Doobie Dozen case back in court
October 7, 2014
By CCN Staff
A recent state appellate court ruling is sending the so-called “Doobie Dozen” case back to a San Luis Obispo courtroom Tuesday, when district attorney deputies will decide if they want to continue already-lengthy proceedings.
When the case was ready to go to a jury in Jan. 2011, local prosecutors decided they were not satisfied with jury instructions from the presiding judge, and moved to dismiss all charges. They then appealed the jury instructions, and this ruling sets the stage for reconsideration of refiling all or some of the earlier charges.
A hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. in department 10 of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. Defendants are represented by San Luis Obispo attorney Louis Koory.
The defendants were arrested in December 2010 following a controversial “sting” by a multi-agency narcotics task force. The case soon gained national attention and the defendants, purveyors of medically-prescribed cannabis, became popularly known as “The Doobie Dozen.”
Five of the group have now filed a civil lawsuit against the California Department of Justice.
Valerie and David Hosking, Steven Gordon and Rachel and Chip Tamagni allege that the dissolved state Narcotics Task Force engaged in police misconduct, inflicted undue emotional stress, falsely imprisoned and violated constitutional and legal rights when it arrested the twelve collective operators in their San Luis Obispo County homes on December 28. 2010. The lawsuit also alleges that law enforcement denied those arrested food, water, and bathroom use during several days of incarceration.
The lawsuit names San Luis Obispo police officers Jason Dickel and Amy Chastain, who helped lead the sweep, as defendants in addition to former NTF commander Rodney John. Plaintiffs in the suit include children of the medical marijuana workers who were present during the raid, some of whom were put in protective custody.
The suit describes the behavior of the arresting agents as “willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, recovery of attorney fees, compensation for medical expenses and a declaration that law enforcement officers will not conduct “similar unlawful seizures in the future.”