###

A recent ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal is raising eyebrows among legal experts for its shocking assertion that cannabis is, in fact, illegal in California. Why? Simple: “Because federal law says so.” 

“It is often said that cannabis is legal in California,” the Oct. 29 ruling states. “The statement is not true. Under federal law cannabis is illegal in every state and territory of the United States.”

The shocking determination emerged from a lawsuit – JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara – that centers around road access to a permitted 2.5-acre cannabis farm, owned by Kim Hughes, near Lompoc in Santa Barbara County. JCCrandall LLC, a neighboring oat and barley farm, sued the county in 2021 over a Board of Supervisors decision that allowed Hughes to transport cannabis through the Crandall property via a pre-existing easement, according to an article published in the Santa Barbara Independent.

“The Hughes property lies adjacent to the Crandall property with a private access road connecting the two,” the article states. “The road — whose usage terms were laid out in an easement between property owners in 1998 — is the only means of accessing the Hughes property. … When the Board of Supervisors approved Santa Rita’s permit application in 2021, Crandall alleged that not only did this violate the terms of the easement, but it also violated federal law due to the illegality of cannabis at the federal level.”

A three-justice panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, agreed with Crandall, adding that the county-issued conditional-use permit “is premised on JCCrandall being forced to allow its property to be used in cannabis transportation.” Not only that, but the scope of the easement “does not include the illegal transport of cannabis.”

“No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law,” the ruling states.

Ettersburg resident Rod Silva came across the appellate court ruling two weeks ago while searching the internet for an attorney to help him sort out an easement dispute with a neighbor. Now, he’s hoping the court’s determination will prevent Humboldt County from approving new permit applications.

“I complained to the Planning Department and I just got the runaround,” Silva told the Outpost. “The final result was, ‘Well, that’s civil litigation between you and your neighbor.’ I’m just really tired of it because I feel like the county has given farms shortcuts, even when they’re out of compliance. … This case opens up a can of worms. I think the county will have to stop permitting farms and maybe eliminate all the [farms] they have already permitted.”

Silva is particularly concerned about a conditional-use permit application for The Hills, LLC, and Shadow Light Ranch, LLC, submitted by Garberville resident Joshua Sweet, who was fined $1.75 million in February for various environmental violations. The permit application appeared on the Humboldt County Planning Commission’s Nov. 7 agenda but it was continued to the commission’s next meeting on Nov. 21 due to time constraints.

Silva submitted a document – linked here – about the “landmark ruling” to the clerk of the Planning Commission, warning that commissioners “cannot approve any [conditional-use permits] for cannabis-related business because ‘cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.’”

It remains to be seen what the recent judgment will mean for California’s weed farmers and other cannabis-related businesses.

Reached for additional comment on the matter, Humboldt County spokesperson Catarina Gallardo said, “The opinion in JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara is narrowly focused on the application of a specific provision within the Santa Barbara County Code.”

We also contacted the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) for comment on the matter and were told that the DCC “does not comment on ongoing legal matters or the deliberations of local planning commissions.”

The County of Santa Barbara has until Dec. 9 to appeal the case to the California Supreme Court, though there is no guarantee that the court will hear the case.

Silva said he contacted one of the attorneys representing JCCrandall LLC to find out if the county was going to appeal. “He told me the odds are against [the county] because the California Supreme Court only hears roughly three percent of the cases submitted to them for appeal,” Silva said.

Reached for additional comment via email, Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta, a communications specialist for Santa Barbara County, told the Outpost that the county will seek review of the recent appellate court decision, but she did not say when the county would submit the appeal.

###

DOCUMENT: JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara