Surprising results of Fresno County pot fine appeals

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- Fighting Fresno county pot fines is an unusual appeals process with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake.

The people who stood before the board of supervisors Monday either grew pot or had pot growing on property they owned, which violates a county ordinance. The ordinance itself is about to change and some supervisors wanted to hold off on these decisions until then. But the board made several decisions and you might be surprised when you find out who won and who lost.

107 marijuana plants grew on Gerardo Montejano Placencia's property. When sheriff's deputies found them, he got a citation with a fine of almost $110,000.

"Do I look like a person that can afford a $110,000 fine?" he asked the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, which also acts as the administrative review panel on fines related to the ordinance it approved. "I'm barely making it. I have five kids. I work in the fields right now. I'm making $400 a week to try to take care of five kids."

Placencia admitted to owning the property and growing the pot, but he complimented the sheriff's deputies and county supervisors and got his fine reduced to $1,000.

A large citrus company got its fine totally erased.

"PAR Citrus did not grow the marijuana," said an attorney for the company, which bought the property just a month before a sheriff's raid. "PAR Citrus had no idea marijuana was on the property."

But not every accused pot grower was so fortunate, and just owning the property was enough to punish many of them. George Finley says he had severe health issues and had been placed in a nursing home when squatters grew nearly 300 plants on his property.

"The county has failed last September and today to produce any evidence that my client is a responsible party under this ordinance," said attorney Brenda Linder, who represents Finley.

Supervisors ordered Finley to pay 10 percent of the fine, or almost $30,000.

They fined some property owners more than $300,000. But each fine led to spirited debate and supervisors acknowledged flaws in the ordinance itself, especially in defining when to hold a property owner liable.

"I don't want folks to leave here today thinking we're going back to the drawing board and scrapping this," said board chairman Andreas Borgeas. "That's not what's occurring here."

About half a dozen property owners have already filed suit against the county, claiming they shouldn't be liable for what happens on their property when they have no way of checking it. They also say the quasi-legal hearings like Monday's are illegal.

Finley will file a new lawsuit Tuesday.