Charges Filed Against Hash Oil Operation In San Diego

This is KPBS Midday Edition . I am Maureen Cavanaugh. Our top story , almost a year and half after a raid on a medical marijuana company, charges have been filed by the County DA. The owner of distribution, four employees and a lawyer face felony charges in connection with the allegedly illegal distribution of a marijuana concentrate. The twist in the story is that two weeks ago, Bonnie was ordered to return assets that were seized from the owner, James and his family. Slotted contested the seizure since no charges had been filed at that time. Joining me is from the school of law and the former chair of the medical matter -- marijuana task force. Since it is legal in California, can you explain why this alleged manufacture and distribution of marijuana would be a crime? It the probably leading being in the complaint would be exporting the marijuana to another state. The clock complaint alleges that some of the marijuana product was exported to Colorado which is that true, that would not be permitted under California law. It is also a little bit of a curious allegation since Colorado of course, has legal marijuana. Why a business would need to export marijuana to Colorado and why Colorado marijuana retailer would be interested in marijuana exported from California is unclear. You know, it is a little bit of a strange thing. If that were true, if this company was exporting marijuana from the product to another state, that would not be permitted. It would feel -- be illegal ? Exactly expect the claim the case was complicated that is why it took her office 16 months to bring the charges. From your legal background, does that sound unusual ? Yes. I think so. I think one of the things that is important to keep in mind about this case is that the San Diego District Attorney office has had a combative relationship with the district a time -- the office has taken an incredibly narrow view of what state mirror -- law allows. It has been by large rejected by the courts. To what extent that has played into it? That is unclear based on the complaint allegations. It is not clear to the degree to which they are -- this is constrained view of state law. And to what extent, what was the delay based on the need to conduct a follow-up investigation? The allegation was shipped over to Colorado. You know, that might have been something that required additional investigation to determine. You know, based on the complaint, there is no indication what the evidence for that allegation is. That is the most troubling allegation, the allegation that is shipped to Colorado if that were true. That seems to be clearly against California law. The rest of the allegations, I think there is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not this would violate California law and it would depend exactly what the district attorneys there he is. Are they say this is a valid -- a violation because they were not monitoring in a nonprofit? The attorney faces charges of conspiring to hide evidence. I have often wondered this. To the legal representatives of marijuana businesses run the risk of being caught up in drug prosecutions themselves? Is that a hazard that goes with that profession ? Not typically. That is an unusual aspect of this. You know, charging the attorney. I think it remains to be seen, is this part of overreach from the District Attorney's Office? The history from this office has been very vigilant, strict opposition with California laws. By large, they are -- the District Attorney office, they have argued theories of the laws that a been rejected by the courts. You know, is that part of this? Is there really you know, improper conduct here? That is on the part of the attorney? That remains to be seen. It is the case for attorneys who are operating in a space they need to be even more careful than other attorneys to strictly follow ethical guidelines. It is a difficult line to walk because if you are representing marijuana companies, these companies, regardless of the law, they are operating illegally under federal law. You have to walk the line of advising the client how to comply with state law without doing anything that facilitates criminal activity. You know, it is a difficult ethical quandary for attorneys operating in this area but it is incredibly unusual for a an attorney to recharge. It is unusual for a company to be charged under California law. I think it is fair to say the District Attorney office here has been one of the most combative against medical marijuana businesses. So, I think only time will tell whether this case is another example of that overreach by the District Attorney office going after a business that impact, maybe it turns out would have been operating lawfully or whether this is in fact a case of a business that was running afoul of what California allows. Are you hopeful that the boundaries on the manufacture and distribution will become clear when the state comes out with the sales regulations next year? Yes. You know, underlined this, that is a big part of the problem, California and people do not realize this because California has had medical marijuana for so long, but even so, we are behind many other states in regulating it at the state level. So, you know, businesses that want to operate lawfully, and most other states, they go and get a state license. It is clear what they need to do to operate legally and it is clear you know, if they run afoul of that and what the penalties will be. In California, we have not had that. The legislature was sort of delinquent on-the-job. They did not get their act together until 2015. That leaves this uncertainty and the potential for disagreement about whether or not a business like Midwest who is operating legally. Once you have clear statewide licensing in place, that solves a lot of the problem going forward. For now, companies like Midwest who they say they are operating legally under state law, they are stuck in the middle. Unfortunately, you know, they find themselves having to litigate whether -- it was really permitted under California law. I have been speaking with Alex Kreit . Alex, thank you. Thank you.