parts of the plant, whether growing or not." The
text of the proposed ordinance fails to define or set a quantifiable amount of marijuana that
would constitute "personal use."
1
Discussion
Under existing law, unauthorized possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is a
misdemeanor under section 11357 (b) of the Health and Safety Code. Persons in possession of
valid identification are issued a citation unless they request an immediate appearance before a
magistrate. Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code recognizes medical marijuana and
creates a mechanism for seriously ill Californians to obtain marijuana legitimately.
The proposed ordinance fails to define what quantifiable amount of marijuana would equate to
an amount possessed for personal use versus an amount possessed for purposes of sales.
Based upon information obtained from the Department of Justice published statistics and upon
the experience of the Santa Monica Police Department, marijuana use for personal
consumption is often smoked via a hand-rolled cigarette commonly referred to as a "joint."
Each marijuana cigarette generally contains approximately half a gram to a gram of marijuana.
Marijuana users generally use between one marijuana cigarette a day for light to moderate
users, and up to five marijuana cigarettes or more per day for heavy marijuana users.
Marijuana is also consumed in other types of smoking devices and the amount consumed per
use is approximately the same as in a marijuana cigarette. See Exhibit A for further.
The proposed ordinance fails to distinguish marijuana from concentrated cannabis, i.e.
"hashish" and "hash oiL" Under existing law, possession of concentrated cannabis, "hash," and
or "hash oil" is a felony pursuant to section 11357(a) of the Health and Safety code. The
proposed ordinance also fails to address marijuana cultivation for "personal use." Marijuana
cultivation is a felony pursuant to section 11358 of the Health and Safety Code. The proposed
ordinance could be interpreted as directing the police department to ignore its legal duty to
take enforcement action whenever it has knowledge of such felony crimes.
2
The police department currently utilizes a call prioritization system in which requests for
service concerning personal use of marijuana by adults are classified as non-emergency. The
police department routinely receives complaints from citizens about persons smoking
marijuana in public and in high-density, multi-family housing areas. These complainants often
state that the use of marijuana by a neighbor causes a negative impact on their quality of life.
The proposed ordinance would require the police department to ignore these requests
regarding this type of quality of life issue. This is diametrically opposed to the established
policy of the Santa Monica Police Department to respond to ALL requests for service and to
work in partnership with the community to improve their quality of life.
A complaint about the smell of marijuana often provides the basis of a significant investigation.
Recently, several store owners complained about the odor of marijuana entering their
businesses through common walls and vents. One of the businesses was a pizza parlor that is
popular with local students, families, and youth sports groups. Narcotics investigators
responded to the location and discovered a sophisticated marijuana cultivation operation in a
large storage room adjacent to the businesses. Over 145 pounds of marijuana was seized
from the storage room which was located across the street from John Adams Middle School.
On another occasion, patrol officers responded to a complaint of marijuana odors in an
apartment complex. This investigation led to the discovery of an apartment that was being
used to store and distribute large amounts of marijuana. 250 pounds of marijuana was seized
from the apartment and information was developed that up to 1,000 pounds of marijuana had
been stored in the apartment on prior occasions. A suspect was arrested as he exited the
3
apartment that contained the marijuana and he was armed with a handgun at the time of his
arrest.
Frequently, investigations that begin as simple marijuana possession allegations turn out to be
much more serious crimes. The enforcement of existing marijuana possession laws often
provide the probable cause needed for an officer to investigate and detect more serious drug-
related crimes, to apprehend dangerous and armed criminals, and improve the quality of life of
people living, working, and visiting the City of Santa Monica.
The text of the proposed ordinance would require the police department to ensure that all other
requests for police services (including barking dogs, parking violations, construction noise,
reports, and other non-emergent calls) are handled before a police officer is dispatched to a
call involving an adult in possession of marijuana on private property. The proposed ordinance
assumes an officer will know whether or not the person alleged to be in possession of
marijuana is 21 years or older and that the person is not engaged in any other illegal activity. A
police officer could be dispatched to a call in which juveniles are believed to be in possession
of marijuana, only to find out that the subject of the service call was in fact a 21 year-old
person with a youthful appearance. The police officer would be in violation of the ordinance
and would be required to complete an incident report so that the circumstances could be
explained to the City Council. The time required to complete this report would be significant as
it would require the following: an analysis of the type of calls for service that were pending
when the police officer was dispatched to the location, all on duty dispatchers would need to
be interviewed to determine why the police officer was sent to the location, and all the daily
activity logs of the on duty officers would have to be reviewed and officers interviewed to
determine they did not require additional assistance that would have taken priority over a
4
marijuana possession investigation. While this analysis was taking place, the police officers,
dispatchers, and crime analysts would be unable to perform their normal duties. This type of
analysis is not only time consuming and costly, but would have a significant, detrimental
impact on police resources and public safety.
Budget/Financial Impact
If the proposed ordinance is adopted, there will be significant costs related to the reporting
requirements detailed in the ordinance. The cumbersome nature of these reporting
requirements could easily justify the hiring of one or more additional crime analysts to capture
the required data, conduct the necessary analysis, and prepare the required reports. Police
personnel would be required to deviate from their existing duties in order to provide
presentations to City Council to justify the enforcement of marijuana possession laws.
Additional police personnel would be required, on an overtime basis, to cover the duties that
would normally have been performed by the sworn and non-sworn personnel who are diverted
to the cumbersome reporting procedures mated by this proposed ordinance.
The police department would be unable to participate in multi-agency taskforces since these
taskforces could enforce marijuana possession laws. The police department currently receives
additional funding under asset forfeiture sharing agreements for its participation in multi-
agency taskforces that investigate drug dealers. This source of funding would be effectively
eliminated.
The proposed ordinance appears to expose the City to potential legal challenges and potential
civil penalties if it is found that the police department either intentionally or inadvertently
conducts marijuana posse~sion investigations. The cost of these penalties is not enumerated
5
in the proposed ordinance. It can be reasonably assumed that the proposed ordinance will be
subject to legal challenges under the theory that local laws can not supersede state and
federal laws. Additionally, there could be constitutional concerns and significant costs
associated with defending these legal challenges.
Prepared by:
James 1. Butts, Jr. , Chief of Police
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Mariiuana Use. PurchasinQ and Cost Data
6
Exhibit A
Mariiuana Use. Purchasina and Cost Data
Normal User Dosages
Individual Dose
Marijuana
Hashish
Hashish Oil
1 cigarette
1/101h gram
1/101h gram
Heavv User
5 cigarette/day
3 times a day
3 times a day
Quantity Normally Possessed/Purchased by Users
Marijuana
Hashish
Hashish Oil
1 gram - 1 ounce (28.5 grams)
1 gram
1 gram
Marijuana Amounts and Equations
1 gram = about 2 marijuana cigarettes ("Joints")
2 joints x 28.5 grams (1 oz.) = 57 joints
57 joints/month = less than 2 joints/day
1 mature marijuana plant generally produces % - 1 Ib of "smokable" marijuana
2 joints x 454 grams (1 lb.) = 908 joints
908 joints/month = about 30 joints/day
7