12.30.2007

OREGON MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/ommp/

475.300 Findings. The people of the state of Oregon hereby find that:
(1) Patients and doctors have found marijuana to be an effective treatment for suffering caused by debilitating medical conditions, and therefore, marijuana should be treated like other medicines;

(2) Oregonians suffering from debilitating medical conditions should be allowed to use small amounts of marijuana without fear of civil or criminal penalties when their doctors advise that such use may provide a medical benefit to them and when other reasonable restrictions are met regarding that use;

(3) ORS 475.300 to 475.346 are intended to allow Oregonians with debilitating medical conditions who may benefit from the medical use of marijuana to be able to discuss freely with their doctors the possible risks and benefits of medical marijuana use and to have the benefit of their doctor’s professional advice; and

(4) ORS 475.300 to 475.346 are intended to make only those changes to existing Oregon laws that are necessary to protect patients and their doctors from criminal and civil penalties, and are not intended to change current civil and criminal laws governing the use of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. [1999 c.4 §2]
Note: 475.300 to 475.346 were adopted by the people by initiative petition but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 475 or any series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

475.302 Definitions for ORS 475.300 to 475.346. As used in ORS 475.300 to 475.346:

(1) “Attending physician” means a physician licensed under ORS chapter 677 who has primary responsibility for the care and treatment of a person diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition.

(2) “Debilitating medical condition” means:
(a) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for these conditions;
(b) A medical condition or treatment for a medical condition that produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following:
(A) Cachexia;
(B) Severe pain;
(C) Severe nausea;
(D) Seizures, including but not limited to seizures caused by epilepsy; or
(E) Persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to spasms caused by multiple sclerosis; or
(c) Any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the department by rule or approved by the department pursuant to a petition submitted pursuant to ORS 475.334.

(3) “Delivery” has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005. “Delivery” does not include transfer of marijuana by a registry identification cardholder to another registry identification cardholder if no consideration is paid for the transfer.

(4) “Department” means the Department of Human Services.

(5) “Designated primary caregiver” means an individual 18 years of age or older who has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a person who has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and who is designated as such on that person’s application for a registry identification card or in other written notification to the department. “Designated primary caregiver” does not include the person’s attending physician.

(6) “Marijuana” has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.

(7) “Marijuana grow site” means a location where marijuana is produced for use by a registry identification cardholder and that is registered under the provisions of ORS 475.304.

(8) “Medical use of marijuana” means the production, possession, delivery, or administration of marijuana, or paraphernalia used to administer marijuana, as necessary for the exclusive benefit of a person to mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person’s debilitating medical condition.

(9) “Production” has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.

(10) “Registry identification card” means a document issued by the department that identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and the person’s designated primary caregiver, if any.

(11) “Usable marijuana” means the dried leaves and flowers of the plant Cannabis family Moraceae, and any mixture or preparation thereof, that are appropriate for medical use as allowed in ORS 475.300 to 475.346. “Usable marijuana” does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant.

(12) “Written documentation” means a statement signed by the attending physician of a person diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition or copies of the person’s relevant medical records. [1999 c.4 §3; 2001 c.900 §205; 2003 c.14 §305; 2005 c.22 §346; 2005 c.822 §1]

Note: See note under 475.300.

475.303 Advisory Committee on Medical Marijuana. (1) There is created the Advisory Committee on Medical Marijuana in the Department of Human Services, consisting of 11 members appointed by the Director of Human Services.

(2) The director shall appoint members of the committee from persons who possess registry identification cards, designated primary caregivers of persons who possess registry identification cards and advocates of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.

(3) The committee shall advise the director on the administrative aspects of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, review current and proposed administrative rules of the program and provide annual input on the fee structure of the program.

(4) The committee shall meet at least four times per year, at times and places specified by the director.

(5) The department shall provide staff support to the committee.

(6) All agencies of state government, as defined in ORS 174.111, are directed to assist the committee in the performance of its duties and, to the extent permitted by laws relating to confidentiality, to furnish information and advice that the members of the committee consider necessary to perform their duties. [2005 c.822 §7]
Note: See note under 475.300. 475.303 was added to and made a part of 475.300 to 475.346 by legislative action.

475.304 Marijuana grow site registration system; rules. (1) The Department of Human Services shall establish by rule a marijuana grow site registration system to authorize production of marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, a designated primary caregiver who grows marijuana for the cardholder or a person who is responsible for a marijuana grow site. The marijuana grow site registration system adopted must require a registry identification cardholder to submit an application to the department that includes:
(a) The name of the person responsible for the marijuana grow site;
(b) The address of the marijuana grow site;
(c) The registry identification card number of the registry cardholder for whom the marijuana is being produced; and
(d) Any other information the department considers necessary.

(2) The department shall issue a marijuana grow site registration card to a registry identification cardholder who has met the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) A person who has been issued a marijuana grow site registration card under this section must display the registration card at the marijuana grow site at all times when marijuana is being produced.

(4) A marijuana grow site registration card must be obtained and posted for each registry identification cardholder for whom marijuana is being produced at a marijuana grow site.

(5) All usable marijuana, plants, seedlings and seeds associated with the production of marijuana for a registry identification cardholder by a person responsible for a marijuana grow site are the property of the registry identification cardholder and must be provided to the registry identification cardholder upon request.

(6)(a) The department shall restrict a marijuana grow site registration card issued to a registry identification cardholder who has been convicted of violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) to prohibit for a period of five years from the date of conviction the production of marijuana otherwise authorized by this section at a location where the registry identification cardholder is present.
(b) A registry identification cardholder who has been convicted of violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) may not be issued a marijuana grow site registration card within five years of the date of the conviction for violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) if the conviction was for a first offense to prohibit for a period of five years from the date of conviction the production of marijuana otherwise authorized by this section at a location where the registry identification cardholder is present.
(c) A person other than a registry identification cardholder who has been convicted of violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) may not produce marijuana for a registry identification cardholder within five years of the date of the conviction for violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) if the conviction was for a first offense.
(d) A person convicted more than once of violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) may not be issued a marijuana grow site registration card or produce marijuana for a registry identification cardholder.

(7) A registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the
cardholder may reimburse the person responsible for a marijuana grow site for the costs of supplies and utilities associated with the production of marijuana for the registry identification cardholder. No other costs associated with the production of marijuana for the registry identification cardholder, including the cost of labor, may be reimbursed. [2005 c.822 §8]

Note: See note under 475.300. 475.304 was added to and made a part of 475.300 to 475.346 by legislative action.
475.305 [1977 c.636 §1; 1979 c.674 §1; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]

475.306 Medical use of marijuana; rules. (1) A person who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to ORS 475.309 may engage in, and a designated primary caregiver of such a person may assist in, the medical use of marijuana only as justified to mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person’s debilitating medical condition.

(2) A person who is a registry identification cardholder must possess the registry identification card when using or transporting marijuana in a location other than the residence of the cardholder.

(3) The Department of Human Services shall define by rule when a marijuana plant is mature and when it is immature. The rule shall provide that a plant that has no flowers and that is less than 12 inches in height and less than 12 inches in diameter is a seedling or a start and is not a mature plant. [1999 c.4 §7; 2005 c.822 §2]

Note: See note under 475.300.

475.309 Registry identification card; issuance; eligibility; duties of cardholder. (1) Except as provided in ORS 475.316, 475.320 and 475.342, a person engaged in or assisting in the medical use of marijuana is excepted from the criminal laws of the state for possession, delivery or production of marijuana, aiding and abetting another in the possession, delivery or production of marijuana or any other criminal offense in which possession, delivery or production of marijuana is an element if the following conditions have been satisfied:

(a) The person holds a registry identification card issued pursuant to this section, has applied for a registry identification card pursuant to subsection (9) of this section, is the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder or applicant, or is the person responsible for a marijuana grow site that is producing marijuana for the cardholder and is registered under ORS 475.304; and

(b) The person who has a debilitating medical condition, the person’s primary caregiver and the person responsible for a marijuana grow site that is producing marijuana for the cardholder and is registered under ORS 475.304 are collectively in possession of, delivering or producing marijuana for medical use in amounts allowed under ORS 475.320.

(2) The Department of Human Services shall establish and maintain a program for the issuance of registry identification cards to persons who meet the requirements of this section. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the department shall issue a
registry identification card to any person who pays a fee in the amount established by the department and provides the following:

(a) Valid, written documentation from the person’s attending physician stating that the person has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person’s debilitating medical condition;

(b) The name, address and date of birth of the person;

(c) The name, address and telephone number of the person’s attending physician;

(d) The name and address of the person’s designated primary caregiver, if the person has designated a primary caregiver at the time of application; and

(e) A written statement that indicates whether the marijuana used by the cardholder will be produced at a location where the cardholder or designated primary caregiver is present or at another location.

(3) The department shall issue a registry identification card to a person who is under 18 years of age if the person submits the materials required under subsection (2) of this section, and the custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age signs a written statement that:

(a) The attending physician of the person under 18 years of age has explained to that person and to the custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age the possible risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana;

(b) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age consents to the use of marijuana by the person under 18 years of age for medical purposes;

(c) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age agrees to serve as the designated primary caregiver for the person under 18 years of age; and

(d) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age agrees to control the acquisition of marijuana and the dosage and frequency of use by the person under 18 years of age.

(4) A person applying for a registry identification card pursuant to this section may submit the information required in this section to a county health department for transmittal to the Department of Human Services. A county health department that receives the information pursuant to this subsection shall transmit the information to the Department of Human Services within five days of receipt of the information. Information received by a county health department pursuant to this subsection shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure, except as required to transmit the information to the Department of Human Services.

(5) The department shall verify the information contained in an application submitted pursuant to this section and shall approve or deny an application within thirty days of receipt of the application.

(a) The department may deny an application only for the following reasons:

(A) The applicant did not provide the information required pursuant to this section to establish the applicant’s debilitating medical condition and to document the applicant’s consultation with an attending physician regarding the medical use of marijuana in connection with such condition, as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section; or

(B) The department determines that the information provided was falsified.

(b) Denial of a registry identification card shall be considered a final department action, subject to judicial review. Only the person whose application has been denied, or, in the case of a person under the age of 18 years of age whose application has been denied, the person’s parent or legal guardian, shall have standing to contest the department’s action.

(c) Any person whose application has been denied may not reapply for six months from the date of the denial, unless so authorized by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction.

(6)(a) If the department has verified the information submitted pursuant to subsections (2) and (3) of this section and none of the reasons for denial listed in subsection (5)(a) of this section is applicable, the department shall issue a serially numbered registry identification card within five days of verification of the information. The registry identification card shall state:
(A) The cardholder’s name, address and date of birth;
(B) The date of issuance and expiration date of the registry identification card;
(C) The name and address of the person’s designated primary caregiver, if any;
(D) Whether the marijuana used by the cardholder will be produced at a location where the cardholder or designated primary caregiver is present or at another location; and
(E) Any other information that the department may specify by rule.
(b) When the person to whom the department has issued a registry identification card pursuant to this section has specified a designated primary caregiver, the department shall issue an identification card to the designated primary caregiver. The primary caregiver’s registry identification card shall contain the information provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(7)(a) A person who possesses a registry identification card shall:
(A) Notify the department of any change in the person’s name, address, attending physician or designated primary caregiver; and
(B) Annually submit to the department:
(i) Updated written documentation of the person’s debilitating medical condition; and
(ii) The name of the person’s designated primary caregiver if a primary caregiver has been designated for the upcoming year.
(b) If a person who possesses a registry identification card fails to comply with this subsection, the card shall be deemed expired. If a registry identification card expires, the identification card of any designated primary caregiver of the cardholder shall also expire.

(8) A person who possesses a registry identification card pursuant to this section and who has been diagnosed by the person’s attending physician as no longer having a debilitating medical condition shall return the registry identification card to the department within seven calendar days of notification of the diagnosis. Any designated primary caregiver shall return the caregiver’s identification card within the same period of time.

(9) A person who has applied for a registry identification card pursuant to this section but whose application has not yet been approved or denied, and who is contacted by any law enforcement officer in connection with the person’s administration, possession,
delivery or production of marijuana for medical use may provide to the law enforcement officer a copy of the written documentation submitted to the department pursuant to subsections (2) or (3) of this section and proof of the date of mailing or other transmission of the documentation to the department. This documentation shall have the same legal effect as a registry identification card until such time as the person receives notification that the application has been approved or denied. [1999 c.4 §4; 1999 c.825 §2; 2003 c.14 §306; 2005 c.822 §3]

Note: See note under 475.300.

475.312 Designated primary caregiver. (1) If a person who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to ORS 475.309 chooses to have a designated primary caregiver, the person must designate the primary caregiver by including the primary caregiver’s name and address:
(a) On the person’s application for a registry identification card;
(b) In the annual updated information required under ORS 475.309; or
(c) In a written, signed statement submitted to the Department of Human Services.
(2) A person described in this section may have only one designated primary caregiver at any given time. [1999 c.4 §13]
Note: See note under 475.300.
475.315 [1977 c.636 §2; 1979 c.674 §2; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]
475.316 Limitations on cardholder’s immunity from criminal laws involving marijuana. (1) No person authorized to possess, deliver or produce marijuana for medical use pursuant to ORS 475.300 to 475.346 shall be excepted from the criminal laws of this state or shall be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to criminal charges of which possession, delivery or production of marijuana is an element if the person, in connection with the facts giving rise to such charges:

(a) Drives under the influence of marijuana as provided in ORS 813.010;

(b) Engages in the medical use of marijuana in a public place as that term is defined in ORS 161.015, or in public view or in a correctional facility as defined in ORS 162.135 (2) or youth correction facility as defined in ORS 162.135 (6);

(c) Delivers marijuana to any individual who the person knows is not in possession of a registry identification card;

(d) Delivers marijuana for consideration to any individual, even if the individual is in possession of a registry identification card;

(e) Manufactures or produces marijuana at a place other than:

(A)(i) One address for property under the control of the patient; and

(ii) One address for property under the control of the primary caregiver of the patient that have been provided to the Department of Human Services; or

(B) A marijuana grow site authorized under ORS 475.304; or

(f) Manufactures or produces marijuana at more than one address.

(2) In addition to any other penalty allowed by law, a person who the department finds has willfully violated the provisions of ORS 475.300 to 475.346, or rules adopted
under ORS 475.300 to 475.346, may be precluded from obtaining or using a registry identification card for the medical use of marijuana for a period of up to six months, at the discretion of the department. [1999 c.4 §5; 1999 c.825 §3; 2005 c.822 §13]

Note: See note under 475.300.

475.319 Affirmative defense to certain criminal laws involving marijuana available to cardholder. (1) Except as provided in ORS 475.316 and 475.342, it is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge of possession or production of marijuana, or any other criminal offense in which possession or production of marijuana is an element, that the person charged with the offense is a person who:
(a) Has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition within 12 months prior to arrest and been advised by the person’s attending physician that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of that debilitating medical condition;
(b) Is engaged in the medical use of marijuana; and
(c) Possesses or produces marijuana only in amounts permitted under ORS 475.320.

(2) It is not necessary for a person asserting an affirmative defense pursuant to this section to have received a registry identification card in order to assert the affirmative defense established in this section.

(3) No person engaged in the medical use of marijuana who claims that marijuana provides medically necessary benefits and who is charged with a crime pertaining to such use of marijuana shall be precluded from presenting a defense of choice of evils, as set forth in ORS 161.200, or from presenting evidence supporting the necessity of marijuana for treatment of a specific disease or medical condition, provided that the amount of marijuana at issue is no greater than permitted under ORS 475.320 and the patient has taken a substantial step to comply with the provisions of ORS 475.300 to 475.346.

(4) Any defendant proposing to use the affirmative defense provided for by this section in a criminal action shall, not less than five days before the trial of the cause, file and serve upon the district attorney a written notice of the intention to offer such a defense that specifically states the reasons why the defendant is entitled to assert and the factual basis for such affirmative defense. If the defendant fails to file and serve such notice, the defendant is not permitted to assert the affirmative defense at the trial of the cause unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. [1999 c.4 §6; 1999 c.825 §4; 2005 c.22 §347; 2005 c.822 §12]
Note: See note under 475.300.

475.320 Limits on amounts possessed. (1)(a) A registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess up to six mature marijuana plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, if a registry identification cardholder has been convicted of violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b), the registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess one ounce of usable marijuana at any given time for a period of five years from the date of the conviction.

(2) If the marijuana used by the registry identification cardholder is produced at a
marijuana grow site where the cardholder or designated primary caregiver is not present, the person responsible for the marijuana grow site:
(a) May produce marijuana for and provide marijuana to a registry identification cardholder or that person’s designated primary caregiver as authorized under this section.
(b) May possess up to six mature plants and up to 24 ounces of usable marijuana for each cardholder or caregiver for which marijuana is being produced.
(c) May produce marijuana for up to four registry identification cardholders or designated primary caregivers per year.
(d) Must obtain and display a marijuana grow site registration card issued under ORS 475.304 for each registry identification cardholder or designated primary caregiver for which marijuana is being produced.
(e) Must provide all marijuana produced for a registry identification cardholder or designated primary caregiver to the cardholder or caregiver at the time the person responsible for a marijuana grow site ceases producing marijuana for the cardholder or caregiver.
(f) Must return the marijuana grow site registration card to the registry identification cardholder to whom the card was issued when requested to do so by the cardholder or when the person responsible for a marijuana grow site ceases producing marijuana for the cardholder or caregiver.

(3) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a registry identification cardholder, the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder and the person responsible for a marijuana grow site producing marijuana for the registry identification cardholder may possess a combined total of up to six mature plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana for that registry identification cardholder.

(4)(a) A registry identification cardholder and the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess a combined total of up to 18 marijuana seedlings or starts as defined by rule of the Department of Human Services.
(b) A person responsible for a marijuana grow site may possess up to 18 marijuana seedlings or starts as defined by rule of the department for each registry identification cardholder for which the person responsible for the marijuana grow site is producing marijuana. [2005 c.822 §9]
Note: See note under 475.300. 475.320 was added to and made a part of 475.300 to 475.346 by legislative action.

475.323 Effect of possession of registry identification card or designated primary caregiver card on search and seizure rights. (1) Possession of a registry identification card or designated primary caregiver identification card pursuant to ORS 475.309 does not alone constitute probable cause to search the person or property of the cardholder or otherwise subject the person or property of the cardholder to inspection by any governmental agency.

(2) Any property interest possessed, owned or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to the medical use of marijuana that has been seized by state or local law enforcement officers may not be harmed, neglected, injured or destroyed while in the possession of any law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency has no responsibility to maintain live marijuana plants lawfully seized. No such
property interest may be forfeited under any provision of law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense. Usable marijuana and paraphernalia used to administer marijuana that was seized by any law enforcement office shall be returned immediately upon a determination by the district attorney in whose county the property was seized, or the district attorney’s designee, that the person from whom the marijuana or paraphernalia used to administer marijuana was seized is entitled to the protections contained in ORS 475.300 to 475.346. The determination may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges or acquittal. [1999 c.4 §8; 1999 c.825 §5; 2005 c.22 §348]

Note: See note under 475.300.

475.324 Limits on confiscation of marijuana. A law enforcement officer who determines that a registry identification cardholder is in possession of amounts of usable marijuana or numbers of marijuana plants in excess of the amount or number authorized by ORS 475.320 may confiscate only any usable marijuana or plants that are in excess of the amount or number authorized. [2005 c.822 §10]
Note: See note under 475.300. 475.324 was added to and made a part of 475.300 to 475.346 by legislative action.

475.325 [1977 c.636 §3; 1979 c.674 §3; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]

475.326 Attending physician; limitation on civil liability and professional discipline. No attending physician may be subjected to civil penalty or discipline by the Board of Medical Examiners for:
(1) Advising a person whom the attending physician has diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, or a person who the attending physician knows has been so diagnosed by another physician licensed under ORS chapter 677, about the risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana or that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person’s debilitating medical condition, provided the advice is based on the attending physician’s personal assessment of the person’s medical history and current medical condition; or

(2) Providing the written documentation necessary for issuance of a registry identification card under ORS 475.309, if the documentation is based on the attending physician’s personal assessment of the applicant’s medical history and current medical condition and the attending physician has discussed the potential medical risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana with the applicant. [1999 c.4 §9; 2005 c.822 §11]
Note: See note under 475.300.

475.328 Limits on professional licensing board’s authority to sanction licensee for medical use of marijuana; authorizes licensed health care professional to administer medical marijuana. (1) No professional licensing board may impose a civil penalty or take other disciplinary action against a licensee based on the licensee’s
medical use of marijuana in accordance with the provisions of ORS 475.300 to 475.346 or actions taken by the licensee that are necessary to carry out the licensee’s role as a designated primary caregiver to a person who possesses a lawful registry identification card.

(2)(a) A licensed health care professional may administer medical marijuana to a person who possesses a registry identification card and resides in a licensed health care facility if the administration of pharmaceuticals is within the scope of practice of the licensed health care professional. Administration of medical marijuana under this subsection may not take place in a public place as defined in ORS 161.015 or in the presence of a person under 18 years of age. If the medical marijuana administered under this subsection is smoked, adequate ventilation must be provided.

(b) Nothing in this subsection requires:
(A) A licensed health care professional to administer medical marijuana; or
(B) A licensed health care facility to make accommodations for the administration of medical marijuana. [1999 c.4 §10; 2005 c.822 §4]
Note: See note under 475.300.

475.331 List of persons issued registry identification cards, designated primary caregivers and authorized grow sites; disclosure. (1)(a) The Department of Human Services shall create and maintain a list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards, the names of any designated primary caregivers and the addresses of authorized marijuana grow sites. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the list shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure.
(b) The department shall develop a system by which authorized employees of state and local law enforcement agencies may verify at all times that a person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site.

(2) Names and other identifying information from the list established pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may be released to:
(a) Authorized employees of the department as necessary to perform official duties of the department; and
(b) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies, only as necessary to verify that a person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site. Prior to being provided identifying information from the list, authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall provide to the department adequate identification, such as a badge number or similar authentication of authority.

(3) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies that obtain identifying information from the list as authorized under this section may not release or use the information for any purpose other than verification that a person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site. [1999 c.4 §12; 2005 c.822 §5]
Note: See note under 475.300.

475.334 Adding diseases or conditions that qualify as debilitating medical conditions; rules. Any person may submit a petition to the Department of Human Services requesting that a particular disease or condition be included among the diseases and conditions that qualify as debilitating medical conditions under ORS 475.302. The department shall adopt rules establishing the manner in which the department will evaluate petitions submitted under this section. Any rules adopted pursuant to this section shall require the department to approve or deny a petition within 180 days of receipt of the petition by the department. Denial of a petition shall be considered a final department action subject to judicial review. [1999 c.4 §14]
Note: See note under 475.300.

475.335 [1977 c.636 §4; 1979 c.674 §4; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]

475.338 Rules. The Department of Human Services shall adopt all rules necessary for the implementation and administration of ORS 475.300 to 475.346. [1999 c.4 §15]

Note: See note under 475.300.

475.340 Limitations on reimbursement of costs and employer accommodation. Nothing in ORS 475.300 to 475.346 shall be construed to require:

(1) A government medical assistance program or private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marijuana; or

(2) An employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace. [1999 c.4 §16]
Note: See note under 475.300.

475.342 Limitations on protection from criminal liability. Nothing in ORS 475.300 to 475.346 shall protect a person from a criminal cause of action based on possession, production, or delivery of marijuana that is not authorized by ORS 475.300 to 475.346. [1999 c.4 §11]
Note: See note under 475.300.
475.345 [1977 c.636 §5; 1979 c.674 §5; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]
475.346 Short title. ORS 475.300 to 475.346 shall be known as the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. [1999 c.4 §1]
Note: See note under 475.300.
475.355 [1977 c.636 §6; 1979 c.674 §6; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]
475.360 [1979 c.674 §10; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]
475.365 [1977 c.636 §7; 1979 c.674 §7; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]
475.375 [1977 c.636 §8; 1979 c.674 §8; repealed by 1993 c.571 §30]

12.29.2007

Salzman's Web of Lies

One of "R. Trent Williams" aka Richard Salzman's nasty little missives in the McK Press...

More on August case

To respond to Rhonda Meehan's defense of Judith Schmidt. It was indeed "copies " of documents which she kept. Unfortunately for justice and for your argument, that is the very act that was a violation of state law, which she fully admitted to being aware of. But that she knowingly violated the law is not the point. Debbie (sp!) August's lobbing the city government on behalf of a developer on a housing project for which she was listed as the agent, while she is was a city council member, that is the point.

And just because the case was thrown out of court on a technicality makes it no less wrong. Keep in mind she was not found innocent here. But you shouldn't need a law to know it was the wrong thing to do.

I suppose you think it is also OK for Karl Rove to identify a CIA operative as long as no one can prove he violated a law? This is all part of the same attitude, that those in power believe they are above the law. And in fact, prior to Gallegos taking office, most often elected officials in Humboldt County and certainly anyone in law-enforcement were treated that way. There were two sets of laws in Humboldt, one for them and one for us. I have heard numerous stories about two of the real lushes who use to work in the D.A.s office being pulled over for drunk driving and simply being offered a ride home. In turn, if a cop ran afoul of the law, it just never made it to court. That is exactly what we would be going back to if Worth Dikeman was to be the DA, which of course will never happen.

Last week's Eureka Reporter poll showed 60% of the people do not think Worth could adequately manage the D.A.s office. Worth is the past and most of us do not want to go back to when the Good Old Boys ran this county.

What got Debbie(sp) August so steamed was that it was her own that turned on her. Amongst the many Fortuna residents who testified before the grand jury against Debbie August was fellow council member Mel Berti. Read all about it in the Sept 9 edition of he North Coast Journal. The article is posted online at http://northcoastjournal.com/090904/cover0909.html

If you want to know the facts, and I don't assume you do, you will go back and read this report.


R. Trent Williams
Eureka

***
It is critical that you read the North Coast Journal's expose of Salzman's many aliases, and his letter writing campaign, designed to make it look like there was popular support for his positions, designed to smear his targets, dripping with sarcasm. The Journal uncovered the real people whose names Salzman had hijacked (some with permission, though they did not know what he wrote - some were elderly people incapable of defending themselves.) This is only one of the dirty tricks Salzman has employed.

12.26.2007

TS - 12/18/2007 City could face hefty bill for Douglas' defense

TS City could face hefty bill for Douglas' defense 12/18/2007

EUREKA -- If the City Council decides to pick up the bill for former Police Chief David Douglas' legal costs, one former prosecutor estimates it could reach the $1 million mark for the city's already-pinched general fund budget.

The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office announced last week that a criminal grand jury convened to look into the 2006 shooting death of Cheri Lyn Moore indicted Douglas and Eureka police Lt. Tony Zanotti on charges of involuntary manslaughter.

Legal experts said the indictments might be a first, as they target the incident's commanding officers rather than those who shot Moore.

As Zanotti's and Douglas' legal teams ready to review transcripts of the grand jury proceedings, questions are swirling about who's going to pick up the tab.

Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot by Eureka police officers in her apartment at Fifth and G streets after a two-hour standoff in which she brandished a flare gun, threw items from her apartment and threatened to burn the building down.

Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. When officers came face to face with Moore and a flare gun pointed at them, they shot her multiple times.

Zanotti, who is being represented by Redwood City attorney William Rapoport, is covered by the Peace Officers Research Association of California Legal Defense Fund, which covers most EPD officers. The extent of that coverage isn't exactly clear.

Rapoport confirmed Monday that he was being paid by the legal fund “so far,” but declined to elaborate. He said there is no telling what his final bill might be, as the case could be thrown out in the coming weeks or end in a lengthy trial.

The case of who is covering Douglas, represented by local attorney Bill Bragg and the Santa Ana firm of Ferguson, Praet and Sherman, is a bit more complicated.

Councilman Jeff Leonard said the shooting of Moore occurred at a time when Douglas was not covered by the association's legal fund, leaving it unclear who will pick up the bill.

Bragg said Monday that he was under the impression the city of Eureka “has accepted the responsibility to pay for Mr. Douglas' defense.” But, Eureka City Manager David Tyson indicated it was not a done deal.

Tyson said in civil suits, the city is obligated to pick up the bills for legal defense funds, which are paid through the city's insurance carriers. Criminal matters, like the case of Zanotti and Douglas, are different, Tyson said, and the council has the choice of whether to cover the costs.

”I think it's a choice because the council, not just our council but any council or board of supervisors, would want to have the opportunity in a criminal matter to hear at least some of the facts and make an informed decision on whether they want to provide a defense,” Tyson said.

The determination the council will likely have to make, Tyson said, is whether Douglas was acting within the boundaries of his position as police chief. Tyson said the city has no insurance carrier for criminal cases, and any money it offers for Douglas' defense would come directly out of the city's general fund.

City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner said any discussions regarding funding Douglas' defense would be held in closed session, and would not be made public until a final decision is made by the council. The council has a closed session agenda item at Thursday's meeting about Douglas' case.

If the council did decide to pick up Douglas' tab, Schaffner said a budget adjustment would be in order to ensure the funds were available.

And that could be a hefty sum, said local attorney Jeffrey Schwartz, a former prosecutor in the district attorney's office.

Schwartz said an attorney of Bragg's caliber probably demands between $300 and $400 an hour for criminal defense, and estimated Douglas' defense team would put in at least 2,000 hours on the case, assuming it goes to trial. On the low side, that comes out to $600,000. But, Schwartz said that is far from the total.

In addition to straight attorney fees, Schwartz said, in a case like this especially, the defense is going to need experts, and lots of them. Not only do each of the experts command fees, Schwartz said, but there are also the travel, hotel and meal expenses associated with attorneys traveling the country to speak with them.

”I'd say, minimally between both (fees for attorneys and experts), you're talking a million bucks easy,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz also said it is likely, once news of the indictments hits the wires and is widely disseminated, police chiefs and departments around the country will start up a defense fund, fearing a guilty verdict could set a precedent for tactical situation police commanders across the country.

Officers at a Dec. 10 court hearing, where Zanotti and Douglas appeared before a judge for the first time, said no such fund was in the works. An arraignment, where the officers will enter pleas, is set for Feb. 21.

While Schwartz was hypothesizing about what a full blown trial might cost in legal fees, Douglas' lawyers were readying to attempt to ensure it doesn't come to that.

Bragg said Monday he received word from the court that the grand jury transcripts had been compiled, and he would pick them up today. Those transcripts, Bragg said, will have a lot to say about how Gallegos lead the grand jury through the proceedings, and consequently about whether this case will make it to trial.

”Chances are there will be some things we will want to challenge pre-trial,” he said. “Given the DA's unique theory, which, frankly, I don't know what his theory is in this case, if I were a betting man, I would bet we are going to take a very hard look at this (transcript) and probably file a motion of dismissal.”

If the case does make its way to trial, Schwartz said law enforcement officers from around the country will likely pitch in $100 here and $50 there for a legal defense fund, which might not be bad news for Eureka.

”Really, the city should be the one out there trying to rally police chiefs,” he said.

Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com

TS - 12/11/2007 Moore Case Facts

TS Moore Case Facts 12/11/2007

Arraignment

The first step in a criminal proceeding, the arraignment is a defendant's first appearance before a judge. The charges against the individual are read aand the defendant has an opportunity to enter a plea.

The incident

Cheri Lyn Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed by Eureka police officers in April 2006 after a two-hour standoff that saw her brandish a flare gun, throw items from her second-story window and threaten to burn down the building.

The indictments

A criminal grand jury handed up the indictments after hearing several days of testimony, according to the district attorney's office. The proceedings are held in secret, although a judge can allow the sessions to be open to the public upon the request of the district attorney.

In the grand jury process, because the role of the 19 members is only to determine probable cause to bring an indictment, it is not required for them to hear all the evidence. It is left to the “good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence,” according to the American Bar Association. A minimum of 12 of the jurors must approve indictments.

Grand jurors are chosen from the same pool as other trials.

The charges

Former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti are each facing a felony charge of involuntary manslaughter, the unlawful killing of someone during a crime, or a legal act that leads to a death -- but one that is done negligently. If convicted, the charges carry a sentence of up to four years in prison.

The defendants

David Douglas: Former Eureka police chief, who has since retired. He testified at a coroner's inquest looking into the death of Cheri Lyn Moore that he did not take over command at the scene, but was ultimately responsible.

Lt. Tony Zanotti: A current member of the Eureka Police Department. Zanotti was the incident commander at the Moore standoff.

TS - 12/11/2007 Arraignment in Moore case postponed

TS Arraignment in Moore case postponed (with video) Dozens show up to support former chief, lieutenant 12/11/2007

The arraignment of a former Eureka police chief and a current lieutenant indicted by a criminal grand jury for involuntary manslaughter in the April 2006 shooting death of Cheri Lyn Moore was postponed Monday at the defense's request.
Superior Court Judge John T. Feeney set a new arraignment date of Feb. 21, and said the grand jury transcript and indictment would “remain sealed until further order of the court.”

Feeney allowed Lt. Anthony Zanotti and former Police Chief David Douglas to remain free on their own recognizance.
Feeney started the arraignment by disclosing that he was a law partner with Douglas' attorney, Bill Bragg, in the past and that he worked on a housing advisory board for the city of Eureka in the late 1980s.

There was a standing-room-only crowd in the courtroom, with about 90 people, mostly law enforcement personnel from various agencies, watching the short proceeding. Neither the defense nor Deputy District Attorney Allan Dollison objected to Feeney hearing the case.

Bragg, who, along with John Hamilton of the Santa Ana firm Ferguson, Praet and Sherman, is representing Douglas, said the defense team requested the continuance to allow it time to review


the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings, which were not available as of Monday.
Bragg, who has experience representing law enforcement personnel, said he has never heard of commanding officers facing indictments for the aftermath of their decisions.

”It's a unique situation,” he said.

Asked if he was surprised to learn of the indictments, Bragg replied: “A surprise implies different types of emotions, and I wouldn't necessarily say I was surprised, given the personalities involved.”

After the brief hearing, the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office officially confirmed for the first time that the criminal grand jury convened last month handed up felony indictments of involuntary manslaughter to Douglas and Zanotti.

The district attorney's office said the indictments came after days of testimony from numerous witnesses in front of the grand jury, whose members were drawn from the regular jury pool.

Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006 by Eureka Police officers in her second story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two-hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw things from her second-story window and threatened to burn down the building.

Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who was pointing a flare gun at them. Officers shot Moore multiple times.

While former EPD officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson fired the fatal shots, Zanotti and Douglas were the commanding officers at the scene. Legal experts said what makes this case highly unusual is that Zanotti and Douglas are facing charges, while those who fired the fatal shots are not.

The district attorney's office press release stated that Douglas and Zanotti each face up to four years in prison if convicted.

Chris Durant can be reached at 441-0506 or cdurant@times-standard.com and Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com

TS - 12/06/2007 What is a criminal grand jury?

TS What is a criminal grand jury?12/06/2007

Grand jury proceedings by law are held in secret, although a judge can allow the sessions to be open to the public upon the request of the district attorney.

In the grand jury process, because the role of the 19 members is only to determine probable cause to bring an indictment, it is not required for them to hear all the evidence. It is left to the “good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence,” according to the American Bar Association. No judge is present during the sessions. A minimum of 12 of the jurors must approve indictments.

While grand jurors are chosen from the same pool as other trials, the prosecutor is prohibited from screening them for bias. Only questions dealing with qualifications to serve are permitted, such as whether a potential juror is a citizen of the U.S., or is 18 years of age or older.

Although a prosecutor can take any case to the grand jury, a guide to the California criminal grand jury lists 14 types of cases generally given high priority. One is “police use-of-force cases resulting in . . . death.”

TS - 12/05/2007 Grand Jury will indict two police commanders, says source

Grand Jury will indict two police commanders, says source (with archived video) 12/05/2007
Arraignment on involuntary manslaughter charges expected Monday

EUREKA -- The criminal grand jury convened to look into the death of Cheri Lyn Moore will hand up indictments against former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and incident commander Lt. Tony Zanotti, according to a source familiar with the proceedings.

Click Here to Watch Zanotti's testimony from the Coroner's Inquest
Zanotti and Douglas are scheduled to be arraigned Monday on charges of involuntary manslaughter, according to the source, who requested anonymity because of the secrecy of the proceedings. If convicted, Zanotti and Douglas could face up to two to four years in prison.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who convened the grand jury, did not immediately return a late-evening phone call on Tuesday seeking comment.

Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers in her second-story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two-hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw items from her window and threatened to burn down the building.

Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who had the flare gun aimed at them. Officers then shot Moore multiple times.

Neither of the two officers who fired the fatal shots, former EPD Officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson, were indicted by the grand jury.

Diane Karpman, an ethics columnist for the California Bar Journal, said the charges suggest jurors found an absence of appropriate leadership in the incident. She said she wasn't surprised that the officers who actually shot Moore weren't indicted, since they were following orders. However, she called an indictment of the commanding officers in such an incident highly unusual.

”It's incredibly rare,” Karpman said.

During a coroner's inquest held in September 2006, Douglas and Zanotti testified about their involvement. Zanotti is still with the Eureka Police Department, while Douglas has since retired.

Douglas testified he did not take over command at the scene, but was ultimately responsible. He said there were concerns about a fire from the flare gun, and that it could move quickly because of a crawl space above Moore's apartment.

Zanotti also testified that he believed Moore's threats to burn down the building to be real, and that they needed to be taken seriously.

”There was a determination that we would have to ... she was an immediate threat to human life, to the building, to the officers and to the civilians surrounding the area,” Zanotti said during the inquest.

Zanotti, who acted as the incident commander, testified that several plans of action were made based on Moore's actions, but there was no discussion about bringing mental health personnel to the scene.

Former Massachusetts State Police commanding officer for ballistics and expert witness Ronald R. Scott said he'd never heard of similar charges being brought against incident leaders who made decisions that led to a shooting.

Most manslaughter charges against police officers are the result of a fatal crash during a high-speed chase, or a spur-of-the moment shooting, he said. Scott said he has reviewed the Eureka case and found the circumstances substantially different.

”This is where the department had control,” Scott said. “This wasn't a spontaneous incident.”

Scott said the case, once resolved, could help other police departments train to prevent similar incidents.

John Driscoll can be reached at 441-0504 or jdriscoll@times-standard.com, and Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com

TS - 12/06/2007 Untested waters

TS Untested waters: Case against police commanders likely to hinge on 'criminal negligence,' expert says 12/06/2007

The expected grand jury indictments of former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti would be unprecedented ground for Humboldt County, and possibly the nation.

”This is the first time I've heard of an indictment of police officers in the command aspect of a situation who weren't actually involved in the shootings themselves,” said Golden Gate University School of Law Professor and Dean Emeritus Peter Keane, who has served as a legal analyst for CNN, the BBC and MSNBC and is former vice-president of the State Bar of California.

”Generally,” Keane continued, “when you do see prosecution of police for unusual use of force or manslaughter, it's the officers that are actually involved in the shooting.”

A source familiar with the grand jury proceedings told the Times-Standard Tuesday the jury will hand up indictments of involuntary manslaughter to Douglas and Zanotti, who are scheduled to be arraigned Monday. The source requested anonymity, due to the secrecy of the proceedings.

Messages seeking comment from Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos had not been returned as of Wednesday evening.

Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers in her second story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw things from her second-story window and threatened to burn down the building.

Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who was pointing the flare gun at them. Officers shot Moore several times.

Part of what is interesting about the grand jury's decision, according to Keane, is that it chose not to indict EPD officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson, who fired the fatal shots.

In an interview Wednesday, Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen said he felt that decision was the right one. But, like Keane, Nielsen said in his almost 30 years in law enforcement he has never heard of indictments being handed up to commanding officers after an officer-involved shooting.

”I think that this decision by the grand jury is going to have far-reaching impacts on command personnel in tactical operations all over the state, and maybe even the nation,” Nielsen said.

While Nielsen said this can serve as an important reminder to command officers in tactical situations of the possible effects of their decisions, he said losing a human life is enough to hammer that point home.

Nielsen said he is confident the decisions Zanotti and Douglas made did not amount to a criminal act, and he has faith in the justice system.

”We need to remember there is a presumption of innocence,” Nielsen said. “Even though it is a drain to have this potential indictment hanging over us, they are innocent until proven guilty by a jury.”

Nielsen said he felt his organization had turned a corner in recent months, but this has picked at old wounds and had an impact on morale. He made clear Wednesday he stands by his officers, saying he would not place Zanotti on administrative leave.

”In no way do I believe he is a threat to the community,” Nielsen said, adding his only change would be to keep Zanotti out of the role as a site commander. Even that decision, Nielsen said, has nothing to do with his confidence in the lieutenant, and is only intended to protect him.

Also reached Wednesday, Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner said she hadn't received any official word on the indictment from the DA's office.

”Until we do, it's just speculation,” she said.

But generally speaking, she said the City Council is authorized -- but not required -- to provide for the defense of an active employee who was acting in the course of his duties. That would mean hiring a criminal defense attorney to defend them, she said.

Zanotti may also be a member of the Police Officers Research Association of California, which has a legal defense fund. An e-mail inquiry to the association's president, Ron Cottingham, was not returned by deadline.

Humboldt County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Brenda Godsey said she had no response to the indictment, at least until it's made officially public.

Gordon Kaupp, an attorney representing Moore's son, David Moore, in a civil case against the city and the involved officers, said news of the indictments came as a surprise to David Moore, who had essentially lost faith in the DA's office.

While he said he felt the individual officers involved should also face indictments, Kaupp said he felt the decision to indict the commanding officers was a good one.

”The thing here is the grand jury recognized that they should have never stormed the apartment,” he said, adding that, if anything, Moore's putting the flare gun down should have been seen as a sign of de-escalation rather than reason to move in. “Clearly, the decision makers put the shooters in the position to shoot when they had them in the position to enter the apartment.”

Down in San Francisco, Keane had a similar take.

He said it is likely the grand jury felt officers should have waited it out longer, made more attempts to negotiate or tried using non-lethal means, like tear gas.

”Once there was that decision to enter into the house, and there is someone in there with the possession of a weapon, it's almost a certainty that they are going to have to kill that person,” Keane said.

Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendoza was surprised by the news, saying he'd heard of civil lawsuits against police leadership, but not criminal charges against commanding officers. Mendoza said he's not intimately familiar with the facts of the case, but expected indictments in such a situation could create concerns for law enforcement.

”It's hard enough to fill police chief jobs in California,” Mendoza said.

John Driscoll can be reached at 441-0504 or jdriscoll@times-standard.com and Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com

TS 12/18/2007 Anti-establishment publicity stunt

TS Anti-establishment publicity stunt 12/18/2007

The grand jury's recent indictment of Dave Douglas and Tony Zanotti reminds me of my experience as a member of a grand jury.

In 1980-81, I had the opportunity to serve as vice-foreman of the Humboldt County grand jury. During that year, then-District Attorney Bernie DePaoli had us review a criminal case and issue indictments. As the facts unfolded concerning the case, it became obvious to me that the grand jury had been used inappropriately.

It was my experience that the DA can allow the evidence to be presented in such a way as to get whatever outcome he desires from the citizens who comprise the grand jury. They are, as I was, untrained in the law and susceptible to influence by the district attorney. We all thought Mr. DePaoli was a great guy and trusted him and his opinions. That certainly proved to be a mistake.

While I do not know the details of the current grand jury deliberations, I suspect another grandstand play that will result in thousands of dollars spent on a case that cannot be won and should not have been brought to court. Didn't we go through this with the Pacific Lumber case?

I think we've had enough of our district attorney's anti-establishment publicity stunts. I hope the county can afford to wait, and that the DA's office can survive until the next election.
Chuck Childers

Eureka

ER - 5/31/2006 Where's the outrage over this death?

ER Ltr Where's the outrage over this death?

On Sunday, April 30, at about 6:30 in the morning, a passerby discovered the body of a young man lying on a Eureka city street.

His name was Trevvor Davenport, a 24-year-old man with loving parents, a brother and numerous friends. Trevvor, as you may have read, was the victim of a homicide; an unknown person suddenly and maliciously took his life. Why? For what reason? These are questions I have been tasked with answering.

My name is Curt Honeycutt. I’m a detective with the Eureka Police Department and it was I who was awakened early Sunday morning and asked to put the pieces of this puzzle together. Although Trevvor isn’t the first victim of a homicide that has occurred in Eureka, sadly he will not be the last. I remember when I saw Trevvor for the first time that morning. I remember thinking how young and alone he looked lying there in the street while you and I slept in our safe and warm beds.

As police officers we tend to distance ourselves from becoming emotionally attached to victims of crime. This is not because we don’t care. Instead, we distance ourselves because we are the finders of facts and must keep an open mind.

In recent weeks, I have read letter after letter printed in the Times-Standard and The Eureka Reporter criticizing the Eureka Police Department for actions related to the death of Cheri Moore. Let it be known, this letter is not about her or the events that occurred that day. I write this letter wanting to know, where is the outrage over the death of Trevvor Davenport? Unlike her situation, this was a murder. She chose her outcome. Trevvor did not. While both were tragic deaths, what makes his life any less valuable? I have yet to see one letter to the press or one speaker in a public meeting addressing the senseless killing of Trevvor. So, I ask you, where’s the outrage?

Where are the cries of justice for Trevvor and his family? Unfortunately, I don’t believe there will be any. Why, you ask? Is it because Trevvor’s death won’t help a ballot measure, influence an election or expedite the formation of a police review board? No, Trevvor is just another victim who could be forgotten by citizens and protesters in Humboldt County.

However, I make this promise to Trevvor’s family and friends: I am outraged. I care. So do the people I work with at the Eureka Police Department. We will do everything in our power to give you the answers I know you are so desperately looking for. Why did Trevvor have to die so young, and for what reason?

(Curtis Honeycutt is a detective for the Eureka Police Department.)
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

ER - 5/31/2006 Why we're blessed to have Paul Gallegos

ER Ltr Why we're blessed to have Paul Gallegos

To me, it is incredible that anyone would want to remove District Attorney Paul Gallegos from office, except those who want a DA who answers to corporate interests or law enforcement, instead of the public at large.

I speak as a newcomer to Humboldt County, although one who has visited here regularly for the past 20 years, who started camping in the redwoods down the road a ways in 1967 and who yearned to live here someday. I was attracted by the beauty of the area and the small-town feeling.

But when Gallegos ran for district attorney four years ago, something else attracted me: to live in a community that would elect a person like him to the top law enforcement job in the county. I was so excited that citizens would embrace what he stands for that I just knew that Humboldt County was for me, because it spoke volumes about the values of the community that I was now enthused to be a part of.

What impressed me about Gallegos was his belief that law enforcement should concentrate on serious crime and not waste time on minor marijuana possession cases, and his intent to treat everyone fairly and equally, regardless of whose toes he might be stepping on. I knew what he was talking about.

You see, I began a career as a newspaper reporter in 1957, and I have covered law enforcement and closely observed it when covering other areas. My experience has been that DAs almost always go along with what the police or sheriffs want. That is, when they bring a case to the DA, he or she prosecutes it, if at all possible. Sometimes the evidence is so glaringly weak that the charges are dropped, but, again, in my experience, very often cases are prosecuted despite weak evidence in order to stay on good terms with the police or sheriffs, who exercise great political power by virtue of their influence on the public.

Frankly, I have never run across a DA who would risk alienating that power bloc in order to exercise his or her independent, professional judgment on behalf of the public, whose interests don’t always coincide with law enforcement’s. I taught a journalism class at California State University at Northridge in the 1970s, and I took my students to discuss law enforcement with the deputy DA of Los Angeles County. I expected the standard line about what a great job we all do, but I still wanted them to see a live DA in action and get a feel for the type of people they would be covering.

But he said that his biggest problem was trying to prosecute cases with evidence poorly gathered and presented by police, and clearly he found it frustrating to have to deal with cases like that. How he coped, he didn’t make clear, but he let us know that it was a big test of his responsibility to act independently in the public’s interests and his sensitivity to not making the police look bad by dropping charges stemming from their investigations.

It’s easy to kowtow to the police, as Worth Dikeman has done and clearly did in attacking Gallegos for not yet deciding on charges in the Cheri Moore shooting — even though the police investigation of the incident is not complete. In light of that fact, what Dikeman did is outrageous and, to me, underscores his obeisance to the police and why the police organizations all back Dikeman.

In another very significant way, Gallegos also has exercised his principle of independence and his defiance of power when he sued The Pacific Lumber Co. for its alleged illegal logging practices, one of the most important and far-reaching legal and environmental actions probably in the county’s history. It triggered an ill-fated attempt, bankrolled by PALCO’s parent corporation, MAXXAM, to recall Gallegos. But he beat that payback for the PALCO suit, and the community stood by him and up to out-of-state corporate interference in local politics.

I hope the community now appreciates what a rare treasure we are blessed with in Paul Gallegos and will defy the corporate and law enforcement self-serving interests — who back Dikeman — to keep Gallegos as the DA who has an indisputable record of serving only one party, us the public, in a fair, objective and democratic way.

(Jack McCurdy is a McKinleyville resident.)
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

My note: What a crock of sh-t. Gallegos' POS lawsuit didn't even make it to court, yet he is has just finished his Appeal ot the First District Court of Appeals. The filings are linked to on watchpaul.

This article is posted here as supplemental background material. For discussion and more information visit watchpaul.blogspot.com.

ER - 5/13/2006 Accounting of Cheri Moore killing necessary

ER Ltr Accounting of Cheri Moore killing necessary 5/13/2006

Dear Editor,

However the final report on the shooting of Cheri Moore turns out, one thing is clear: Eureka residents can be satisfied with nothing less than a full and complete minute-by-minute accounting of what happened.

If this is not provided, it will say something very disturbing about the community in which we live. Things are changing in Eureka and people will no longer accept vague assurance from elected or hired officials.

Maybe the killing of a distressed woman in need of mental health counseling was justified — under a particular set of circumstances.

However if this were the case, the people still have a right and need to judge privately for themselves. How they judge this incident will affect how they feel about our community and its leaders, how they vote, to whom they feel they can turn to for help.

Rightly or wrongly, anything less than full disclosure will only come out as cover-up. This would be an unhealed wound none of us want.

Patrick Eytchison
Eureka No tax money
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
***
This article is posted here as supplemental background material. For discussion and more information visit watchpaul.blogspot.com.

ER - 4/26/2006 Was there quick justice in shooting of Eureka resident?

ER Ltr Was there quick justice in shooting of Eureka resident? 4/26/2006

Dear Editor,

Quick justice?

April 14, 2006, 9:52 a.m.
Eureka Police Department called.
Welfare check, woman at 500 block of G Street.
Negotiations.
SWAT Team entry.
Suspect shot.
Pay mind to the woman inside,
Her son, five years gone, this the anniversary
Flooding memories of suicide, loss
While friends and neighbors say “mental illness,”
Weights, sinking her heart and soul
Not as heavy as the rounds lodged in the adjacent apartment wall,
Only reminder of the SWAT’s bust.
Even they don’t know the details — shots fired or the weapon she possessed
Despite scanners, radio calls, snipers across the way
All signs pointing the same,
A bright orange flare gun
Signal fire for the lost.
PD practice for disturbing the peace?
Two-hour talks,
Negotiation’s extent before playing God,
Gambling all they got, because they got nothing
Except a Reporter-sided column,
“Flare Gun Equals Hand Gun.”
Compassion too long a word
When quick equals just
Solving problems with problems
Because, “Damn it, we got too much to do.”
So trade patience for lives
Leaving us, still alive, to say what needs to be said.
Cheri Moore.
Why did she die?

Jeff Gilbreath
Eureka
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

ER - 4/21/2006 Patience, kindness would have worked in police shooting

Patience, kindness would have worked in police shooting

Dear Editor,

The tragic shooting death of a mentally ill woman in Eureka recently was unnecessary, and a clear-cut example of the kind of mentality and training this country uses for interventions.

Cheri Moore was obviously distressed, and it sounds like patience and kindness would have worked, to calm her down.

Instead, they always “assume” anything in the hand is a “weapon,” and they seem to use their SWAT teams entirely too much.

To put it mildly, they need to learn to watch some TV. There are many episodes on BBC Mystery Monday, where the police officers “talk” the mentally ill, stressed people into calming down.

This was definitely a terrible way to handle the situation, and if I could be at the vigil for Ms. Moore, I would.

Penny Lynn Dunn
Ironton, Mo.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

ERE - 12/20/2007 Police officers put their lives on the line for public's safety

ER Ltr Police officers put their lives on the line for public's safety

Dear Editor,

This letter is to counteract the quote in the Dec. 11 coverage of the indictment in the Cheri Moore case by George Fornay, former Eureka resident, that the “EPD does have a long history of shooting people in the back ... the elderly and the kids ... .”

In the first place, no one was shot in the back. All the fatal shootings, while unfortunate, happened under different circumstances, but all happened when law enforcement officers, putting their own lives on the line, confronted armed, dangerous people who, either because of mental instability or drug use, were a lethal danger either to the law enforcement officers, themselves or the public at large.

The majority of taxpayers in this county support our law enforcement agencies.

The article did not disclose the business that brought Fornay to the Courthouse, but I’ll hazard a guess that he was not there paying his property taxes.

Susan Dodd
Eureka
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved

12.25.2007

ER -4/20/2006 Joseph Humble should not have passed judgment

ER Letters: Joseph Humble should not have passed judgment
by Robert Wenzel, 4/20/2006

Dear Editor,

This is in response to the letter by Dr. Joseph Humble printed April 16, 2006, regarding the police shooting of Cheri Moore.
Dr. Humble, I am so very tired of people like you, passing judgment on law enforcement without having any knowledge of what actually happened.

Were you there with the SWAT team when it entered the apartment? No? Then how can you say the officers were not justified in the use of lethal force?

Would you be willing to take a close-range shot to the chest or head from a flare gun?

Do you have any experience or training in law enforcement? How many times have you put your life in harm’s way to protect the public, apprehend a dangerous criminal or resolve a life-threatening situation?

Have you ever dealt with a violent, mentally ill person? Have you ever tried to reason with a violent mentally ill person who was off of their meds? If you have not, then you have no right to pass judgment on the police officers risking their lives to protect the public.

You should be thankful that they are there 24 hours a day to protect you and the rest of the public, even the ones who don’t appreciate them.

Dr. Humble, for your information, the decision to use lethal force is one that, most often, must be made in a fraction of a second by the officer(s) involved in that situation. Tell me, how long would you ponder that decision with a weapon pointed at you?
This was a tragic situation and I feel for the family and friends of Cheri Moore.

I also feel for the officer, or officers, who had to make the decision to use lethal force.

And thank you to all the law-enforcement and correctional officers who protect the public every day.

Robert Wenzel
Eureka

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

Er - 10/12/2007 DA considers grand jury investigation of Cheri Moore's death

ER DA considers grand jury investigation of Cheri Moore's death
by Heather Muller , 1

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said Thursday that he is “contemplating going forward on a criminal grand jury” to investigate the death of Cheri Moore, a mentally ill woman shot and killed in 2006 by officers from the Eureka Police Department.

The Eureka Reporter announced as much one month ago today, after receiving numerous reports from public officials who said on condition of anonymity that the decision to convene a criminal grand jury had already been made.

At that time, Gallegos would neither confirm nor deny the reports, but said, “This community is entitled to an impartial finding, whether it is by me or by a grand jury.”

The DA appeared to confirm the reports Thursday, but declined to elaborate, citing centuries-old secrecy rules that govern grand jury proceedings.

EPD Police Chief Garr Nielsen, whose officers would be the focus of the criminal inquiry, said he was not opposed to any venue that would provide “a fair and impartial hearing of the facts.”

Nielsen added, “I think Paul’s intent is to bring closure to this for the community and the organization, and I support him in that.”

A criminal grand jury typically consists of 19 community members. Its proceedings take the place of a preliminary hearing, in which a judge determines whether charges brought by the DA’s Office will proceed to trial.

Written material provided by the DA’s Office states that at the conclusion of grand jury deliberations, a juror will notify the DA whether an indictment — or written accusation charging someone with a crime — has been found.

If no indictment is found, the target of the investigation is entitled to a declaration stating as much, but if an indictment is handed down, the accused would then stand trial in Superior Court on charges identified in the indictment.

Gallegos did not say when grand jurors were likely to be summoned, but left open the possibility of proceedings taking place in public session.

Nielsen expressed his support for public hearings, while reiterating his hope that the process would be impartial.

“For me it’s all about it being a fair process, because I’m absolutely convinced that my officers, who were acting under orders, acted appropriately and did what they were told, believing they were doing the right thing.”

Moore, 48, was killed in her Eureka apartment April 14, 2006, after she brandished a flare gun during an approximately two-hour standoff with the EPD.

Gallegos said last month that he believed Cheri Moore’s death to be “a symptom of other, bigger issues that our community has and is faced with. What the diagnosis is will ultimately be decided by others.”

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
***
This article is posted here as supplemental background material. For discussion and more information visit watchpaul.blogspot.com.

ER - 9/11/2007 Moore case headed to grand jury?

ER 9/11/2007
by Heather Muller, 9/11/2007

Public officials who spoke on condition of anonymity told The Eureka Reporter last week that a criminal grand jury will be convened to look into the death of Cheri Moore, a mentally ill woman who was shot and killed by officers from the Eureka Police Department in 2006.

The officials said Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos assigned veteran prosecutor Arnie Klein to impanel the grand jury, which would determine whether charges should be filed against law enforcement personnel involved in the incident.

EPD Chief Garr Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that he had discussed with Gallegos “in general terms the possibility of a grand jury” in the Moore case, adding that he was not necessarily opposed to the idea.

Nielsen said that in Oregon, where he previously worked, all cases in which a death resulted from police use of force were reviewed by a grand jury.

“It’s common practice in my view,” he said, “but my impression is that it’s not common here. That gives me some level of trepidation about it if it’s unusual for a case to be reviewed by a grand jury.”

Were a grand jury impaneled, Nielsen said, it would be his “clear expectation” that its purpose would be to conduct “a very fair and objective review of the incident without any slant toward securing a criminal indictment against any police officers involved. ...”

“I think to bring closure we should look at the case as carefully and dispassionately as possible. If the grand jury could accomplish that in an unbiased manner, then I don’t necessarily have any objection to it.”

He said it would, however, be “extremely detrimental to this community if there was any kind of dog-and-pony show that laid out these officers who were just doing their jobs.”

A criminal grand jury typically consists of 19 community members. Its proceedings take the place of a preliminary hearing, in which a judge determines whether a case brought by the District Attorney’s Office will proceed to trial.

Gallegos would neither confirm nor deny the reports, but said by e-mail Tuesday, “This community is entitled to an impartial finding, whether it is by me or by a grand jury,” noting that “continued hype” surrounding the incident has both hindered and delayed the process.

“This incident is going to take a long time to heal,” Gallegos wrote. “I believe we will come out better for it, but it will take time. But the only way that can happen is if we work to set aside the passions and prejudices that so often dominate our discussions of things and work toward patience, compassion and understanding for all people.”

Moore, 48, was killed in her Eureka apartment on April 14, 2006, after she brandished a flare gun during an approximately two-hour standoff with the EPD.
Nielsen reiterated Tuesday that he believed his officers acted appropriately in the incident.

In conclusion, Gallegos wrote, “I believe Cheri Moore’s death was/is a symptom of other bigger issues that our community has and is faced with. What the diagnosis is will ultimately be decided by others.”

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

ER - 6/14/2007 Civil rights suit filed in standoff death

ER Civil rights suit filed in standoff death

A lawsuit filed in federal court late last month accuses 11 members of the Eureka Police Department, the department as a whole and the city of Eureka of violating the civil rights of Cheri Moore, who was shot and killed by police after brandishing a flare gun during a two-hour standoff in 2006.

“The estate of Cheri Lyn Holt-Moore brings a claim for the violation of her constitutional and civil rights, her pain and suffering prior to her death, loss of life and for other compensatory and punitive damages through her estate,” the complaint states.

“The police dispatched officers to the scene who became aware that she possessed a flare gun, a device used to send signals into the air. Ignoring rational procedures and readily available alternatives, Chief (David) Douglas ordered officers to ram down her front door. Several officers broke into her apartment and shot her immediately, killing her.”

The complaint was filed in Northern District Court in San Francisco by W. Gordon Kaupp and Dennis Cunningham, the latter known locally for his involvement in the pepper spray case.

The suit alleges unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, municipal liability, wrongful death, violation of California civil rights and negligence.

The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages to be paid to the estate, said to consist of Cheri Moore’s son David Moore and a minor child, who is identified as the granddaughter of Cheri Moore and “the only surviving issue of Ms. Moore’s deceased son.”

A jury trial has been demanded.

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
***
Related coverage:
PARTICULARLY RELEVANT - ER Cheri Moore's son speaks out 4/28/2006
There are links to most of the Cheri Moore coverage on many of the posts in this section - and more posts, articles and discussion at http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/

ER - 4/13/2007 Closure necessary in Cheri Moore shooting

Closure necessary in Cheri Moore shooting

A full year after Cheri Moore was shot and killed by Eureka Police Department officers, the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office has yet to determine whether the officers involved will be charged in connection with her death.

One year. Twelve months. Fifty-two weeks. It’s a long time.

Time enough for a lengthy public inquest, for a community to begin to heal, for a police department to acknowledge lessons learned and for new leadership at the EPD to affirm the department’s commitment to candor, honesty and transparency.

Time enough, too, one would think, to decide whether the officers put that day in an impossible situation should be held to answer for their actions.

The shooting occurred in the final months of a bitter and contentious battle for the DA’s Office between then-Deputy DA Worth Dikeman and incumbent DA Paul Gallegos.

The shots fired that day, in fact, caused Dikeman to reschedule a news conference at which he had planned to announce endorsements his campaign had received from the Eureka Police Officers’ Association, as well as from every other law enforcement union in the county.

In subsequent weeks, Dikeman accused Gallegos of making “political hay” of the investigation, and demanded the case be turned over to the California Attorney General’s Office.

“I do not believe that the Attorney General’s Office should routinely be involved in a case simply because the person being investigated is a police officer,” Dikeman said at a news conference.

“However, (Gallegos’) … failure to expeditiously resolve this matter and his strained relationship with the rest of the law enforcement community, including the Eureka Police Officers’ Association, make this an appropriate case for the attorney general to exercise his discretion under the government code and take full charge of the investigation.”

That was on May 25, 2006. More than 10 months ago. Forty-four weeks. It’s a long time.

That same day, Gallegos issued a news release that stated in part: “The District Attorney’s Office is continuing its investigation into the shooting death of Ms. Cheri Moore. At the conclusion of the investigation, we will determine if there is a need to present the case to the Humboldt County criminal grand jury. If the matter proceeds in that manner, we will request, and I am confident will receive, a public session of the grand jury.”

And still the community waits.

If Gallegos does not act — immediately — the case should be sent to the Attorney General’s Office.

Certainly the case is complex, but these officers deserve closure, and this community should demand it.

We do.

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

12.24.2007

TS - 12/24/2007 State police chiefs association president responds to indictments

State police chiefs association president responds to indictments

As the president of the California Police Chiefs Association, Richard Word hears lots of things from around the state.

But, Word said he's never heard of commanding officers being criminally charged for the decisions they make, like the case just getting underway here with former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Eureka Police Lt. Tony Zanotti, who are facing involuntary manslaughter charges.

Police departments and chiefs throughout the state have taken notice, and will follow the case against Douglas and Zanotti closely, he said.

”This has really sent shock waves throughout departments in the state,” Word said. “We're shocked. The e-mails are flying.”

The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office officially announced Dec. 10 the criminal grand jury convened to look into the 2006 shooting death of Cheri Lyn Moore indicted Douglas and Zanotti on involuntary manslaughter charges for their decision making roles in the incident.

The indictments are raising major concerns for law enforcement agencies across the state and the nation, Word said. Locally, Eureka has pledged to help pay Douglas' legal bills and a group of citizens is banding together with plans to publicly

Advertisement

pledge their support for the indicted officers.
Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot by Eureka police officers in her apartment at Fifth and G streets after a two-hour standoff in which she brandished a flare gun, threw items from her apartment and threatened to burn the building down.

Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. When officers came face to face with Moore, who they say had a flare gun pointed at them, they shot her multiple times.

Legal experts have said the indictments seem to indicate the grand jury felt the decision to enter Moore's apartment amounted to criminal negligence, and EPD should have spent more time negotiating with Moore, or tried to force her from her apartment with non-lethal means, like tear gas.

During a coroner's inquest held last year, Zanotti testified that Moore was an immediate threat to the building, responding officers and human life.

Word said he's received a rash of e-mails since the indictments were handed up, asking what the indictments are all about, if officers should write letters in support of the officers to the district attorney and if the indictments were politically motivated.

”We're all asking what's driving this, that's the big question,” Word said.

While the indictments could give officers in similar situations pause, Word said that's not his major concern. He said his major worry is that this will make police chiefs more likely to take control of these types of tactical operations.

”If you're going to face a potential indictment, you're probably going to take a lot of the decision making powers out of your commanding officers' hands, and you're going to get your butt down there,” Word said, adding that might not be a good thing.

SWAT and tactical response team commanders are extensively trained in how to deal with these situations, Word said, and are really better prepared to make those types of decisions. But, Word said the recent indictments may cause chiefs to none-the-less take control of operations in an effort to shield their officers from facing criminal charges.

”We know the threat of a civil suit is always present, but if you're going to face criminal charges, that's a whole new ball game,” Word said. “And, I think the response from some is going to be to take matters into their own hands.”

Chris Shean, a hostage negotiator with the Seattle Police Department, agreed with Word. He said SWAT teams sometimes have problems with lieutenants taking command of a scene, and the prospect of police chiefs, who are generally further removed from SWAT and tactical response training, doing so is even more worrisome.

”That could potentially open a real can of worms, and potentially cause a delay in a situation that needs to be acted on quickly,” Shean said, adding that his department will keep a close eye on Zanotti and Douglas case. “We will, and so will the Western States Hostage Negotiators' Association because it could determine policy.”

Also shocked at news of the indictments, one local group is taking matters into its own hands.

Chris Crawford said he and a group of citizens are in the process of creating a fundraising organization that will launch a public relations campaign in support of Douglas and Zanotti. Lots of people, Crawford said, don't support the indictments.

”It ain't just the cops,” Crawford said. “It's Joe and Jane Six Pack and a whole bunch of other people that are upset at this perversion of justice.”

The new organization, which Crawford said will launch its Web site -- www.freetheepd2.com -- shortly, aims to run some advertisements and hold some rallies to pledge support for the two officers. The organization will be fielding donations, Crawford said, and whatever is left over from the public relations campaign will be put toward the officers' legal defense fund.

Crawford was careful to say his organization is not endorsed by EPD nor the Eureka Police Foundation.

”We're just doing it because it's the right thing to do,” Crawford said.

The Eureka City Council also decided Thursday to form a fund to help with Douglas' legal bills, in addition to giving the former chief $75,000 from its general fund, with the option of contributing more down the road.

As the case moves toward trial, one thing is for sure: Many eyes will be watching.

”We're paying close attention,” Word said. “It's really concerning to chiefs across the state. We're certainly wishing the best for (Douglas) and Lt. Zanotti -- this is just unprecedented.”

How to contribute to city's defense fund for David Douglas:

Send checks made out to the City of Eureka, with David Douglas written in the “for” line, to City Hall, 531 K St., Eureka, CA 95502. Councilman Larry Glass said the checks would only be cashed if needed.

Thadeus Greenson The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 12/24/2007 01:32:24 AM PST\
Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com
***
Related:

April 27, 2006 SCENES FROM A SHOOTING - friends, bystanders, activists, police and the death of Cheri Moore


September 21. 2006 CAUSE OF DEATH - Questions answered and questions raised in the Cheri Lynn Moore inquest

Immediate aftermath:
ER Music, shots, then silence 4/15/2006
ER Investigation launched into police involved shooting 4/15/2006
ER Police respond to fatal shooting of Eureka woman 4/16/2006
TS Eureka shooting tragedy runs deep 04/16/2006
ER In aftermath of shooting, many questions remain 4/17/2006
TS Questions swirl around standoff shooting 04/18/2006
TS Haunted by the past 04/19/2006
ER Group gathers to remember Cheri Moore 4/19/2006
TS Police remain tight-lipped on shooting 04/20/2006
TS Lethal Weapon - Was it “just a flare gun”? 04/21/2006
ER Dispatch logs of fatal shooting made public 4/21/2006
ER Reserve judgment on shooting; question about timing lingers 4/23/2006
TS 'Force options' 04/24/2006
TS Shooting damage 'profound' 04/25/2006
TS City won't hand over 911 tapes 04/26/2006
TS 'Parallel' options 04/28/2006
ER Preliminary results indicate officers followed protocol4/28/2006
TS Shooting: ”Legal and lawful” 04/28/2006
ER Meeting about police review coalition turns to discussions of April 14 shooting 4/28/2006
ER Cheri Moore's son speaks out 4/28/2006
ER Idea of Police Review Coalition discussed with City Council subcommittee 4/29/2006
ER Moore shooting headed for Grand Jury? 5/25/2006

The Inquest:
ER Police chief said he stands by his officers' actions in shooting 7/21/2006
ER Coroner's inquest into police-involved shooting rescheduled 7/24/2006
ER MOORE INQUEST MAY BE TELEVISED 8/30/2006
ER Inquest should include still photos 8/30/2006
ER Coroner's inquest into death of Cheri Moore will start today 9/12/2006
TS Inquest testimony begins today - 11 jurors sworn in for rare court proceeding 09/12/2006
TS Neighbors, friends and SWAT commander testify during inquest's second half 09/12/2006
TS The last inquest - Moore shooting circumstances far more complicated 09/12/2006
TS Witnesses begin testifying in Moore case 09/12/2006
TS Witnesses from the First Day of the Moore Inquest 09/12/2006
TS 'I was scared' - Officers who fired fatal shots testify 09/13/2006
TS Incident commander testifies at coroner's inquest 09/13/2006
TS Witnesses from the Third Day of the Moore Inquest 09/14/2006
ER NINE MORE TAKE THE STAND 9/14/2006
TS Officer, chief take stand in Moore inquest 09/14/2006
ER Final nine testify at coroner's inquest 9/15/2006
TS Jury makes three recommendations after inquest 09/15/2006

And then the tortuous delay fraught with threats - Rumors, Leaks, and the Grand Jury Indictment:
ER A grim anniversary passes without resolution 4/13/2007
TS Gallegos: Retrial will 'likely' delay Moore decision 07/13/2007
TS Countdown to a decision 07/23/2007
TS Police Chief hopes grand jury proceedings are made public 11/08/2007
Who owns the 'facts'? 12/11/2007
TS EPD, other law enforcement turn out to support Zanotti, Douglas 12/11/2007
TS Gallegos to handle police prosecution 12/13/2007
ER City to assist with costs of former police chief's defense
TS Ex-chief garners $75K for his defense 12/21/2007
TS State police chiefs association president responds to indictments 12/24/07

Letters:
ER Ltr Everyone needs to be treated with compassion, respect 4/19/2006
ER Ltr Don't rush to judgment in police shooting 4/19/2006
TS Blue lights can show support
TS State police chiefs association president responds to indictments

Letters: More To come (TK)

MORE Posts and Discussion at http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/