This month, the City of Fontana was sued over its personal cannabis cultivation restrictions. On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64 (also known as the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” or “AUMA”) which allows adults 21 and older to cultivate up to six marijuana plants inside their private residence. While the new law allows cities to regulate indoor personal cultivation, they must do so reasonably and cannot prohibit anyone outright from cultivating cannabis. (Read more about state cannabis law at California Cannabis Law.)
Some cities are resisting the will of the voters and have adopted cannabis ordinances that are so restrictive they operate as a de facto ban on personal cannabis cultivation. In Fontana (where Prop. 64 passed with 53.5 percent of the vote), the Mayor and City Council members even boasted that they wanted the Fontana ordinance to be the most restrictive in the state and they hoped it would deter people from cultivating marijuana.
Among other problematic provisions, the Fontana ordinance requires residents to register with the city, undergo a criminal background check, open their home to city officials for an inspection, and pay an expensive fee before obtaining a permit that would allow them to grow marijuana plants in their private home. If someone cultivates marijuana but fails to obtain the city permit they are subject to a criminal misdemeanor even though personal cannabis cultivation is legal under California state law.
The Drug Policy Alliance and the ACLU of California filed a lawsuit against the City of Fontana challenging the City personal grow ordinance on the ground that it is intended to effectively prevent residents from enjoying the rights granted to them by Proposition 64 (AUMA). The Fontana ordinance makes it unreasonably difficult and expensive for residents to cultivate marijuana at their private residence as Prop. 64 allows.
“The ACLU of California supported Proposition 64, in large part because of our long-standing policy that possessing or cultivating marijuana for personal use should not be a crime,” Jess Farris, director of criminal justice at the ACLU of Southern California, said in a statement. “The Fontana ordinance — and other similar ordinances around the state — would criminalize the very conduct Proposition 64 legalized, particularly for people who are ineligible to obtain a permit because of their criminal convictions or their lack of funds to obtain a permit or to dedicate an entire room in their home to cultivation.”
[Update – On November 2, 2018, the Court issued its decision in the case, Mike Harris v. City of Fontana, and ruled against the City of Fontana striking various provisions from the Fontana Ordinance. The Court also ruled that the cannabis personal grow permit fees currently adopted by the Fontana City Council are disallowed, though subject to reassessment in light of the corrected Ordinance. Read more about the Court decision in the Fontana personal grow lawsuit.]
