Ord. 541 - City of Woodinville

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Attachment A to Ordinance No. 541Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report - Exhibit 4Ogden Murphy Wallace Brief on Relevant California CasePack v. Superior Court, --- Cal.Rptr.3d (2011) Case Law -Exhibit 4199 Cal.App.4th 1070, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serve 12,643, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,028 '—'State Police Power 708, 21 U.S.C.A. § 903.A local government's land use regulation is anarea over which local governments traditionallyhave control, for purposes of the presumptionagainst federal preemption in areas traditionallyregulated by the states. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6,cl. 2.15 States,i-=Preemption in GeneralThere are four species of federal preemption ofstate law: express, conflict, obstacle, and field;express preemption arises when Congressdefines explicitly the extent to which itsenactments preempt state law, conflictpreemption will be found when simultaneouscompliance with both state and federal directivesis impossible, obstacle preemption arises whenunder the circumstances of a particular case, thechallenged state law stands as an obstacle to theaccomplishment and execution of the fullpurposes and objectives of Congress, and fieldpreemption applies where the scheme of federalregulation is sufficiently comprehensive to makereasonable the inference that Congress left noroom for supplementary state regulation.U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2.16 States0-Congressional IntentWhere a statute contains an express pre-emptionclause, the court's task of statutory constructionmust in the first instance focus on the plainwording of the clause, which necessarilycontains the best evidence of Congress' preemptiveintent. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2.17 Controlled SubstancesPreemptionStatesi.-Product Safety; Food and Drug LawsFederal Controlled Substances Act (CSA)preempts conflicting laws under both conflictand obstacle preemption. Comprehensive DrugAbuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, §18 States, ---Contlicting or Conforming Laws orRegulationsConflict or "impossibility" preemption is ademanding defense, requiring establishing that itis impossible to comply with the requirements ofboth laws. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2.19 Controlled Substances‹; ,-=-PreemptionMunicipal CorporationsPolitical Status and RelationsCity ordinance requiring permits for medicalmarijuana collectives was not subject to conflictpreemption by the federal Controlled SubstancesAct (CSA), since a person could comply withboth simply by not being involved in thecultivation or possession of medical marijuana atall. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention andControl Act of 1970, § 708, 21 U.S.C.A. § 903.20 Controlled Substances;—PreemptionMunicipal CorporationsQPAPolitical Status and RelationsCity ordinance requiring that permitted medicalmarijuana collectives have samples of theirmarijuana analyzed by an independentlaboratory to ensure that it was free frompesticides and contaminants was subject toconflict preemption by the federal ControlledSubstances Act (CSA), since delivering themarijuana for testing would violate the CSA.Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention andControl Act of 1970, § 708, 21 U.S.C.A. § 903.21 States,e--Conflicting or Conforming Laws orRegulationsIf a federal act's operation would be frustratedand its provisions refused their natural effect bythe operation of a state or local law, the latterNo ()him 1.. • •
Attachment A to Ordinance No. 541Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report - Exhibit 4Ogden Murphy Wallace Brief on Relevant California CasePack v. Superior Court, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---- (2011) Case Law - Exhibit 4199 Cal.App.4th 1070, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,643, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,028must yield pursuant to obstacle preemption. activity lawful.U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2.22 Controlled Substances;=Statutes and Other RegulationsMain objectives of the federal ControlledSubstances Act (CSA) are combating drug abuseand controlling the legitimate and illegitimatetraffic in controlled substances, with a particularconcern of preventing the diversion of drugsfrom legitimate to illicit channels. 21 U.S.C.A, §801.23 Controlled Substanc esC.Preem pti onMunicipal Corporationsk.'=-Political Status and RelationsCity ordinance requiring permits for medicalmarijuana collectives was subject to obstaclepreemption by the federal Controlled SubstancesAct (CSA), where the ordinance purported toauthorize the collectives, city chargedsubstantial application and renewal fees, cityrandomly chose qualified applicants to receivepermits, and it was the possession of the permititself, rather than any particular conduct, whichexempted a collective from violationproceedings. Comprehensive Drug AbusePrevention and Control Act of 1970, § 708, 21U. S. C. A. § 903.See Annot, Preemption of State Regulation ofControlled Substances by Federal ControlledSubstances Act (2010) 60 A.L.R.6th 175; Cal.Jur. 3c1 Criminal Law: Crimes AgainstAdministration of Justice and Public Order, §39; 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3ded 2000) Crimes Against Public Peace andWelfare, § 63; 2 Witkin & Epstein, CatCriminal Law (2011 supp.) Crimes AgainstPublic Peace and Welfare, § 70B.24 Criminal LawENature of Crime in GeneralThere is a distinction, in law, between notmaking an activity unlawful and making the25 Statesc-
Page 2 and 3: WHEREAS, the City Council referred
Page 4 and 5: Section 2. Section 21.08, Permitted
Page 6 and 7: Attachment A to Ordinance No. 541CI
Page 8 and 9: Attachment A to Ordinance No. 541Pl
Page 12 and 13: gardens.Attachment A to Ordinance N
Page 14 and 15: APPROVED AS TO FORM:OFFICE OF THE C
Page 16 and 17: 6241-6243Social Services P12,C13P12
Page 38 and 39: StableP14, C* Kennel or Cattery C P

Ord. 541 - City of Woodinville

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?