National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen

112 F.R.D. 120, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20667
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedSeptember 8, 1986
DocketNo. C-83-4037-RPA
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 F.R.D. 120 (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 112 F.R.D. 120, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20667 (N.D. Cal. 1986).

Opinion

ORDER OF REFERENCE TO SPECIAL MASTER

AGUILAR, District Judge.

The Court first issued its Preliminary Injunction in this case in October 1984, and amended the injunction on April 12, 1985. NORML v. Mullen, 608 F.Supp. 945, 965-[121]*12166 (N.D.Cal.1985).1 Plaintiffs subsequently alleged numerous instances of violations. On September 27, 1985, after three days of testimony covering several of the allegations, the Court ruled that plaintiffs had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that any defendant had deliberately violated the injunction. There was nevertheless credible evidence of violations, and the Court found that some CAMP personnel still are not adequately trained as to the terms and practical significance of the injunction, are not adequately briefed before each raid as to the permissible scope of and methods to be used in the raid, and are not adequately supervised. It was also apparent from the testimony that the raids are not sufficiently'planned out ahead of time to minimize the chance of violations.2

Such evidence of noncompliance with an injunction that first issued nearly a year earlier portends continuing violations, especially when viewed in light of the fast-paced and wide-ranging character of CAMP surveillance and raid activities, the difficult legal issues involved, and the numerous affirmative measures that the Court has ordered defendants to undertake. These circumstances constitute an “exceptional condition” and call for the appointment of a Special Master (hereafter “Monitor”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, to monitor compliance with the injunction.

[122]*122Only a Monitor, as the Court’s expert on the exigencies presented by CAMP’s aviation and field practices, remote and inacce-sible terrain, and grower tactics, can provide the Court with the objective, first-hand information necessary to fairly enforce its injunction, and to frame any further amendments or orders. Further, the latest hearings demonstrated that contempt proceedings are an inefficient and ineffective means of preserving the rights of the plaintiffs and impose harsh burdens on legitimate CAMP enforcement activities. The Monitor, familiar with the needs of all parties, will be in a far better position than the Court to help the litigants avoid costly and wasteful disputes and to expeditiously resolve those disputes that do arise.

The Court has therefore determined that this is an exceptional case and will appoint a Monitor pursuant to Rule 53 and the inherent power of the Court to enforce its orders. The Court has previously submitted a proposed reference order to the parties, heard objections and argument on the proposal, and reviewed the modifications and alternatives offered by counsel. The Court also has carefully considered the parties’ nominations for Monitor. Good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby appoints the Monitor and charges him as follows.

APPOINTMENT OF MONITOR

1. The Court appoints as Monitor the Honorable Thomas Kongsgaard, Superior Court of Napa County (Ret’d), 500 Stone-crest Drive, Napa, California, 94558. Judge Kongsgaard is a respected jurist who ably served on the bench for 26 years. He is intimately familiar with the requirements of the fourth amendment and is proficient at conducting evidentiary hearings. He recently has served other courts and parties as a special master and arbitrator, and will bring the highest degree of objectivity, impartiality, and integrity to the position of Monitor.

2. The Monitor shall serve only until such time as defendants have prevailed on the merits, or it is established that defendants are not violating any term of the Preliminary or any permanent injunction, or until further order of the Court.

DUTIES OF THE MONITOR

3. The Monitor shall serve the Court, not as an ally or adversary of any party, but as a source of objective information regarding the policies and practices of the CAMP program, and as a fact finder. The Monitor’s duties pertain solely to questions surrounding enforcement of and compliance with the Preliminary Injunction, not to damages issues. Rule 53 shall govern all questions relating to the scope of the Monitor’s duties and powers to the extent that the rule is not inconsistent with the express provisions of this Order of Reference.

The Monitor shall have the duty to:

4. review from time to time the written and unwritten policies and customs of the CAMP program, and of the federal and state defendants as they pertain to the CAMP program;

5. investigate from time to time the methods, training programs, and actual field practices of CAMP personnel and all other agencies and agents implementing the CAMP program;

6. report to the Court from time to time about these policies and practices;

7. immediately report to the Court any policies or practices that the Monitor believes may violate the letter or spirit of any term of the Preliminary Injunction;

8. advise the Court concerning any modification(s) of the Preliminary Injunction that the Monitor deems necessary or beneficial, or that is requested by a party; and

9. perform such other duties as the Court may assign, after notice to counsel.

POWERS OF THE MONITOR

The Monitor shall not purport to direct any CAMP activities or agents, or issue orders, but shall have the power to:

10. obtain advance notice of CAMP-sponsored planning and training sessions [123]*123that pertain to particular acts of surveillance and raids, and to attend such sessions, with or without advance notice to defendants;

11. obtain any document produced by CAMP or cooperating agencies or individuals that may be relevant to a determination of compliance with the injunction;

12. interview, on a confidential basis or otherwise, any CAMP director, supervisor, or team member, or any person assisting in the implementation of the CAMP program. However, the Monitor shall not base any findings or legal conclusions in any subsequent contempt hearing on statements received in this manner, or on statements received informally from citizens and witnesses;

13. obtain details of the times and locations of CAMP eradication raids and field operations in advance of those raids and operations, as soon as practicable after defendants determine the times and locations;

14. be present during CAMP ground and air surveillance, the execution of warrants and raids, and all other field activities, with or without advance notice, but complying with all reasonable requests of CAMP personnel or counsel regarding safety and secrecy;

15. upon receipt of declarations or pleadings alleging violations, or when otherwise necessary, convene evidentiary hearings concerning any matter relating to compliance with the Preliminary Injunction, compel the attendance of witnesses, and take evidence. At such hearings the Monitor shall give the parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard, make a stenographic record of the proceedings, and exercise all other powers described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(c);

16.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richardson v. Trump
District of Columbia, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 F.R.D. 120, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-organization-for-the-reform-of-marijuana-laws-v-mullen-cand-1986.