image of spinning marijuana leaf
palmspringsbum
Morongo Valley
Felony Cultivation
Return of Property Opposition 5
Home
Timeline
Felony Cultivation
Eviction
HUD/DFEH Complaint
Return of Property Opposition
May 24, 2004 - page 5

1 court which attempted to impose sanctions for an officer's failure to comply with a state

2 court order that, if carried out, would have violated a federal regulation.

3 In Boske v. Comingore (1900) 177 U.S. 459, 44 L. Ed. 846, 20 S. Ct. 701, the

4 Supreme Court addressed a matter in which a Treasury Department collector was giving a

5 deposition in a matter before a state court of Kentucky. The Collector was ordered by the

6 state court to file copies of certain documents related to a distillery with the state court.

7 However, the federal regulations of the Treasury department forbid the collector from doing

8 so, hence the Collector refused. The Kentucky state court jailed the Collector for contempt.

9 The Supreme Court held that since the regulation had then force of a federal law, "it

10 must be conceded, the state authorities were without jurisdiction to compel the Collector to

11 violate them." Boske v. Comingore (1900) 177 U.S. at 67. This is the logical extension of

12 the doctrines of federalism and the Supremacy Clause - the several states have no

13 jurisdiction to impinge upon the federal government nor to violate federal law by their

14 actions.

15

16 III.
Conclusion
17

18 The marijuana and growing materials sought to be returned is contraband and is

19 evidence to be used against the Defendant. As such, it is not returnable unless seized in

20 violation of the federal Constitution.

21 That is not the case here, as each and every action by Deputy Dugan and Sheriff's

22 deputies in this event was reasonable. Nothing about the deputies investigation violated

23 the Constitution of the United States of America. Thus, any supression would be

24 inappropriate.

25 Additionally, it would be a violation of federal law to return the seized marijuana to

26 the Defendants. As such, an order to that effect would be unconsitutional under the

27 doctrines of federalsim and the Supremacy Clause.

28
5

People v. Canada, FMB006414; People's Opposition to Return of Property Motion.

copyright © 2003-2015 J. Craig Canada aka palmspringsbum.
Commercial use prohibited without consent. All rights reserved.