top
East Bay
East Bay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

More on Diane Monson and the DMV

by LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. MICHAEL
Letter and news article about Diane Monson
If anyone else has been subjected to this kind of DMV assault, I
would like to know about it.

David Michael
__________________________________________________________

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. MICHAEL
The DeMartini Historical Landmark Building
294 Page Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 621-4500 and (510) 559-8590
Facsimile: (415) 621-4173 and (510) 525-6233
email: _dmmp5 [at] aol.com_ (mailto:dmmp5 [at] aol.com)

21 December 2004

Joan Borucki, Director HAND DELIVERED
Department of Motor Vehicles
2415 1st Avenue Mail Station F101
Sacramento, CA 95818

Re: Diane Monson, CDL No. N5044398
Notice of Reexamination

Dear Ms. Borucki:

Please be advised that I represent Diane Monson regarding the attached
Notice of Reexamination, issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on 6
December 2004. This letter is to request that the DMV immediately rescind this
inappropriate notice and cease and desist from any further attempts to
adversely affect Ms. Monson?s right to drive in California, an attempt based solely
on her status as a medical cannabis patient. This request for immediate
action is made for the following reasons:

1. As I am sure you are aware, the statutory provisions cited by and
related to the Notice of Reexamination , Vehicle Code §§ 13800 and 13801, have to
do with California drivers who are extremely negligent, incompetent, involved
in serious and multiple accidents, often causing injury and death, or other
reprehensible conduct.

2. Before a notice is sent under Vehicle Code § 13801, an investigation
must be undertaken. Did your Department do that? If so, it would have
discovered that Ms. Monson?s total driving history over all the years she has been a
California driver consists of one (1) moving violation which she received
over 15 years ago.

3. My earlier inquiries to the Department have disclosed that Ms. Monson
received her Notice of Reexamination solely because a Hearing Officer heard
that she was a medical cannabis patient and for no other reason. In other
words, Ms. Monson is being singled out by the DMV solely because of her status and
not as a result of any previous conduct or wrongful driving on her part.

4. Medical cannabis, as you must surely know, is lawful under California
law, pursuant to The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code §
11362.5, et.seq. This lawful use is supported by the Attorney General of
the State of California and all other law enforcement agencies.

5 Article 3, Section 3.5 of the California Constitution makes it
unconstitutional for your agency, or any administrative agency of this State?s
government, to refuse to enforce a statute or act in any way that negates a valid
law or its benefits. This includes The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal.
Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, allowing the possession and use of medical
cannabis by qualified patients. Any attempt to selectively discriminate against
medical cannabis users by the DMV is, therefore, in violation of the
California Constitution.

6. Furthermore, Health & Safety Code § 11362.8 restrains your Department
from taking any disciplinary action against a licensee for implementing The
Compassionate Use Act. This section should be a clear guideline for the DMV to
apply to all medical cannabis patients. Do you intend to honor this section
in that way?

For all the foregoing reasons, I once again request that the Department of
Motor Vehicles rescind its previously sent Notice of Reexamination to Ms.
Monson and cease and desist from any further attempts to adversely affect Ms.
Monson?s right to drive in California based solely on her status as a medical
cannabis patient. Furthermore, I request that you, personally, declare that the
Department of Motor Vehicles will, as a policy, not make any attempts to
adversely affect the driving rights of any other California driver based solely
on that driver?s status as a lawful medical cannabis user pursuant to
California?s Compassionate Use Act.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.

Sincerely,


DAVID M. MICHAEL
DMM:ob

Enclosure

cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Diane Monson
__________________________________________________

Medical marijuana user being targeted by DMV, lawyer says
By Brian Melley
ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 22, 2004
SACRAMENTO The Department of Motor Vehicles postponed a driver license
test for a medical marijuana user with a case before the Supreme Court after
her lawyer claimed yesterday that she is being unfairly targeted for review
without any driving violations.

Diane Monson received notice from the DMV this month that she needed to
appear at a re-examination hearing tomorrow or would lose her license. The
notice didn't say why Monson was selected, but she said that with the
exception of a speeding ticket 15 years ago, she has a spotless record.
"I still feel very strongly that I've done nothing whatsoever to warrant
this investigation," Monson said after being notified that the hearing was
scrapped.

DMV brass put the hearing on hold and launched a "top to bottom" internal
review of the case after Monson and her lawyer hand-delivered a cease-and-desist
notice to the agency's headquarters, DMV spokesman Bill Branch said.
Inquiries from news reporters brought the matter to the attention of officials.
"So far as top-level DMV officials can recall, we are not aware of any other
cases involving medicinal marijuana," Branch said.

The agency would not say why Monson was selected for a re-examination
hearing, a proceeding held routinely in the cases of drivers involved in serious
crashes or who have been cited for driving under the influence of drugs or
alcohol at least three times over three years. Monson, 47, had just passed an
eye exam to renew her license when she was notified of the re-examination. It
arrived shortly after her medical marijuana case was heard by the Supreme
Court.

An accountant from Oroville, Monson is a plaintiff in a case that will
determine whether federal agents can seize marijuana grown by users in states
where it can be legally prescribed as medicine. She takes the drug to relieve
back pain. California law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for
medical needs with a doctor's recommendation.

The DMV order didn't specify why Monson was singled out. Her attorney, David
Michael, said it is unheard of that someone with a near-perfect record would
be selected and that it is unconstitutional and an abuse of authority.
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network