Brian Murphy
P.O. Box 791540 #125
Paia HI. 96779-1540
(808) 579-8320
Plaintiff Pro Se
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI'I
BRIAN MURPHY
v.
THE STATE OF HAWAII
THE COUNTY OF MAUI,
THE COUNTY OF MAUI DEPARTMENT
OF POLICE,
THOMAS M. PHILLIPS,
THE COUNTY OF MAUI CHIEF OF POLICE,
JOHN DOES (1-10),
JANE DOES (1-10),
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES (1-10),
CORPORATIONS (1-10),
AGENCIES (1-10),
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Brian Murphy, Director of Patients Without Time and Director of Maui County Citizens For Democracy in Action (hereinafter "plaintiff") and for his complaint against the State of Hawai'i; County
of Maui; County of Maui Department of Police; and Thomas M. Phillips, Chief of Police of the County of Maui Department of Police (hereinafter "defendants") avers and alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff, is now and at all times relevant to this, is and has been a resident of the island and County of Maui, State of Hawai'i.
2. Defendant, State of Hawai'i, is a sovereign State and one of the States of the United States of America.
3. Defendant, The County of Maui, is a corporate political body within the State of Hawai'i, with the responsibility of supervising the County of Maui Department of Police.
4. Defendant, Thomas M. Phillips, is the Chief of Police of the County of Maui Department of Police and a resident of the State of Hawai'i. Defendant, Chief of Police Thomas M. Phillips, is responsible for the enforcement and prevention of violations of all laws of the State and ordinances of the county and all rules made in accordance therewith and to train, equip, maintain and supervise the Maui County Department of Police, the enforcement officers and employees of the department for this purpose.
5. All incidents complained of herein occurred in the County of Maui, State of Hawai'i.
6. This court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff and defendants and assumes jurisdiction pursuant to HRS 603-21-7 (b).
7. Plaintiff holds a Medical Marijuana Registry Patient Identification Certificate issued by defendant, State of Hawai'i with a Department of Public Safety Narcotics Enforcement Division registration number MJ07260 pursuant to HRS 329-121 through HRS 329-128.
8. On November 17, 2008, at 12:30 am, plaintiff was awoken by video home security system wherein he saw heavily armed and masked men approaching his front door from their vehicle, thereby participating in a home invasion. The armed intruders knocked down the front door and attacked the plaintiff, pistol whipped the plaintiff, forcefully subdued the plaintiff, and forced him to open his safe. They announced that if he continued to defend himself and his home, they would use "the other end of the gun" against him. The intruders stole $300 cash and three ounces of plaintiff's processed medical marijuana from his safe.
9. After a neighbor called 911 to report the crime, an ambulance rushed the plaintiff to Maui Memorial Hospital to receive 14 stitches to the wound in his forehead. Defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, met the ambulance in route and asked for the keys to plaintiff's residence to proceed with a "crime scene investigation." The plaintiff made clear that he was a medical marijuana patient registered with the State of Hawai'i Department of Public Safety, his residence registered as a medical marijuana grow site for himself and three other statutorily authorized medical marijuana patients, and that he was Director of Patients Without Time, a medical marijuana advocacy group and cooperative of over 300 Maui statutorily authorized medical marijuana patients. However, upon obtaining the keys for the ostensible purpose of performing a crime scene investigation, defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, apparently then proceeded to instead investigate the plaintiff's use and compliance with statutory law regarding medical marijuana.
10. Upon being discharged from the hospital in the early morning and returning to his residence, plaintiff saw, photographed and carefully collected evidence traditionally required to perform a crime scene investigation. The evidence gathered included, but not limited to, bullets, pieces of the broken trigger guard and the trigger left on the floor by the entrance to the residence and presumably from the gun that the armed intruders had used to pistol whip plaintiff. Plaintiff's photographs included the blood stained floor, boot prints of the intruders left in the blood stained floor and tire tracks, all necessary and useful for ballistic tests and other forensic investigation. A neighbor who witnessed the crime scene provided the Maui Police officers with the license plate of the armed intruder's vehicle and later reported to plaintiff that "the police seemed to take photographs of only the medical marijuana plants," which indicates an obsession with the defendants' refusal to recognize and enforce HRS 329-121 through HRS 329-128, an obsession that has been articulated on many occasions by defendant, County of Maui Chief of Police, Thomas M. Phillips.
11. Three days after the "crime scene investigation," Christopher M. Dunn, an attorney retained by plaintiff, provided to the Maui Police Department the above mentioned forensic evidence in order to aid the Maui Police Department in their "investigation" of plaintiff's armed home invasion. Subsequently, The plaintiff returned to the Maui Police Department with Mr. Dunn in an effort to obtain a police report and otherwise aid defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, with their "ongoing investigation." The plaintiff believed that his statement was necessary, although no representative of the defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, had interviewed him after the armed home invasion. When plaintiff offered his assistance, a representative of defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, informed plaintiff that he was in fact the object of an investigation, and the interview relating to the armed home invasion was immediately terminated by the police officer.
12. After plaintiff's neighbor reported the license plate of the alleged home invasion vehicle, the Police subsequently reported to plaintiff that the license plate was that of a stolen rental car. This was the only information received by the plaintiff as a result of the "investigation" of the armed home invasion. When an armed home invasion occurs in a residential area, the dissemination of this information would be invaluable to the other members of the community.
13. Despite plaintiff's strict compliance with HRS 329-121 through HRS 329-128, beginning Friday, December 28, 2007, defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, seized, confiscated and subsequently destroyed plaintiff's medical marijuana, authorized pursuant to HRS 329-121, that has damaged the plaintiff.
14. Defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, obtained by ruse a search warrant that was defective because it did not mention the relevant and material fact that the plaintiff is a medical marijuana cardholder, whose residence was registered as a statutorily authorized grow site for the plaintiff and three other statutorily authorized medical marijuana patients, in compliance with HRS 329-121 through HRS 329-128. Pursuant to the statute, the plaintiff has the lawful right to have "an adequate supply" of marijuana for medical use and paraphernalia associated with the cultivation of marijuana for medical use on his person and premises.
15. In execution of this search warrant, defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, used the opportunity of a pre-textual police raid to garner and subsequently confiscate plaintiff's political action committee records, plaintiff's records regarding the registration of voters, and plaintiff's funds clearly earmarked for these activities, undermining the plaintiff's right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the State of Hawai'i Constitution as well as severely compromising and crippling his ability to participate in the political process. Therefore, defendants deprived the plaintiff, as Director of Maui County Citizens for Democracy in Action and County of Maui Deputy Voter Registrar M205, the ability to adequately register Maui residents to vote and to gather necessary signatures for the Maui County Family Farmer Regulation and Revenue Ordinance that he submitted to the County of Maui County Clerk. Up until the execution of the first search warrant, Maui County Citizens For Democracy in Action had registered thousands of Maui residents to vote and participate in the democratic process. Furthermore, defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, intimidated a neighbor, herself a medical marijuana patient, into making an inaccurate report.
16. Two late arriving police officers in the search warrant party were thought by the plaintiff to perhaps be two of the original home invaders. The plaintiff's observations were triggered by the similarity of their body movements as compared to the body movements of the home invaders. Further, the plaintiff noted that his assailants had worn blue fatigued pants and the black footwear used by individual officers of defendant, County of Maui Department of police. The cumulative effect of the non-investigation of the crime scene, the similarity of movement, and the similarity of clothing led plaintiff to believe that this home invasion was perhaps sanctioned by the defendant.
17. Plaintiff asserts that defendant, County of Maui Chief of Police Thomas M. Phillips, refuses to enforce the State of Hawai'i medical marijuana law because he is not in philosophical agreement with HRS 329-121. The plaintiff asserts that defendant, Chief of Police Thomas M. Phillips, and other defendants have recently publicly announced their non-scientific, baseless, erroneous and irrational position: "The value of medicinal marijuana is suspect at best, and debatable in scientific circles. Marijuana has been determined to be the gateway drug." (written testimony to the House Committee on Health, January 31, 2008). Defendant, County of Maui Chief of Police Thomas M. Phillips and other defendants, further announced their position: "The Maui Police Department is the only local police department on the island, and we wouldn't wish to partake in, nor support, any operation that is not in compliance with Federal law. We also do not believe in supporting medical marijuana in its entirety" (written testimony to the House Committee on Health, January 31, 2008). The plaintiff asserts that such selective enforcement violates the United States Constitution and the Hawai'i State Constitution and has damaged the plaintiff.
18. The plaintiff asserts that defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, is trying to equate the growing of medical marijuana in compliance with statutory law, with the seriousness of an armed home invasion. Plaintiff asserts that this environment is fostered by defendant's, County of Maui Chief of Police Chief Thomas Phillips', refusal to enforce the medical marijuana law, specifically HRS 329-121 through HRS 329-128. Chief Phillips has articulated on many occasions that he will not enforce this statutory law. It is not surprising that the police officers in his department are inadequately trained to differentiate between the severity of a crime of armed home invasion and the legitimate use of medical marijuana pursuant to statutory law.
19. Defendant, County of Maui Department of Police, unbelievably executed a second search warrant on January 25, 2008 for the plaintiff's premises wherein they seized additional political funds, his truck, which as he informed the defendants, he used to direct efforts of Maui County Citizens for Democracy in Action's other 40 County of Maui Deputy Voter Registrars to register voters and other political activities, all of plaintiff's processed medical marijuana and paraphernalia associated with the cultivation of medical marijuana in compliance with HRS 329-121, including plaintiff's stock of specifically developed "mother" plants from which some other members of Patients Without Time took cuttings according to the strain of medical marijuana best suited to help with their specific ailments. This unlawful taking unnecessarily deprived the plaintiff, and other similarly situated statutorily authorized medical marijuana patients, of needed medicine that can only otherwise be acquired from the criminal market.
20. Plaintiff believes that the search warrants executed on his residence constituted an invasion into the plaintiff's legitimate role as Director of "Patient Without Time" and Director of the political action committee "Maui County Citizens for Democracy in Action." As evidenced by the failure of the defendants to bring forth charges of a valid and viable offense, defendants' actions constituted a backdoor attempt to curtail his political activities which have included, but not be limited to, the submission of over twenty Bills and Resolutions to the State legislature, testifying at least twenty times to various State of Hawai'i House and Senate Committees, meeting repeatedly with the County of Maui Mayor, her health advisor and each willing County of Maui County Councilmember, organizing Deputy Voter Registrar classes with the County of Maui County Clerk, registering over five-thousand new voters in the County of Maui, and fomenting the County of Maui's only three voter initiative drives. Therefore, the defendants' activities, constituting a clear violation of free speech and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the United States and the State of Hawai'i Constitution and the plaintiff's ability to engage in political activity, has damaged the plaintiff.
21. During the execution of this second search warrant, Plaintiff willingly made a statement to defendant, the County of Maui Department of Police, wherein he described his activities and the activities of Patients Without Time and the political efforts of the political action committee Maui County Citizens For Democracy in Action to register County residents to vote. However, only selective portions of Plaintiff's statement regarding political activities and voter registration were purposefully redacted and the verbiage used by the plaintiff were changed and altered from defendant's summary of his statement. And, at that time, plaintiff announced, regarding the medical use of marijuana, that he strictly adhered to the provisions of HRS 329-121 through HRS 329-128, and further that he strictly adhered to the County of Maui, Statutory and Constitutional laws relating to political activities and the registration of voters.
22. Plaintiff asserts that the interference with his Constitutionally guaranteed political rights and free speech began in February of 2005, when the County of Maui Corporation Counsel pre-textually added severe restrictions on the plaintiff that only the five members of Maui County Citizens for Democracy in Action's petitioners committee were allowed to gather the more than 8000 signatures required to put both the "Maui County Crime Reduction/Alcohol Marijuana Equalization Ordinance" and the "Maui County Family Farmer Regulation and Revenue Ordinance" onto the ballot. It must be noted that this "add on" condition was carried for a period of four months. Thirty days before the deadline required to submit signatures to the County Clerk in order to place the initiatives onto the ballot, The County of Maui Corporation Counsel eliminated this add on provision, however the extended duration of this limitation hobbled plaintiff's efforts to successfully put this ordinance onto the ballot.
23. Plaintiff asserts that as Director of Patient Without Time, the functions of Patients Without Time include, but not limited to, the collective acquisition of medical marijuana among the over 300 members and in compliance with Hawai'i Statutory law. Plaintiff further asserts that among members of Patients Without Time, marijuana is never distributed, rather patients collectively acquire their medicine as to avoid individually dealing with the criminal element. Patients that are unable to afford their medicine collectively acquire their medicine with the other members of Patients Without Time at no cost.
24. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants refuse to honor or recognize the right of statutorily authorized medical marijuana patients to collectively acquire their medicine. Plaintiff further asserts that the collective acquisition of marijuana for medical use is by no means a violation of HRS 329-121 through HRS 329-128. Furthermore, HRS 712-1241 states: "One who acts as buyer's agent to purchase drug with buyer's funds does not commit offense of "selling" the drug." (60 H. 8, 586 P.2d 1022) and "'To distribute' does not include 'to buy' or 'to offer to buy'," (78 H. 317, 893 P.2d 168). Thereby the defendants, County of Maui Department of Police, are acting in defiance of statutory law and this has damaged the plaintiff and impeded his free speech and efforts to participate in the political process. Defendants have attempted to garner plaintiff's attention and focus by forcing him to defend medical marijuana patient rights and eliminate the time he would devote to political organizations.
25. Plaintiff asserts that defendants, State of Hawai'i, County of Maui and other defendants, have failed to supervise and train defendant, County of Maui Department of Police and individual officers, who act in an unlawful manner by ignoring statutory law and denying the plaintiff, and other similarly situated statutorily authorized medical marijuana patients, equal protection under the law.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:
1. That the defendants be enjoined from selective enforcement of Hawai'i State law.
2. That the defendants be enjoined from harassment of medical marijuana patients under color of law in defiance of state law.
3. That the defendants be enjoined from discriminating against ill and disabled citizens of the State of Hawai'i.
4. That the defendants be enjoined from threatening and harassing medical marijuana patient.
5. That the defendants be mandated to observe and execute the statutory laws of the State of Hawai'i.
6. That the defendants be enjoined from interfering with the plaintiff's voter registration efforts, initiative efforts, and other constitutionally protected political activities.
7. That the Defendants be mandated to prevent further violations of statutory law and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the State of Hawai'i Constitution.
8. That the defendants return all plaintiffs property including, but not limited to, all patient lists, voter lists and all plaintiff's property unlawfully seized during the execution of the two search warrants, including all processed and unprocessed marijuana and all paraphernalia associated with the cultivation of medical marijuana.
9. That the court issue a permanent restraining order forbidding the defendants or their agents from future violations, invasions and interference with Patients Without Time's ability to exist and function in compliance with statutory law as it has for the previous four years wherein patients acquire their marijuana for medical use collectively as to individually avoid the dangers of the black market.
10. That plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages that will be proven at trial.
11. That plaintiff be awarded special damages for his losses.
12. That plaintiff be awarded damages for bodily injuries incurred in the home invasion.
13. That plaintiff be awarded punitive damages in an effort to prevent and deter all those in authority from violating the rights of all the citizens of the State of Hawai'i.
DATED: Paia, Maui, Hawai'i, ________________________, 2008.
________________________________
BRIAN MURPHY, Plaintiff Pro Se
|
Lawsuit: Police illegally seized medical pot. Haiku man files civil complaint before his arrest, drug charges, November 15, 2008, by LILA FUJIMOTO Staff Writer, The Maui News. "A little more than a week before he was arrested as the alleged head of a marijuana trafficking organization, Brian Murphy filed a lawsuit (shown above) complaining the Maui Police Department was interfering with the operation of Patients Without Time, the Paia-based medical marijuana advocacy group he founded."
|
