Butte County

[somoz]

Great idea prop. Here's a link to the complaint form, there's a number at the top of the form but not sure if this is the tip line or just the departments information. Prop may have more info.

http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/...ical_Marijuana_Cultivation_Complaint_Form.pdf

 

[somoz]

And to be on the safe side I would never make a call from any location that has an operation on it or that can be tied to you in any way. Call from a parking lot etc and ditch the phone.

If you file a written one gloves on the entire time with no prints, especially if you have a record.

 

[Sunfire]

Lol holy shit! Good call, blow em up! Get the lines ringing. There should be lines at any remaining local pay phones. Get some Skype phone numbers!

 

[Yes4Prop215]

spread the word please….we need to attack the fragility of the anonymous complaint process. if more and more anonymous complaints come in that lead to false busts and regular non growers getting searched, they will have to scrap the process and revert it back to only complaints with legit callers. and you have to figure they are wasting at least 2-3 hours per complaint if they have to drive out and check on properties!

any neighbor who had a measure A sign is getting snitched on lol….tell code enforcement they are trigger happy meth smokers who got a BHO lab in their basement!

 

[hup234]

….tell code enforcement they are trigger happy meth smokers who got a BHO lab in their basement!

ahh don't do that you'll get the dog shot...

 

[CanniDo Cowboy]

Down to the nitty gritty...The abatement procedures are nothing new, as scary as they might read.. All counties follow the same complaint format. However, the new angle of attempting to apply the nuisance ordinance violation in regard to cultivation is sketchy.

But none the less, as the abatement procedures indicate, be prepared to be drug thru the length of the county's colon if youre feeling righteous and froggy. Residents go thru this process all the time over matters concerning something as small as an illegal fence build. It becomes a matter of principal thing and you can actually come out the hero, taking on and beating the big machine. But the cultivation nuisance thing is much bigger with more at stake and its where the county goes into down n dirty/nasty mode. The first thing the county does is attack your moral character by plastering a NOTICE on your property that an abatement process regarding MJ CULTIVATION is pending, a bs tactic which they hope 1) immediately paints you as some kind of despicable character and 2) surrounding neighbors will, no matter the abatement outcome, now keep an eye on your outlaw ass. At that point, the county has already done their job/damage. Sure, a good lawyer might keep your secret intact and prevent the county from posting such a notice but now the county has you reaching deep into first one pocket and then the other just to pay the lawyer. And as my grandma used to say- "Now yer just goin up fools hill..." cc


34A-13 Abatement procedures.

(a) Whenever the Director of Development Services, or his or her designee determines that a public nuisance (as defined in this Chapter) exists, he or she, or his or her designee, shall request in writing that the public nuisance be abated within seventy-two (72) hours. If the nuisance continues beyond that seventy-two (72) hour period, the Director of Development Services, or his or her designee, may set the matter for hearing. If the matter is set for hearing, the Director of Development Services or his or her designee, shall post the property upon which the public nuisance exists and shall mail, with a proof of service, notices to those persons known to be in possession of the property, if any, and to persons shown on the latest County tax roll to be the owners of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, unless thirty (30) days or other notice is required by Health and Safety Code section 17980 or other state law. Both the mailed and posted notice shall be in substantially the following form:

NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARING

The owner(s) and occupant(s) of real property described on the latest equalized Butte County tax roll as A.P. No.____________ and having a street address of ____________ is (are) hereby notified to appear before a Hearing Officer of the County of Butte at ____________ on ____________, 20____________, at the hour of ____________ o'clock ____________m., to show cause, if any there be, why the use of said real property should not be found to be a public nuisance and abated pursuant to the Butte County Code Chapter 34A. The Department of Development Services has determined that conditions exist on the above property which constitute a public nuisance and violate Butte County Code section(s) ____________, as follows: ____________. After hearing, if a violation is found to exist, the cost of abating such violation, including, but not limited to, the cost of the Hearing Officer, the cost of prior time and expenses associated with bringing the matter to hearing, attorneys' fees, the cost associated with any appeals from the decision of the Hearing Officer, the cost of judicially abating the violation, the cost of labor and material necessary to physically abate the violation, and the cost of securing expert and other witnesses may become a lien against the subject property and may also be assessed against the property in the same manner as taxes. If an abatement lien is recorded, it will have the same force and effect as an abstract of judgment which is recorded as a money judgment obtained in a court of law. If you fail to appear at the hearing or if you fail to raise any defense or assert any relevant point at the time of hearing, the County will assert, in later judicial proceedings to enforce an order of abatement, that you have waived all rights to assert such defenses or such points.

In preparing for such hearing, you should be aware that if an initial showing is made by the County, sufficient to persuade the Hearing Officer that a public nuisance exists on your property, you will then have the burden of proving that no public nuisance exists on your property. Therefore, you should be prepared to introduce oral and documentary evidence proving why, in your opinion, your use of the property is not a public nuisance as defined in this Chapter. A copy of the Butte County Code Chapter 34A relating to Medical Marijuana Cultivation nuisance abatement hearings is enclosed to assist you in the preparation of your presentation.

If an initial showing sufficient to persuade the Hearing Officer that a public nuisance exists on your property is made by the Code Enforcement Officer, your failure to sustain the burden of showing that no public nuisance exists on the property may result in an administrative decision ordering the abatement of uses or conditions on your property which are found to be a public nuisance and may also result in a later judicial order to the same effect.

Further, if the Hearing Officer finds that a public nuisance exists on your property and you fail to abate the nuisance promptly, the County may abate the nuisance. If the County abates the nuisance, you may be responsible for the actual costs of the abatement, including the costs to the County of the administrative hearing and attorneys' fees, and such costs may be specially assessed against your parcel by the Auditor-Controller's Office and added to the your tax bill as a special assessment. Such special assessments have the same priority, for collection purposes, as other county taxes and, if not paid, may result in a forced sale of your property. You are also hereby notified that the County will seek recovery of attorneys' fees incurred in any abatement hearing and that attorneys' fees may be recovered by the prevailing party.

Finally, if the Hearing Officer finds that a public nuisance exists on your property, a violation of the Butte County Code Chapter 34A, the County will contend that you are bound by such finding at any subsequent judicial action to enforce the Hearing Officer's order.

IMPORTANT: READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. FAILURE TO APPEAR AND RESPOND AT THE TIME SET FORTH IN THIS NOTICE WILL LIKELY RESULT IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR JUDICIAL ABATEMENT AND TERMINATION OF USES OF OR CONDITIONS ON YOUR PROPERTY WHICH THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTENDS ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE.

Dated: ____________/____________/____________

BUTTE COUNTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

By:____________

Enclosure: Butte County Code Chapter 34A



(b) All hearings conducted under this Chapter shall be held before a Hearing Officer designated pursuant to the protocol set forth in that document entitled the "Butte County Administrative Hearing Officer Program." The Program is based upon an alphabetical rotation through attorneys currently under contract through the Program.

(c) At the time and place set for the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall review the Director of Development Services' decision ordering cessation of the alleged public nuisance to determine whether such decision conforms to law and is supported by substantial evidence. The Hearing Officer shall hear testimony and receive written and/or documentary evidence relating to the alleged violation. Additional procedural rules may be adopted by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. The Hearing Officer shall tape record the hearing or engage the services of a certified court reporter to record the hearing and shall preserve the record of the hearing and all photographs and demonstrative and documentary evidence introduced at the time of the hearing for a period of three (3) years.

(d) Within five (5) days after the hearing is closed, the Hearing Officer shall render his or her written decision relating to the existence or nonexistence of the alleged public nuisance. If a violation is found to exist, the decision shall include a statement of the Abatement and Administrative Costs incurred by the County or estimated costs to abate the violation and shall also order that the owner of the property, or persons known to be in possession of the property, abate the violation within a reasonable time, not to exceed twenty (20) days. The decision shall contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. A copy of the decision shall be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person or persons shown on the last County tax roll to be the owners of the property which is the subject of the hearing and the occupant of such parcel, if any. All other persons noticed pursuant to this section shall be mailed a copy of the decision by first class mail, postage prepaid.

(e) The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final and conclusive on the date the certified mail set forth in subsection (d) above, is deposited in the mail.

(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, if a final decision of the Hearing Officer finds that a violation exists and the public nuisance is not voluntarily abated within twenty (20) days of said decision, the Director of Development Services or his or her designee may abate the public nuisance pursuant to a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. The owner of the property shall be responsible for paying all of the County's Abatement Costs and Administrative Costs, including but not limited to, those cost items set forth in the notice required by subsection (a) above. The Director of Development Services or his or her designee shall keep an accounting of the Abatement and Administrative Costs to perform each abatement. Upon completion of the abatement, the Director of Development Services or his or her designee shall post the property and send a bill to the owner, and any persons known to be in possession of the property, requesting payment of the County's Abatement and Administrative Costs. The bill shall also state that failure to pay the Abatement and Administrative Costs within fifteen (15) days from service of the bill may result in the recording of a lien and the placement of a special assessment against the property.

(2) If the County's Abatement and Administrative Costs are not paid within fifteen (15) days from service of the bill, the Director of Development Services shall render an itemized report to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for submittal to the Board of Supervisors for hearing and consideration regarding the proposed lien and special assessment. The report shall include the names and addresses of the owner of record and any persons known to be in possession of the property. The report shall also include the date the abatement was ordered, the work performed, the date the abatement was completed, a description of the property subject to the lien and special assessment, and an itemized account of the County's Abatement and Administrative Costs. At least fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall give notice, with an affidavit of service, of said hearing to all persons named in the Director of Development Services' report and the Director of Development Services or his or her designee shall post the property with a copy of the notice. The notice shall describe the property by assessor's parcel number and street number or other description sufficient to enable identification of the property and contain a statement of the amount of the proposed lien and special assessment. The notice shall also contain a statement that the Board will hear and consider objections and protests to the proposed lien and special assessment at the designated time and place.

(g) At the time and place fixed in the notice, the Board of Supervisors shall hear and consider the proposed lien and special assessment together with objections and protests thereto. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Supervisors may make such modifications and revisions to the proposed lien and special assessment as it deems just and may order that the proposed lien and special assessment be recorded by the Director of Development Services and specially assessed against the property by the Auditor-Controller's Office. The lien shall have the same force, priority and effect as a judgment lien and the special assessment shall have the same priority as other County taxes.

(h) The notice of abatement lien shall, at a minimum, identify the record owner or possessor of the property, set forth the date upon which abatement of the nuisance was ordered or deemed ordered by the Board of Supervisors, describe the real property subject to the lien, set forth the amount of the Abatement Costs and Administrative Costs incurred to date and, if applicable, the date upon which the abatement was completed. If the abatement has not yet been completed, the notice shall so state and shall also indicate that the lien is a partial lien and that additional Abatement Costs will be incurred in the future.

It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors that Abatement Costs and Administrative Costs incurred after the filing of the notice of abatement lien relate back to the date upon which the lien was recorded for purposes of priority; however, in order to preserve its rights, after all Abatement Costs and Administrative Costs have been incurred and the abatement is complete, the Department of Development Services shall cause a supplemental notice of abatement lien to be recorded. The supplemental notice shall contain all of the information required for the original notice and shall also refer to the recordation date and the recorder's document number of the original notice.
(i) The decision of the Hearing Officer or Board of Supervisors may be recorded by the Director of Development Services. In the event of such recordation and in the further event that the violation is corrected, a notice of such correction shall be recorded. The Director of Development Services is authorized to prepare and record a notice of correction. Correction of the violation shall not excuse the property owner's liability for costs incurred during the administrative abatement process (Abatement Costs and Administrative Costs as defined in section 34A-14 of this Chapter). If the property owner has not fully compensated the County for costs incurred during the administrative abatement process, a notice of correction shall not be recorded unless the fee specified in section 41-9 of Chapter 41 has been paid. Payment of the fee specified in section 41-9 of Chapter 41 does not excuse the property owner's liability for costs incurred during the administrative abatement process (Abatement Costs and Administrative Costs as defined in section 34A-14 of this chapter).

 

[IGROWMYOWN]

spread the word please….we need to attack the fragility of the anonymous complaint process. if more and more anonymous complaints come in that lead to false busts and regular non growers getting searched, they will have to scrap the process and revert it back to only complaints with legit callers. and you have to figure they are wasting at least 2-3 hours per complaint if they have to drive out and check on properties!

any neighbor who had a measure A sign is getting snitched on lol….tell code enforcement they are trigger happy meth smokers who got a BHO lab in their basement!

joking right?

 

[Backyard Farmer]

I have a real problem reading this whole lets narc policy. No matter what , you just don't do that...Not really a good option in my NOT so humble opinion.

 

[Sunfire]

Over here in yuba, there's lots of talk of forming a union. The decision has come down to the fact that we must take off the hippy garbs, and shake hand that we normally wouldn't want to. Yes snitch in shouldn't be done, and the opposition is using that weapon against all of us. This is pretty much war now, your enemy usually reveals there's worst fear in their battle tactics. Using their primary weapon against them is a great war strategy. Yes it's against our moral integrity, but havnt you ever watched the "sword in the stone"? Even good wizards need to know and use bad spells to defend the just and innocent!

 

[IGROWMYOWN]

snitching is never an option....NEVER don't care what the other side is doing.

 

[redlaser]

I have a real problem reading this whole lets narc policy. No matter what , you just don't do that...Not really a good option in my NOT so humble opinion.

Yeah, even if you were just picking an address from the phone book just to eat up there time, that address might have a grow and even if it doesn't, not cool.
It would have to be a real address or they wouldn't even make the drive.

 

[Sunfire]

You use your opponents adresses. Look, I understand that perspective, to never snitch. This is a simple case of evolution and natural selection. You can burn in hell with your moral beliefs, maybe if you believe in reincarnation you'll have good karma for your next life. Or you can take off the gloves and start slapping fools.

Yuba is pissed and we are going to start taking off the gloves. A slew of initiatives will be filed to fuck with the BOS , cut their pay, take away their medical benefits, take away their power to sell our water back door style, and create a new ordinance. We are going to start a recall campaign too! And hell yeah I'll call in on the FACT people (families against Canabis trafficking). They are all religious zealots that think they are so much better than anyone else.

Remember Bob Marley ' s sage advice...get up! Stand up! Stand up for your rights! Don't give up the fight!

 

[CanniDo Cowboy]

While I dont advocate goin all guerilla tactics here, be it known Butte County has little interest at this point in separating the good guys from the bad. Posting your private and what could be considered your own medical preferences on your gate (abatement procedure) for all the neighbors to see is wrong. And that little procedure/tactic they have been getting away with for years is a method the county uses to "shame" the violating resident to the surrounding neighbors while at the same time reminding the good neighbors theyd better behave also.

The fact the county also brags about being able to obtain a warrant within 30 minutes...WTF? That sounds like the whole county judicial system is on board, in the bag and ready to do their part...

The only way this gets put back into anything resembling anything other than a tyrannical attitude on the part of the county is unfortunately, thru the legal system. Any county's weakest link is financial resources. They hope these cases that are soon going to be coming at them hot n heavy (hopefully!) are all on our dime but I dont believe the nuisance violation, the warrant process vs probable questions and finally the anonymous complaint are going to be a lock when related to Prop 215, 420 and the patients voter given right to cultivate....cc

 

[mojave green]

While I dont advocate goin all guerilla tactics here, be it known Butte County has little interest at this point in separating the good guys from the bad. Posting your private and what could be considered your own medical preferences on your gate (abatement procedure) for all the neighbors to see is wrong. And that little procedure/tactic they have been getting away with for years is a method the county uses to "shame" the violating resident to the surrounding neighbors while at the same time reminding the good neighbors theyd better behave also.

The fact the county also brags about being able to obtain a warrant within 30 minutes...WTF? That sounds like the whole county judicial system is on board, in the bag and ready to do their part...

The only way this gets put back into anything resembling anything other than a tyrannical attitude on the part of the county is unfortunately, thru the legal system. Any county's weakest link is financial resources. They hope these cases that are soon going to be coming at them hot n heavy (hopefully!) are all on our dime but I dont believe the nuisance violation, the warrant process vs probable questions and finally the anonymous complaint are going to be a lock when related to Prop 215, 420 and the patients voter given right to cultivate....cc

Prop 215 NEVER gave anyone the "right to cultivate." It merely somewhat insulates someone from certain criminal prosecutions.

 

[Sunfire]

Prop 215 NEVER gave anyone the "right to cultivate." It merely somewhat insulates someone from certain criminal prosecutions.

Wtf are you talking about? Have you ever read prop 215 or sb420?
http://www.canorml.org/medical-marijuana/patients-guide-to-california-law

It's clearly stated that, and also states a physician can recommend MORE.

Which is what the people vs Kelly was all about. The sited date was 2010 but the case started in 2006.

Neither prop 215 or sb420 defines a patient's right to grow outdoor though. However the plant limit is in direct violation of state law that A QUALIFIED PHYSICIAN CAN RECOMMEND MORE! it was because of the people vs Kelly that doctor Hopkins up in clear lake started doing the 99 plant recs. And now that the standard. 99 plants and 19 pounds.

This is all bullshit. These county ordinances are in direct violation of state law. The Butte county "stay in the box" is a direct violation of the "American disabilities act".

 

[Wendull C.]

Prop 215 NEVER gave anyone the "right to cultivate." It merely somewhat insulates someone from certain criminal prosecutions.

Care to expand on that? I don't think rite aid had their med cannabis section open to the public in 1996' when the law was passed.

What were patients supposed to do take their rec to the corner dealer for schwag.

 

[hup234]

better to get 100 copys of that complaint form,put county commish ,cop, mayor's names on them,send them in ALONG WITH A FEW GRAMS OF FLOUR,BAKING SODA,OR OTHER POWDERS ...

 

[mojave green]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadacheck_v._Sebastian

 

[Wendull C.]

You are comparing apples to og nugs. Tell me in your own words what you mean please. Maybe I'm a bit dense but I do know about civic and politics more than a stoner should.

Thx man.

 

[mojave green]

case law rules, esp scotus. that is the 1st law they gonna cite in support of their right to local police power. what case law will you cite in rebuttal? they compared livery stable to brick making, not much of a stretch to draw the same analogy with weed in the courts. any chance of fighting this voter backed regulation can only be fought on the front of disparate treatment of disabled. all other arguments will fail. and it's gonna have to be someone, or several, that can prove that their mj needs exceed what can be cultivated within the restrictions. that shouldn't be that difficult. but fighting it on your "constitutional right" to grow more than the voters have decided is "reasonable," is doomed.