Court Rejects Developer-Sponsored Initiatives

October 2018
Number 61

A California appellate court has ruled that development agreements may not be approved through voter initiatives. Development agreements are contracts between a local agency and a property owner or developer.

In Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley et al., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that it was the Legislature’s intent to exclusively delegate approval of
development agreements to local legislative bodies and that such approval is subject to voter referendum, but not voter initiative.

Background

In August 2015, the Moreno Valley City Council adopted an ordinance approving a development agreement for the development of the World Logistics Center project, which was proposed by Highland Fairview. Environmental groups sued, alleging the project failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The developer, Highland Fairview, subsequently backed and supported the filing with the city of an initiative petition that would repeal the ordinance approving the
development agreement and approve substantially the same development agreement. Once the initiative qualified for the ballot, the city council had the option of adopting the initiative without change, or submitting it to the voters for approval. The city council chose to adopt the initiative, instead of submitting it to the voters. In these instances, cities are powerless and cannot reject an initiative or require alterations to a project.

The environmental groups challenged the city council’s adoption of the initiative, contending that the adoption of a development agreement by an initiative violated the development agreement statute (Gov. Code, § 65864, et seq.) and article II, section 12 of the California Constitution. The trial court denied the groups’ petitions. The Court of Appeal reversed, directing the trial court to issue a writ of mandate instructing the city council to set aside its adoption of the initiative.

In reviewing the legislative history and the express statutory language of the development agreement statute, the Court of Appeal concluded there was clear evidence that the Legislature intended to exclusively delegate approval of development agreements to governing bodies and to preclude their adoption by initiative. According to the court, as a negotiated contract between a developer and a municipality, a development agreement was incompatible with the initiative process, in which the measure is proposed by the voters and, if approved, cannot be changed.

Takeaways

The City of Moreno Valley decision offers important judicial guidance on the longstanding practice of developers using the initiative process to circumvent the traditional local legislative process. Because voter initiatives can only be revised by another vote of the people, initiatives developed and sponsored by developers significantly impede a city council’s ability to regulate a project. The development agreement statute contemplates negotiation between a local government and developer. An initiative, on the other hand, cannot be changed before adoption, making it impossible for the city council to secure assurances from the developer and benefits for local residents.

Since the California Supreme Court’s 2014 decision inTuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, which held that that an initiative is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, California cities and counties have seen a dramatic increase in development projects proposed by developer sponsored initiatives. At least for the moment, the City of Moreno Valley decision will put an end to this practice and restore negotiation power over development projects to local governments.

For more information about the City of Moreno Valley decision or about development agreements in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

William P. Curley, III

Partner

Jose Montoya

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Advertisements

New Laws Increase State Control of Addiction Treatment Facilities, Require Student Athlete Opioid Warning

October 2018
Number 58

On September 26, Governor Jerry Brown signed a package of bills designed to enhance state regulation of licensed alcohol and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). Governor Brown also signed Senate Bill (SB) 1109, which aims to better inform the public of the risks associated with the use of opioids. These bills take effect January 1, 2019 unless otherwise noted.

Senate Bill (SB) 992: Disclosure of Business Relationships; Developing Plans to Address Resident Relapse

SB 992 expands the types of facilities subject to licensing and regulatory requirements by broadening the definition of “alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility” to include facilities that provide residential nonmedical services for less than 24 hours per day. Additionally, SB 992 requires all RTFs and certified outpatient programs to publicly disclose ownership of, financial interest in, or control over recovery residences, which include residential dwellings commonly referred to as “sober living homes,” “sober living environments,” or “unlicensed alcohol and drug free residences.” RTFs must develop plans to address resident relapses, including details regarding how the resident’s treatment stay and treatment plan will be adjusted to address the relapse episode and how the resident will be treated and supervised while under the influence. It is unclear where the plans will be kept or who will enforce use of the plans.

Assembly Bill (AB) 3162: Facility Licenses and Increased Penalties for Unlicensed Operations

AB 3162 makes initial licenses to operate a new RTF provisional for one year and revocable by the Department of Health Care Services for good cause. It also requires licensed services offered or provided by an RTF to be specified on the license and provided exclusively within either the licensed facility or any facility identified on a single license by street address. AB 3162 also increases the civil penalty assessed by the Department of Health Care Services for providing recovery, treatment, or detoxification services without a license from $200 per day to $2,000 per day, and increases the penalties for a violation of the licensing and regulatory provisions from $25 to $50 per day for each violation to $250 to $500 per day for each violation.

SB 823: Evidence-Based Standard of Care for Licensed Facilities

RTFs currently vary in their level of service provided. SB 823 requires the Department of Health Care Services to adopt the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s treatment criteria, or an equivalent evidence-based standard, as the minimum standard of care for RTFs by January 1, 2023. The Department of Health Care Services will require RTFs to maintain those standards with respect to the level of care to be provided by the facilities.

SB 1228: Ban on Patient Brokering

SB 1228 prohibits RTFs and other alcohol or drug programs certified by the Department of Health Care Services and their employees from patient brokering, a practice in which patients are recruited to go to a treatment facility in exchange for cash payments, drugs, or other items of value. The Department of Health Care Services may investigate allegations of patient brokering and may, upon finding a violation, assess a penalty or impose other enforcement mechanisms. RTFs or other programs that engage in patient brokering may be fined or have their license or certification suspended or revoked. RTF or program employees who engage in patient brokering may be recommended for disciplinary action, such as termination of employment and suspension and revocation of licensure or certification.

SB 1109: Opioid Factsheet to Youth Athletes

SB 1109 requires school districts, charter schools, private schools, and youth sports organizations offering an athletic program, other than as part of the regular school day or as part of physical education, to annually give the Opioid Factsheet for Patients published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to each athlete. The athlete and, if the athlete is under 17, the athlete’s parent or guardian, must sign and return a document acknowledging receipt of the factsheet before the athlete begins practice or competition. Youth sports organizations include local government agencies that sponsor or conduct amateur sports competitions, training, camps, or clubs in which persons 17 years of age or younger participate.

If you have any questions about these new laws, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

William P. Curley, III

Partner

Jose Montoya

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Laws Restrict Law Enforcement Agencies’ Right to Withhold Recordings Relating to “Critical Incidents”

October 2018
Number 60

After years of failed attempts, the Legislature has passed, and Governor Brown has signed into law, two bills that remove the longstanding layers of protection and confidentiality for certain law enforcement records. Senate Bill (SB) 1421, which becomes effective January 1, 2019, increases public access to certain records relating to allegations of misconduct by law enforcement. Assembly Bill (AB) 748, effective July 1, 2019, subjects body camera footage to public records requests.
These laws will be applicable to all public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers, including cities, counties and school districts.

Background

For more than four decades, records relating to citizen complaints against law enforcement officers that are held by the officers’ employing agency have only been made available in a civil or criminal matter, after a showing of cause established in a “Pitchess” motion or through an officer’s voluntary waiver. The courts have supported the protection of peace officer personnel files over the years. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that the record of an officer’s administrative disciplinary appeal from a sustained finding of misconduct was confidential and could not be disclosed to the public. However, the confidential status of these records is about to change.

SB 1421 expands the public’s right, through the California Public Records Act (CPRA), to request and receive records related to reports, investigations, or findings of:

  • An incident involving an officer’s discharge of a firearm at a person;
  • An incident in which the use of force by an officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury;
  • An incident in which a finding that an officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public was sustained; and
  • Any record relating to a sustained finding that an officer was dishonest relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the misconduct of another officer.

While SB 1421 permits the redaction of certain personal information and allows a public agency to withhold records when their release would create a reasonable safety concern, and also while an investigation into the use of force is ongoing, the new law will change who has access to information historically found to be confidential.

Separately, AB 748 will require law enforcement agencies to release, upon request, video or audio recording footage of a “critical incident” within 45 days of the incident. A critical incident is defined as a recording that depicts:

  • An incident involving an officer’s discharge of a firearm at a person, or
  • An incident in which the use of force by an officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury.

AB 748 provides limited exceptions to the requirement that such video or audio footage be released. In an effort to balance transparency with law enforcement’s ability to conduct effective investigations and the right to privacy, a law enforcement agency may withhold such footage for up to one year if it can “demonstrate that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.” An agency may withhold such footage for longer than one year if it can establish by “clear and convincing” evidence that substantial interference would occur if the information is released.

The new law will also allow an agency, when it can demonstrate that release would violate the subject’s reasonable expectation of privacy, to blur, obscure and redact the recordings, so long as the changes do not interfere with the public’s ability to “fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording.”

Takeaways

As early as January 1, 2019, the right to obtain copies of law enforcement agency records pertaining to citizen complaints and recordings of “critical incidents” will be expanded under the CPRA, barring certain limited exceptions. It is not yet clear what facts may pass scrutiny for these exceptions to apply. Public agencies should review their current policies regarding CPRA, body camera footage, video and other recordings to determine what changes will be necessary to comply with these new laws.

For more information about SB 1421, AB 748 or about the CPRA in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Jenell Van Bindsbergen

Partner

Mark Murray

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Court Restricts Ability to Seek Mandate Reimbursements

October 2018
Number 59

A California appellate court has ruled that a public agency is not entitled to seek reimbursement from the state for the cost of implementing mandated programs if the agency has existing statutory authority to impose or raise fees, even if the attempt to impose or raise fees is prevented by a successful Proposition 218 majority protest.

In Paradise Irrigation District v. Commission on State Mandates, decided on October 1, the Court of Appeals held that the Proposition 218 majority protest process does not deprive local agencies of the “authority” to levy new fees or charges. This decision raises the bar for public agencies seeking reimbursement of state mandates.

Background

Article XIII B of the California Constitution provides that “[w]henever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service.” The Legislature has provided an exception to this general rule by prohibiting reimbursement for state mandates where “[t]he local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the mandated program or increased level of service.” (Gov. Code, § 17556(d).)

The Commission on State Mandates has traditionally found that a local agency does not have “authority” to impose or increase fees if such is subject to either the “majority protest” or voter approval requirements of Proposition 218. This “majority protest” process generally requires public agencies to inform property owners of proposed new or increased fees and allows a majority of property owners to block such new or increased fees by submitting written protests prior to a required public hearing on the new or increased fees.

The commission recently reversed itself, finding that the majority protest process does not deprive public agencies of “authority” to levy new or increased fees. A trial court, deciding on a challenge to the commission’s new position, held that public agencies must at least “try and fail” to impose or increase fees subject to the majority protest process before the commission could find that the agency to lacks “authority” to levy the fee and thus entitle the public agency to reimbursement.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s “try and fail” test and instead held that the only relevant question is whether some statutory authority to levy new or raise existing fees exists. The practical inability of a public agency to impose or increase fees, whether due to a majority protest or otherwise, is irrelevant in determining whether the public agency is entitled to state reimbursement. Accordingly, even if a local agency is unable to raise fees due to a majority protest, the local agency is not entitled to reimbursement from the state for the cost of implementing the mandated program.

Lozano Smith’s litigation team of Nicholas J. Clair, Anne L. Collins, and Sloan R. Simmons assisted the court by filing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of California Special Districts Association, Association of California Water Agencies, and California Association of Sanitation Agencies that emphasized the legal and practical issues of the appeal.

Takeaways

  • Public agencies are not entitled to reimbursement from the state for mandated programs so long as there is some statutory fee authority which the public agencies could use to impose new or increased fees to cover the cost of the state mandated programs, regardless of the potential problems with the revenue authority.
  • Public agencies cannot seek reimbursement from the state even if attempts to impose new or increased fees are blocked by majority protests. Those agencies must then decide to forgo projects or reduce services to fund the state imposed mandates.
  • From a broader standpoint, the Court of Appeal decision means that the political costs of the Legislature’s new programs or mandated higher levels of service will be borne by local agency officials.

    If you have any questions about Paradise Irrigation, or about state mandates in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

    Written by:

    William P. Curley, III

    Partner

    Nicholas J. CLair

    Associate

    ©2017 Lozano Smith

    As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

    New Laws will Require Charter Schools to Provide Meals, Sexual Health Education

    October 2018
    Number 57

    The Legislature has expanded requirements for charter schools in 2019. Assembly Bill (AB) 1871 will require charter schools to provide meals to needy students, while AB 2601 will require charters to provide sexual health education to students in grades 7-12.

    Assembly Bill 1871

    Starting on July 1, 2019, AB 1871 will require California charter schools to provide needy students with one nutritionally adequate free or reduced price meal each day. Charter schools were previously exempt from this state mandate. This change will be reflected by adding Education Code section 47613.5. Non-classroom based charter schools will be required to provide free and reduced price meals to eligible students on days when the students are scheduled for two or more hours of educational activities at a charter school facility.

    For charter schools that become operational July 1, 2019, implementation of this requirement must occur no later than July 1 of the following school year.

    Assembly Bill 2601

    Starting on July 1, 2019, charter schools will be required to provide sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education to students in grades 7-12. Current law mandates that this sexual health education and HIV prevention education be provided to students in grades 7-12 in traditional schools. Charter schools, however, were exempt from this curriculum requirement. Again, the Legislature has now decided that providing sexual health and HIV prevention education to students in California schools outweighs the objective to provide freedom and flexibility to charter schools in developing their curriculums. This change will be reflected in Education Code section 51931.

    Takeaways

    Charter authorizers may want to explore the planned strategies of the charter schools they oversee to implement these two new mandates.

    If you have any questions about AB 1871 or AB 2601 or about laws applicable to charter schools in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

    The Pot Thickens: Legal Updates on Marijuana and Schools

    October 2018
    Number 56

    Schools may soon be getting requests to permit students to take a marijuana-based epilepsy drug at school, thanks to a change in the way the federal government regulates it. Read on to learn more about Epidiolex and the state of the law regarding administration of medication at school, including marijuana based drugs.

    Separately, but related to administration of marijuana based drugs, Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed a state bill that would have permitted school boards to develop a policy allowing parents and guardians to administer medical marijuana on campus.

    Administration of Epidiolex at School-the First Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Approved Marijuana-Based Drug

    Epidiolex-a drug that contains a non-psychoactive component of marijuana called cannabidiol or CBD (previously reported on here)-was approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2018 to treat two forms of severe epilepsy that usually begin in childhood. On September 27, 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced that Epidiolex is now a Schedule V drug, the least restricted schedule of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”).

    The DEA specifically placed in Schedule V “FDA-approved drugs that contain CBD derived from cannabis and no more than 0.1 percent tetrahydrocannabinols.” At this time, only Epidiolex falls into this category, as it is the only cannabis-based drug that has been approved by the FDA. Because Epidiolex is now a Schedule V drug, it can be prescribed by medical doctors. Epidiolex is expected to become commercially available in the next six weeks, according to GW Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the drug.

    If a child has a valid prescription for a medication, which can now include Epidiolex, that he needs to take at school, a school must accommodate that child, provided that the school district’s applicable board policies and regulations and Education Code section 49423-the provision that allows for medication to be administered at school-are met. School districts should therefore be prepared to respond to requests for students to store and ingest Epidiolex at school before the end of 2018. All other forms of marijuana besides Epidiolex remain on Schedule I of the CSA and are still illegal under federal law.

    Given the constant changes in this area of the law and the complicated nuances of existing law, Lozano Smith recommends that any school district that receives a request by a parent or guardian to provide his or her child with medical marijuana generally or Epidiolex specifically at school consult with legal counsel.

    Governor Brown Vetoes Senate Bill 1127

    Senate Bill (SB) 1127, which would have permitted school boards to develop a policy to permit parents or guardians to administer medical marijuana to students on campus, was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown on September 28. In his veto message, Governor Brown stated that the bill “is overly broad as it applies to all students instead of limited cases where a doctor recommends medical marijuana for a student in order to prevent or reduce the effects of a seizure.”

    A two-thirds vote in each house-which must occur within 60 days of the veto-would override the Governor’s veto and make SB 1127 the law. The Governor’s veto is rarely overridden in California, but it is still possible that SB 1127 could become law in January 2019. If the Legislature does not override the veto, the bill may be revised or reintroduced in 2019, when California will have a new governor. Lozano Smith will keep clients updated about the status of SB 1127 and related bills.

    We encourage you to listen to the webinar Getting Blunt: An Update on Marijuana in Schools, presented by Aimee Perry and Alyssa Bivins, which discusses the issues raised in this article in greater detail. Look out for the next Getting Blunt webinar to remain up to date in this rapidly evolving area of the law.

    If you have any questions regarding medication administration in general, or this ruling, contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

    Written by:

    Marcy Gutierrez

    Partner

    Aimee Perry

    Partner

    Alyssa R. Bivins

    Associate

    ©2017 Lozano Smith

    As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

    Non-Binding Order from OAH Requires School District Administer Medical Marijuana on Campus

    October 2018
    Number 55

    In a non-binding order, a California state administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) ruled that a public school district must allow a student’s nurse to administer medical marijuana, as needed, on campus and transportation. The September 21, 2018 decision inStudent v. Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District (2018) OAH Case No. 2018050651 is unprecedented, but is not binding on other school districts.

    Background

    The case arose from a dispute over whether the Rincon Valley Union School District was required to allow the student to attend a district program and transportation since she required administration of a rescue medication for seizures during the school day, which contains Tetrahydracannabinol (“THC”)-the part of the marijuana plant that creates a “high.” The 5-year-old student has Dravet Syndrome, a disorder that causes severe and frequent seizures, and uses THC oil as a rescue medication to stop seizures when they occur.

    Marijuana, medical or otherwise, is currently not allowed on public school campuses in California, as it is a Schedule I drug and is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). Thus, for the past two years, the Rincon Valley Union School District paid for the student to attend a private preschool, where she could keep the THC oil at school, and have it administered by a nurse when she had a seizure, all pursuant to an individualized education program (“IEP”).

    In May 2018, the student’s IEP team met to discuss her Kindergarten program. The parents wanted their child to attend Kindergarten at a public school and still have access to her THC rescue medication, while at school. The school district explained that allowing the student to possess marijuana on campus or on a public school bus would violate state and federal laws, banning such use of marijuana. Accordingly, the district offered the student in-home specialized instruction with nursing services. The parents did not agree with the district’s proposed in-home program, arguing that the student should be able to attend a public school like her non-disabled peers and have access to, and administration of her THC rescue medication at school and on school district-provided transportation.

    Because the parents disagreed with the district’s proposed in-home program for their child, they filed a due process complaint, arguing that the IEP was not the least restrictive environment (“LRE”) and did not provide their child with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). They also filed a motion for “stay-put.”

    They also filed a motion for “stay-put.”

    Order Regarding Stay-Put

    The right to “stay put” ensures that a child may remain in his or her current educational placement until a due process case is resolved. In determining a “stay put” placement, judges look to the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. Additionally, if a child, like the student in this case, is “applying for initial admission to a public school, [the child] shall, with the consent of the parents, be placed in the public school program until all such proceedings have been completed.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j).) On July 19, 2018, the judge granted the parents’ motion for stay-put.

    The stay-put order required the district to implement the student’s May 2017 IEP, and specifically afforded the student:

    [P]lacement in a general education kindergarten on a public school campus among Student’s nondisabled peers; transportation from home to school and back on a school-operated bus or by such other means as the parties may agree upon; and thesame availability of nursing services and THC oil as a rescue medication during transportation and on the campus as was agreed upon and implemented by the May 22, 2017 IEP.

    Because this case dealt with a student who was applying for initial admission to a public school-Kindergarten, the judge found that her “stay-put” placement was a “public school program” or general education Kindergarten class. The judge went on to hold that because “The IEP team also stated: ‘[Student] requires a program that can administer her emergency medication (THC oil) in the event of a seizure'” the district was required to provide her with her THC oil as a rescue medication.

    Decision on the Merits

    Pursuant to the stay put order, the student began attending Kindergarten, on the public school campus, pending the judge’s decision on the merits of the case-whether the district’s proposed home-instruction program offered the student a FAPE. The due process hearing was held on July 25, 2018.

    At the due process hearing, the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Student Services testified that if it were not for the illegality of possession of THC on a public school campus, the public school would be the LRE for student. Based on this testimony and the progress the student made in her preschool program, the judge ruled that the district’s proposed in-home program was not the LRE for the student and therefore denied her a FAPE.

    The judge then went further, stating that the possession and transportation of the THC rescue medication by the nurse assigned to the student was in compliance with California state law. As to the CSA-which at this time bars possession and use of any marijuana derivative-the judge stated that there is no “realistic prospect” that the student or student’s nurse would be prosecuted for violating the CSA. In conclusion, the judge stated that it was “not reasonable” for the district to exclude the student from campus based on a “theoretical concern for a federal law that is at present unenforced and unenforceable.”

    The judge did not address potential risk for loss of federal funding due to allowing marijuana on campus. Also notably absent from the decision is any discussion of the discipline provisions of the Education Code, which permit discipline for possession and use of marijuana. The judge ordered the district to convene an IEP meeting within thirty days to “place student on a public school campus among her peers with her emergency medication available.”

    This decision is not binding on any other school districts besides Rincon Valley Union School District, nor binding on other judges. Additionally and of note, this decision is a significant departure from a previous OAH order, where a different judge from OAH denied a student’s motion for stay put, where the IEP stated that a student with a seizure disorder needed access to cannabidiol (or “CBD,” another derivative of marijuana, but unlike THC, it does not create a “high”) on campus. (Student v. Sylvan Union School District (2014) OAH Case No. 2014010077 “Sylvan“).) The judge in the Sylvan case stated that, “OAH will not turn a blind eye, under the guise of stay put, to an IEP that calls for unlawful criminal activity under other state and federal statutes simply because the parties had previously agreed upon and implemented the unlawful provisions.”

    Takeaways

    Because this decision is not binding and it fails to address several components of state and federal law regarding the presence of marijuana on public school campuses, school districts and parents should not presume this case to mean that all students in California can now have access to medical marijuana on campus, or that districts are required to administer same. This area of the law continues to rapidly develop and change. Thus, a school district facing a request for a student to have access to medical marijuana at school should contact legal counsel.

    We encourage you to listen to the webinar Getting Blunt: An Update on Marijuana in Schools, presented by Aimee Perry and Alyssa Bivins, which discusses the issues raised in this article in greater detail. Look out for the next Getting Blunt webinar to remain up to date in this rapidly evolving area of the law.

    If you have any questions regarding medication administration in general, or this ruling, contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

    Written by:

    Marcy Gutierrez

    Partner

    Aimee Perry

    Partner

    Alyssa R. Bivins

    Associate

    ©2017 Lozano Smith

    As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.