How to resolve AdBlock issue? LAKEPORT, Calif. – On Friday a judge denied a father and son from Lucerne their request for a temporary restraining order against the county, finding their arguments about irreparable harm due to the county's marijuana cultivation ordinance weren't substantiated.
Conrad Kiczenski, 21, and his father, Ron, 48, went before Judge David Herrick a day after filing their claim against the county and Sheriff Frank Rivero.
They represented themselves in the short hearing. Senior Deputy County Counsel Bob Bridges represented the county.
The county's interim urgency marijuana cultivation ordinance, sets limits on plants according to parcel size and location.
The ordinance sets limits on marijuana cultivation, allowing for up to six plants to be grown outdoors on a half acre or less, 12 plants with a 75-foot setback on parcels of half an acre to one acre, 18 plants and a 150-foot setback on parcels one to five acres in size, 36 plants and a minimum 150 foot setback on five- to 40-acre parcels, and a maximum of 48 plants on parcels 40 acres and larger.
Based on those numbers, the Kiczenskis – who live on a small residential lot – said they currently are out of compliance.
The Kiczenskis also asserted that the county was exceeding its authority by enforcing California’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and maintained that possession, planting and cultivation of cannabis is their religious duty, according to their case filings.
“I'm not a mind reader,” Ron Kiczenski said, adding that he has no idea of the sheriff is going to come and eradicate his plants. “All I know is we're currently in violation of what they say is the law at this point.”
If the county took the Kiczenskis' medicine and plants, “There'd be no way to replace anything,” Ron Kiczenski said, adding they can't afford to purchase marijuana from a dispensary.
Even more serious would be the loss of their seeds and the genetics they've worked to establish over the past five years, he said. “It would be lost forever. The DNA cannot be recovered.”
Herrick said the county's ordinance didn't address seeds, genetic experimentation or plant breeding. Ron Kiczenski said he was correct.
The chief problem with the case, said Herrick, was that he couldn’t deal with statutes that potentially would affect a person's ability to possess seeds; it was just the ordinance that he could consider.
He also said he could not tell the sheriff not to enforce the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
Conrad Kiczenski alleged that the law was not for the public benefit. Herrick said that view doesn't agree with the conclusions of the appellate courts.
Bridges said the Kiczenskis' complaint was not verified, and did not allege specific facts. He said what they were seeking went way beyond the Compassionate Use Act, suggesting they wanted a blanket exemption from state law.
He said the issues they raised in their suit over use of cannabis and hemp for clothing, paper and food also aren’t covered by the Compassionate Use Act. “This is just flawed,” said Bridges.
Herrick told the Kiczenskis that calling a complaint a verified didn't make it so, and that they failed to make a sufficient showing of harm.
He said the Compassionate Use Act didn't offer protections for religious beliefs, explaining that it's a defense to criminal charges.
Herrick concluded that the Kiczenskis didn't provide sufficient evidence to prove their case, and denied their application for the temporary restraining order. They could, he said, still push forward with seeking a preliminary or permanent injunction against the county.
This isn’t Ron Kiczenski’s first attempt at litigating over marijuana.
In 2003 he filed a complaint with the United States District Court, Eastern District of California seeking an injunction against the Justice Department to prevent his prosecution for possessing and planting hemp and cannabis.
The court later denied his case, and in 2007 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
