To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




United States v. Rosenthal

Citation. United States v. Rosenthal, 266 F. Supp. 2d 1068,
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Rosenthal cultivates and distributed medical marijuana for medical marijuana clubs. Rosenthal was indicted for growing marijuana.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Under the Chapter 8.42 of City of Oakland, one cannot reap the benefits of immunity under state law, when he or she is not engaged in the lawful execution of state and federal law.


Defendant, Rosenthal, was indicted for growing marijuana. Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the City of Oakland deems him to be a city official allowing him to cultivate marijuana for distribution to medical marijuana clubs, being immune from prosecution.


Whether Defendant is immune from prosecution under the City of Oakland statute.


No, the Defendant is not immune form prosecution under the City of Oakland statute.


Under the City of Oakland statute, one must be “lawfully engaged†in the enforcement of the law, and the enforcement of the state law must be consistent with the federal law. Chapter 8.42. The purpose of the City of Oakland statute was to ensure that seriously ill individuals have access to marijuana. However, the statute does not “compel†anyone to cultivate marijuana. Here, Defendant was assisting or implementing the purpose of the statute. Defendant’s interpretation of the statue conflicts with the purpose of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the federal statute, because the CSA notes that marijuana does not contain any medical benefits.  Therefore, Defendant was not lawfully engaged in the enforcement of federal law.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following