Why Did a California County Fine Them Over $1 Million for Someone Else's Code Violations?

Thanks to a settlement with several property owners, a wrecking ball is about to hit one California county's cannabis code-enforcement scheme—a system that piled ruinous fines on people for violations they say they did not actually commit. Corrine and Doug Thomas, two of the plaintiffs, were staring down more than $1 million in civil penalties. That came with a twist. Humboldt County, California, said their property's previous owner, Summerville Creek LLC, had been in "violation of the commercial cannabis land use ordinance," had constructed "a building or structure in violation of building, plumbing, and electrical codes," and had "facilities or activities in violation of the commercial cannabis land use ordinance." The Thomases did not understand why that was their problem, having purchased the property once their home in Los Angeles County was destroyed by a wildfire. Nevertheless, they were greeted with the news six days after moving in. Per county policy, fines accrued at $12,000 per day, for up to 90 days—and that included while people waited for the opportunity to have a hearing, which could take years. In the couple's case, they had the option to demolish the structure the government had deemed problematic, though that also would have cost them about $180,000, plus fines and fees. How was the government getting this information? "Code-enforcement officers scour [satellite] images for what looks like unpermitted development on a property (e.g., a greenhouse, a building, a graded flat of land, or trees removed without a permit on record)," attorneys for the Institute for Justice (I.J.) wrote in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The County then presumes, without any evidence or further investigation, that the landowner must have developed their property without a permit because they were growing cannabis. In Humboldt's view, there's just no other reason that someone might not buy a permit before building a shed, a barn, or a greenhouse in the rural countryside." I.J. represented several other plaintiffs in the case. One is Blu Graham, who waited four and a half years for a hearing to show he was growing vegetables (as opposed to cannabis) in his greenhouse. Another is Rhonda Olson, who faced $7.4 million in fines that were addressed to the previous owner on a property she purchased for $60,000. The Court declined to hear the petition, which argued the plaintiffs had a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in such cases. (They instead had to fight the fines in administrative hearings conducted by the government, where their chances of success were predictably bleak.) But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit kept the suit alive, on the grounds that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the code enforcement scheme ran afoul of the Eighth Amendment's proscription against excessive fines. After that, the county agreed to settle. Among the conditions of the agreement: In the future, the government must send a warning letter prior to imposing penalties, and provide due process—to include delaying fines until a hearing's conclusion and holding that hearing within 60 days. The plaintiffs' fines and fees were also wiped out. The system was likely put in place, at least in part, to allow the county to cash in on cannabis after it was legalized. It is part of a broader pattern of local governments leveraging code enforcement to raise revenue. Sandy Martinez of Lantana, Florida, for example, owes the government over $165,000, plus interest, for such minor code violations as parking on her own grass. According to the state of Florida, that is not excessive.