Marijuana Attorney

San Diego, California Marijuana Attorney Michael Cindrich

Michael E. Cindrich is best known for being a fierce litigator and one of the top cannabis attorneys in California. He has had dozens of cases dismissed by prosecutors and judges, and has won “Not Guilty” verdicts on several high profile cases.  In 2016 alone, Michael Cindrich won three “Not Guilty” verdicts on felony cannabis cases with less than fifteen minutes of deliberation by the jury. He puts the needs of his clients first, and is willing to fight hard to achieve a just result. On the business side, Mr. Cindrich has established hundreds of corporations, and consulted with thousands of individuals operating in Calfornia’s cannabis industry.  He has been successful in having licenses to sell, cultivate, manufacture, and distribute cannabis awarded to clients in jurisdictions throughout California.

In 2009, Michael Cindrich was nominated by San Diego City Council member Marti Emerald to be on San Diego’s Medical Marijuana Task Force. Mr. Cindrich is an advocate for marijuana consumers across the state of California and throughout the United States. He currently serves as a Director of the San Diego County chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and is a lifetime member of the national NORML Legal Committee. A former prosecutor, Mr. Cindrich is a San Diego speaker for Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), an organization of current and former members of law enforcement who support drug regulation rather than prohibition.

Michael E. Cindrich is respected in the marijuana community for both his role as a trial attorney as well as his role as an advocate for medical marijuana patients and recreational marijuana consumers. He regularly gives presentations concerning California’s marijuana laws and the impact that marijuana prohibition has on society. Mr. Cindrich has presented to attorneys, police officers, judges, doctors, professional athletes and others who wish to know more about marijuana laws, regulations, and the progression of marijuana legalization in the United States. Throughout his career he has educated hundreds of attorneys on courtroom tactics for presenting a medical marijuana defense.

The Law Offices of Michael E. Cindrich, APC has been successful in having hundreds of pounds of cannabis, and several hundred thousand dollars in cash, returned to our clients after wrongful seizure by law enforcement.  For more information on our Return of Property work, click here.

For information regarding our recent case results and media appearances, click here to view our blog or here to view our Facebook page.

In addition to regularly appearing on local news networks in San Diego, other appearance include:

• • Marijuana Lawyer Michael E. Cindrich was featured on the documentary film “The Legend of 420.” Click HERE for more information.
  • Michael E. Cindrich on KOGO News Radio discussing statements made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  His segment starts at 16:20.  Click HERE to listen to the broadcast.
  • Michael E. Cindrich was featured on Wealth TV’s documentary “Marijuana Miracle Cure.” Click HERE to watch.
  • Click HERE to listen to Mr. Cindrich interviewed on The Norman Goldman Show regarding his thoughts on prohibition and the drug war in America (6/5/14).
  • Click HERE to listen to Mr. Cindrich interviewed on Truthdig Radio regarding Initiative 71, the District of Columbia’s proposed marijuana legalization initiative (8/7/14)
    

Top Marijuana Firm in San Diego

Marijuana is still a schedule I controlled substance under United States Federal Law, a class reserved only for drugs that are considered by the federal government to have no accepted medical value and a high potential for abuse. As a result the possession, sale, and cultivation of marijuana are illegal federally. In the past two decades many states have enacted legislation that allows certain patients to use medical marijuana legally under State Law, and recently several states have passed laws that allow for the recreational consumption of marijuana. Further complicating the legal landscape is the widespread production and distribution of Hemp and Cannabidiol (CBD) products.  For more information on the laws related to Hemp and CBD products, click here.

In California, medical cannabis may be legally used and cultivated by qualified patients under Proposition 215, provided they have a recommendation or approval from a licensed physician. Senate Bill 420 established a voluntary ID card program plus guidelines for possession and cultivation effective January 1, 2004. The state limit was initially set at 6 mature or 12 immature plants and 8 ounces of marijuana per qualified patient, except where a physician declared that more was needed, or where local governments authorized more.

However, after the California Supreme Court decision of People v. Kelly (opinion filed 1/21/10), the law is clear that qualified patients [and their designated primary caregivers] may possess an amount of marijuana reasonably necessary for their [or their patients’] personal medical needs. Senate Bill 420 also authorized medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers to associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate for medical purposes.

Collectives and Cooperatives created the cannabis industry that currently exists in California today; however due to recent legislation, they will not exist much longer. In 2015 the California State Legislature enacted the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act [MCRSA] in order to create a strict regulatory framework for all marijuana-related activities in California. MCRSA authorized 17 different categories of licenses, and was one of the most comprehensive piece of medical cannabis legislation in the United States.

In 2016, the citizens of the State of California passed Proposition 64, a recreational marijuana initiative which drastically changed the state criminal sanctions for marijuana offenses. Proposition 64, know as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act [AUMA],  allowed adults 21 years of age and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, or 8 grams of marijuana concentrate, in public, and to cultivate up  6 marijuana plants in their residence. Several marijuana-related offenses that used to be felonies were reduced to misdemeanors, and some no longer crimes at all. Like MCRSA, AUMA also created a strict regulatory framework for commercial marijuana activities in California.  Though these two pieces of legislation had many similarities, there were some notable differences which would have ultimately made it extremely difficult to implement each piece of legislation separately.

In response to concerns on how to implement each law effectively, the California State Legislature repealed most of the MCRSA and combined the remaining parts with AUMA. The resulting legislation is Senate Bill 94, a combined medical and recreational marijuana statute known as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act [MAUCRSA].  Under SB 94, medical and recreational businesses will have almost identical regulations and licensing options, but in both cases must be able to show the state that they have the necessary local authorization. On January 9, 2019, twelve months from the date the Bureau of Cannabis Control posted that it commenced issuing licenses pursuant to MAUCRSA, the current system of collectives and cooperatives will be eliminated. It is a transitional period for California as we move from the old decriminalization framework to a new regulated legal market. Questions remain concerning how existing businesses will transition to, and new businesses enter, the MAUCRSA licensing landscape. Our firm has experienced attorneys available to answer these questions and to help you navigate the complex medical and recreational marijuana marketplace. Click here to read an article by Michael Cindrich with a detailed overview of the past, present, and future of cannabis law in California. Click here to contact the Law Offices of Michael E. Cindrich.

Unfortunately, many local governments do not respect California Marijuana Laws. In San Diego, where the County Board of Supervisors refused to implement the voluntary ID card program for several years, marijuana consumers face constant harassment by law enforcement. Qualified patients, recreational consumers, and marijuana-related businesses all over the county have faced charges of possession, possession for sale, transportation, and cultivation. An experienced and aggressive Marijuana Attorney is essential in helping you to address these charges and stand up for your rights!

The Law Offices of Michael E. Cindrich APC has considerable experience representing medical marijuana patients and recreational consumers who have been accused of violating state laws. We have represented patients, caregivers, cultivators, landlords, members of collectives, operators of dispensaries, and others involved in California’s marijuana industry. Michael E. Cindrich can assist in all marijuana-related cases including:

• Possession of Marijuana
• Possession of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
• Cultivation of Marijuana
• Transportation of Marijuana
• Marijuana Sales
• DUI Marijuana
• Return of Wrongfully Confiscated Marijuana
• Return of Money, Vehicles, and Other Property
• Probation Modifications
• Probation Violations
• Collectives/Cooperatives
• Expert Witness

California’s marijuana laws are vague and confusing, and it is important to have an experienced attorney that understands exactly how to argue these cases. Michael E. Cindrich will aggressively fight on your behalf to get the charges dismissed, and your medicine returned. Mr. Cindrich has successfully recovered several hundred pounds of wrongfully seized marijuana from law enforcement agencies in California.

We have considerable experience representing individuals and businesses interested in entering the cannabis industry, as well as medical marijuana patients, primary caregivers, and collectives/cooperatives that cultivate and distribute marijuana. If you are an officer, director, or employee of a collective/cooperative or for-profit cannabis business, contact the Law Offices of Michael E. Cindrich, APC to review the legality of your operations. We can assist with corporate formation, drafting business agreements and transactional documents, negotiating leases, applying for conditional use permits and business licenses, and will assist you to comply with all state and local criminal and regulatory statutes. If you are interested in getting licensed as a recreational or medical marijuana business under California’s MAUCRSA, contact us today to schedule a meeting with one of our attorneys.

We are experienced marijuana attorneys who have the skills and knowledge to assist you with your cannabis-related legal issues. We are dedicated to achieving the best possible results for your case or project, and will aggressively work on your behalf to help you navigate California’s complex marijuana landscape.

Michael E. Cindrich Interviewed on “The Russ Belville Show”

Mr. Cindrich’s segment starts at minute 29:15

RECENT CASE RESULTS ***

• HS 11358, HS 11359 [87 PLANTS] – NOT GUILTY VERDICT
• HS 11379.6(a) – NOT GUILTY VERDICT
• HS 11359, HS 11358 [98 PLANTS, 6 lbs] – NOT GUILTY VERDICT
• HS 11379.6(a) – NOT GUILTY VERDICT
• HS 11360(a), HS 11359 – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11359, HS 11360 [192 plants] – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11359, HS 11358 [250 plants] – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11359, HS 11358 [216 plants] – CASES DISMISSED for 4 Clients
• HS 11360(a), HS 11359, HS 11357(a), HS 11379(a), HS 11377(a) – CASE DISMISSED VIA 1538.5 MOTION
• HS 11360(a), HS 11359, VC 12500(a) – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11360(a), HS 11359, HS 11358, HS 11357(a) [159 plants, 40 pounds] – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11360(a), HS 11360(a), HS 11357(a) – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11359, HS 11358, HS 11357(a) – CASE DISMISSED VIA 1538.5 MOTION
• HS 11359, HS 11357(c), PC 69, PC 148(a)(1), VC 23152(a) – CASE DISMISSED VIA 1538.5 MOTION
• HS 11359, HS 11358, PC 487(a), PC 593 [184 plants, 7.5 kilos] – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11359, HS 11358, HS 11357(c) [200 plants] – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11359, HS 11358, HS 11357(a), HS 11366.5(a), PC 12022(a)(1) [116 plants, 8 lbs] – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11358, HS 11357(a) – CASE DISMISSED AT PRELIMINARY HEARING
• HS 11359, HS 11358 [180 plants] – CASE NOT FILED
• HS 11357(a), VC 23222(b) – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11359 – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11357(c) – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11357(b) – CASE DISMISSED
• HS 11360(a), HS 11359, HS 11358, HS 11379.6(a) [12.3 pounds, 50 plants] – PLEA TO INFRACTION HS 11357b
• HS 11359, HS 11358 [3,379 plants] – PLEA to HS 11359, probation
• HS 11358 [754 plants] – REDUCED to HS 11357(c)
• HS 11358 [125 plants] – REDUCED to Infraction HS 11357(b)
• HS 11359, HS 11358 [250 plants, 18 pounds] – PLEA to misdemeanor HS 11377(a)
• HS 11359, HS 11358 – PLEA to HS 11357(c), 18 months probation, stay fines
• HS 11359, HS 11358, HS 11357(a) – PLEA to HS 11357(c), 6 months probation, no fine
• HS 11359, PC 273a(a), PC 243(e)(1) – PLEA to PC 242; HS 11357(b)
• HS 11359, HS 11358, PC 29800(a)(1), PC 30305(a)(1), PC 148(a)(1) – PLEA to HS 11357(a)
• HS 11360(a), HS 11359 [43 pounds] – PLEA to HS 11360(a), probation
• VC 23152(a) [marijuana, cocaine, xanax, .05 BAC, 2 prior DUIs] – PLEA to VC 23103
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 5 Ounces of marijuana, 1 jar of seeds, and scale returned
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 40 Pounds of marijuana, equipment, and cash returned
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 11 Ounces of marijuana, 1 ounce of concentrate, and vehicle
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 12 Pounds of marijuana
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 2 Pounds of marijuana, concentrate, edibles, cash, scale
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 13.5 pounds of marijuana
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 1 pound of marijuana, 3 ounces of concentrate, $7,115 cash
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 5 pounds of marijuana, 1 pound of concentrate
• RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION GRANTED – 4 pounds of marijuana

40 Plant / 10 Pound Case Dismissed Because of Illegal Search

Defendant and his friend were sitting on the couch smoking a bong. Defendant’s door was open, and the security screen door was closed except for a couple inch crack. Officers were responding to a neighboring apartment to investigate an unrelated complaint. The lead officer smelled marijuana and saw a cloud of smoke coming from inside of the apartment. The officer went to the security door and saw defendant and his friend smoking the bong. Seeing that the screen door was cracked, the officer opened the screen door further, and made eye contact with defendant. As they made eye contact, defendant placed the bong next to the couch out of the officer’s sight, and made a sweeping motion on his coffee table. The officer could plainly see marijuana on the coffee table. The officers stated that defendant let them into his apartment. Defendant and his friend say that the officers walked right in. Once inside, the officers performed a “protective sweep” of the house. The main officer indicated in his report that he could hear a buzzing sound coming from the back bedroom, and wanted to make sure that there was no one dangerous in the house. During the protective sweep, officers found 40 plants, 10 pounds of marijuana, and 14 grams of hash. Officers went back to the front area and asked defendant for consent to search his house. He said no. Officers then called narcotics detectives, who responded and again asked defendant for consent to search. He said no. Based on the observations during the initial protective sweep, a telephonic search warrant was obtained. Officers searched and located a scale and a small amount of cash. During an interview, defendant indicated that he sells the marijuana to dispensaries in San Diego and Los Angeles, but he did not have a doctor’s recommendation. Defendant was arrested for HS 11359, HS 11358, HS 11357(a).

Our office filed a motion to suppress to be heard at the preliminary hearing. We challenged the constitutionality of the initial entry into the apartment, as well as the protective sweep. During the motion, defendant’s friend testified that defendant never allowed officers into the apartment, and that officers barged right in. He testified that defendant continuously stated that he was not consenting to their presence or to a search. During argument, Mr. Cindrich argued that the preponderance of the evidence standard was not met since there was conflicting testimony from the officer and the defense witness. He also argued that since the officers could not articulate any apparent threat to their safety, a protective sweep was not authorized. The judge agreed. He first ruled that he believed that the defense witness was credible. Since the defendant stated that he did not consent to a search multiple times, a fact not disputed, it was more probable than not that he did not consent to their initial entry. Even if he had consented to the initial entry, there wasn’t legal grounds for a protective sweep. Cops did not have guns drawn, did not handcuff client and his friend, and could not point to any evidence that a dangerous person was hiding in the apartment. Based on the above, all evidence after the initial entry was suppressed, and the case dismissed.

200 Plant Collective Cultivation Case Dismissed by District Attorney

Case dismissed on day of trial! Defendants were running a collective grow and had over 30 members. Some members assisted with the grow, while others provided financial support. Some patients paid donations for their medicine, while others received it for free. Donation cost was dependent on the person’s ability to pay. The total number of plants found was 200. Defendants admitted that they were running a collective and were in compliance with state law. Collective had a sellers permit, articles of incorporation, bylaws, minutes, doctor’s recommendations, and membership agreements for patients. They also had over 10 people willing to testify on their behalf. No money or business records were located.

Mr. Cindrich was ultimately able to convince the DA that this was not a case they could win. The DA indicated that their office still believed that this was a violation of state law, but based on the facts of the case, the collective records produced, the doctors’ compliance with subpoenas, and the witness statements, they did not believe that they could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. DA also said that this has no impact on how they will treat future cases.

Marijuana Cultivation and Electricity Theft Case Dismissed by District Attorney

Defendants were a group of 3 people: a man, his mother, and an elderly gentleman. The man’s mother and the elderly gentleman were living on a property. 184 plants and 7.24 of processed marijuana were found, along with 4 recommendations. The electricity at the house was being re-routed, so all 3 defendants were charged with cultivation, possession for sale, grand theft, and tampering with electrical lines. There was no evidence of sale, only a statement from the elderly man that the other defendant was selling the marijuana to dispensaries. At the preliminary hearing, Mr. Cindrich cross-examined the prosecution’s electrical expert on when the electricity had been re-routed. His best guess was over a year before when only the elderly man was living on the property; but at that point he was not the responsible party for the electric bill. Based on the collective paperwork presented, and the lack of evidence regarding who was responsible for the electricity theft, Mr. Cindrich was able to convice the DA to dismiss all charges against all defendants.

84 Plant Collective Cultivation Case Dismissed by District Attorney

A well fought case with a great result. In this case, client was a 26 year old medical marijuana patient. She and several of her relatives came to gather to establish a medical marijuana collective that was in full compliance with California law. Police were called to her residence one night by a neighbor as a result of a domestic dispute. When they arrived at the residence, they discovered approximately 84 marijuana plants in different stages of growth. The plants were immediately confiscated, and client later received a letter from the District Attorney’s office stating that marijuana cultivation charges were being filed against her. Though Mr. Cindrich was confident that his client was legally cultivating marijuana under California’s medical marijuana laws, it became apparent that the DA’s office was not so convinced. Mr. Cindrich knew that the DA’s office would have to see strong evidence of the collective before they would be willing to dismiss this case. As a result, Mr. Cindrich was forced to present a comprehensive medical marijuana defense at the preliminary hearing. He drafted a persuasive motion, called several of the collective members to testify, and presented a compelling argument to both the Judge and the DA as to why these charges needed to be dismissed in the interests of justice. After hearing the witnesses, and seeing the defense, the DA’s office ultimately agreed. Within weeks after the preliminary hearing, the DA dismissed the case. Our client could finally return to her life as a law abiding member of society.

Not Guilty Verdict on Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated Case

Another huge victory for our client and our firm! Our client was a 62 year old medical marijuana patient with no prior criminal record. Client was driving his vehicle on Zoo Pl. approaching the intersection of Florida Dr. As Client proceeded to make a left hand turn onto Florida Dr., he was struck by a motorcyclist driving recklessly and at a high rate of speed. The motorcyclist was thrown from his bike, and seconds later run over by another vehicle. Sadly, the motorcyclist died within minutes.

When police arrived on scene, they began questioning the parties involved. The investigating detective smelled marijuana on our client, who openly admitted that he was a medical marijuana patient and that he had recently smoked a small amount of marijuana. Our client immediately became a suspect, and after several hours of questioning and field sobriety tests, he was arrested for Penal Code section 191.5(b), Vehicular Manslaughter with Negligence while Intoxicated.

San Diego Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael E. Cindrich was retained and immediately began working on the case. It was clear that though the evidence was weak, the San Diego District Attorney’s office was not going to back down. The jury trial began on a Tuesday and lasted over a week. During the trial, evidence was presented by the driver of the vehicle who ran over the victim that the motorcyclist had been passing cars, weaving in and out of traffic, and traveling approximately 70 mph in a 45 mph zone. Evidence was also presented that our client performed well on some of the field sobriety tests, while performing poorly on others. It was not disputed that our client had recently smoked marijuana, but what was disputed was whether the smoking of marijuana impaired our client for the purpose of driving. Michael E. Cindrich presented a comprehensive defense, calling a toxicologist as a witness, and presenting evidence that the consumption of marijuana alone does not necessarily impair someone for the purposes of driving. Mr. Cindrich also called an accident reconstruction expert to testify regarding causation. After a week of presenting evidence, the case was submitted to the jury for deliberations.

Two days later, after living in fear for 6 months, our client finally heard the words he had been waiting for: Not Guilty! The jury had unanimously agreed that there was not enough evidence to conclude that our client was under the influence of marijuana for the purposes of driving. Put another way, they believed that though he had consumed marijuana, our client could still operate his vehicle with the caution and care of an ordinary person acting under similar circumstances. What the jury could not agree on was whether our client was the cause of the accident. On the lesser included offense of Misdemeanor Vehicular Manslaughter, the jury hung 8-4 in favor of Not Guilty. The following week, at a post-trial status conference, Michael E. Cindrich presented a compelling argument for why the lesser included offense should be dismissed in furtherance of justice under Penal Code section 1385. The judge who had sat and listened to all of the evidence at trial ultimately agreed and dismissed the remaining charge. Our client was officially a free man!

College Student on Probation Found Not Guilty of Marijuana Sales

An incredible victory for our client and for The Law Offices of Michael E. Cindrich. In this case, our client was a college student who was on probation for a non-marijuana offense. Police went to his house for a 4th waiver search and discovered approximately 2 ounces of marijuana in different containers, a scale, and approximately $120 in cash. Our client informed the officers that he was a medical marijuana patient, but they wouldn’t even look at his doctor’s recommendation. The officers got a search warrant for the house and discovered that the roommates were in possession of multiple pounds of marijuana, thousands of dollars in cash, packaging materials, pay/owe sheets, and telephones containing text messages related to drug sales. The theory of the prosecution was that this was a drug house, so all members were charged with selling marijuana. Two of the roommates plead guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to sell, but our client would not plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. On the day of trial, the prosecutor informed us that she did not believe she could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and was therefore dismissing the case. She did, however, want to proceed with the probation violation hearing, which only had to be proved by a much lower preponderance of the evidence standard. Needless to say this was an extremely important hearing for our client, a loss would likely put him in jail for 180 days. Michael Cindrich was not going to let this happen. Mr. Cindrich put on a comprehensive medical marijuana defense, calling experts and witnesses to testify, and tearing apart the prosecution’s experts and witnesses on cross examination. Mr. Cindrich also carefully briefed the law as it relates to using marijuana on probation, and established that our client’s activities were lawful. At the end of all evidence, the judge ruled in our favor, and found our client not guilty of all charges and allegations!

125 Plant Collective Cultivation Case Dismissed and Property Returned

In this case, our client was a medical marijuana patient who was associating with other medical marijuana patients in order to collectively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law. Police served a search warrant at our client’s residence and discovered a marijuana cultivation operation consisting of approximately 125 plants in different stages of growth. He was arrested on the scene, and later retained our office to handle his defense. Mr. Cindrich immediately began working on the case, and examining the conduct of the arresting officers. It quickly became apparent to Mr. Cindrich that the probable cause for the search warrant was suspect, and that a motion challenging the search would be required. On the date of the motion, the DA on the case came to court and informed Mr. Cindrich and his client that they would not be opposing the motion; in other words, they were not willing to present evidence as to the lawfulness of the search warrant and the related search. As a result, they had decided to dismiss the case! The DA also agreed that our client could have his property returned, including all of the grow equipment. Justice had prevailed.

Medical Marijuana Caregiver Gets Charges Dismissed and Seeks Lawsuit Against Arresting Agency

In this case, our client was the primary caregiver for his sick girlfriend. As a primary caregiver, he collectively associated with another patient in order to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. The collective garden contained a total of 28 mature marijuana plants. The police were called to the house for unrelated purposes and discovered the marijuana grow. Though our client informed the officers that he was a primary caregiver and that the garden was a lawful collective garden, the officers proceeded to cut down the plants and arrest our client. Through careful argument, Mr. Cindrich was able to establish that the patients were authorized to possess this number of plants, and therefore they could not be convicted of this offense. The court and District Attorney ultimately agreed, and all charges were dropped. Mr. Cindrich filed a motion for the return of the growing equipment and marijuana plants which was granted by the judge. Though the grow equipment was still in good condition, the plants were destroyed and contained no medicinal value. On behalf of our client, Mr. Cindrich filed a tort claim against the City that oversees the arresting agency, demanding monetary compensation for the value of the plants and for the pain and suffering that our client had to endure while the case was open. This case is ongoing, check back soon for an update!

Medical Marijuana Patient and Caregiver Gets Charges Dismissed

Another great victory for our office and our client. In this case the defendant, who was on probation for a prior drug offense, got pulled over by the police for and expired registration. Upon contact, the officer immediately noticed the smell of marijuana. A search of the vehicle revealed approximately 42 grams of marijuana divided into four different baggies. The defendant admitted to the police officer that he was taking the marijuana to a friend, and was ultimately charged with felony transportation of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana and felony possession of marijuana with intent to sell. At the preliminary hearing on the case, the defendant was not only facing the present charges, but a probation violation on his previous case. Through careful and precise argument, Mr. Cindrich was able to convince the court that the defendant was a patient and caregiver. Through case law, Mr. Cindrich was also able to establish that the defendant could not be violated on probation for being a qualified medical marijuana patient. At the end of the hearing, the Judge declined to dismiss the case, but cautioned the District Attorney about taking such a weak case to trial. A few weeks later Mr. Cindrich received a call from the District Attorney’s office – they had decided to dismiss the entire case!!!

Medical Marijuana Patient and Caregiver Gets Infraction

A great victory for the Law Offices of Michael E. Cindrich! In this case, the defendant, a qualified medical marijuana patient and primary caregiver, was pulled over for making an illegal turn. Upon contact, the officer smelled marijuana coming from within the vehicle. A search of the defendant’s car revealed approximately 1 pound of marijuana in four different containers, and a small orange pill that turned out to be alprazolam (xanax). Defendant was also in possession of $116 in cash, and had text messages in his phone indicating that he was meeting up with a friend. The San Diego District Attorney’s Office charged him with felony possession with intent to sell marijuana, felony transportation of marijuana, and misdemeanor possession of alprazolam without a prescription. This case turned out to be a long, hard fought battle for Mr. Cindrich and his client. At appearance after appearance in court, Michael Cindrich argued his client’s innocence. Finally, on the eve of trial, the District Attorney assigned to the case called in an attempt to find a resolution. Mr. Cindrich was able to negotiate a plea that the client was incredibly happy with: dismiss all felony marijuana counts, and plead guilty to an infraction possession of alprazolam without a prescription. No probation, no fine.

Medical Marijuana Patient Booked for Sales and DUI takes Reckless Driving Plea

In this recent medical marijuana case, the defendant was pulled over for speeding at 127 mph and rapidly changing lanes. Upon contact, the officer noticed the strong smell of burnt marijuana emitting from within the vehicle. The defendant also displayed signs and symptoms consistent with recent marijuana use. The officer arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of marijuana, and proceeded to search the vehicle. During the search, the office recovered over 1 ounce of marijuana packaged in several different containers. The defendant was subsequently booked for felony possession with intent to sell marijuana, felony transportation of marijuana, and misdemeanor driving under the influence of marijuana. Through careful negotiation with the District Attorney’s Office, Michael Cindrich was able to establish that the defendant was a qualified medical marijuana patient. Mr. Cindrich was also able to dissect the evidence and show that the defendant’s urinalysis results could not be used to prove that the defendant was under the influence at the time of driving. The prosecutor finally submitted, and offered the defendant a reckless driving (VC 23103) plea which he happily accepted.

Medical Marijuana Patient with 96 Plants Get’s Great Deal

Another Medical Marijuana Case where the patient got busted growing 96 plants, well outside of the state guidelines. The patient was also charged with Child Endangerment for having his medicine accessible to his young child. Through careful negotiation with the District Attorney, Mr. Cindrich was able to get a deal that the patient was happy with: plead to 1 felony cultivation and 1 misdemeanor possession charge, informal/court probation, and the patient would be allowed to use, grow, and possess marijuana within the state guidelines while on probation. After 18 months of probation with no new charges or cases, the patient can withdraw the felony plea!

Call today for a free consultation! 619-262-2500

San Diego Medical Marijuana Lawyer Michael E. Cindrich: Information on Police Contacts in Marijuana Cases

San Diego Medical Marijuana Lawyer Michael E. Cindrich: Tips for New Medical Marijuana Patients

***This does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter, nor does it create an attorney/client relationship. Please do not rely on any of the statements contained in this website as legal advice. Legal advice will only be given with a retainer agreement signed by Michael Cindrich.***