## Facts

- Robert Clyde Crouse was a qualified medical-marijuana patient under the Colorado Constitution.
- Law enforcement seized marijuana plants and processed marijuana during an investigation.
- Crouse was charged with felony cultivation and felony possession with intent to distribute.
- A jury acquitted Crouse of all charges.
- After acquittal, Crouse sought an order requiring officers to return the seized marijuana under Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 14(2)(e).
- The People argued the return order would conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which prohibits marijuana distribution and related conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 14(2)(e), requiring law enforcement to return seized medical marijuana, is preempted by the CSA under 21 U.S.C. § 903 due to a “positive conflict.”
2. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 885(d)’s law-enforcement exemption prevents preemption by making the officers’ return of marijuana “lawful” under federal law.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held § 14(2)(e) is preempted by the CSA because complying with the state return mandate would require officers to “distribute” marijuana as defined by federal law.
- The court rejected reliance on § 885(d), concluding officers cannot be “lawfully engaged” in conduct that violates federal law.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the holding that the return provision is void to the extent it requires return of marijuana.

## Legal Principles

- Under 21 U.S.C. § 903, the CSA preempts state law only when there is a “positive conflict” such that the two “cannot consistently stand together.”
- A positive conflict exists when compliance with state law necessarily requires violation of federal law.
- Returning seized marijuana constitutes a “transfer” and therefore “distribution” under the CSA’s definitions of “deliver” and “distribute.”
- A state may decriminalize conduct under state law, but it may not require state officials to engage in affirmative conduct that federal law prohibits.
- For purposes of § 885(d), “lawful” conduct requires compliance with both state and federal law; an exemption for officers does not eliminate a direct conflict where the required act is federally prohibited.

## Conclusion

Colorado’s constitutional requirement that police return seized medical marijuana to an entitled patient after the criminal case ends is preempted because it compels officers to distribute marijuana in violation of the CSA, creating an irreconcilable conflict under federal preemption law.


People v. Crouse, 399 P.3d 39 (Colo. 2017)