USA v. SIROIS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:21-cr-00175-LEW
)
LUCAS SIROIS, et al., 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION
The Grand Jury charged Defendants Lucas Sirois, Alisa Sirois, Robert Sirois (and
others) with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled
Substances (Marijuana), in violation to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and related crimes. 	The
matter is before the Court on the Sirois Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or Enjoin
Prosecution (ECF Nos. 285/288/292).1
The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 26, 27 and 28, 2023, and
received closing arguments in writing. 	Based on the testimony and evidence entered on
the record and careful consideration of the parties’ prehearing briefs and final written
arguments, the motions to enjoin are denied.
L EGAL B ACKGROUND
Although Maine has legalized the medical use of marijuana and authorizes
participants in its medical marijuana marketplace to grow and distribute marijuana to other
participants, trafficking in marijuana is still illegal under federal law. 	United States v.
1 Other defendants who joined in the request for injunctive relief have since changed their pleas to guilty.
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 455 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Bilodeau, 24 F.4th 705, 712 (1st Cir. 2022) (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. and
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27 (2005)). However, pursuant to federal law, specifically
a congressional appropriations rider known as the “Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment” or the
“Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment” (hereafter “the rider”), Congress instructed the
Department of Justice that “[n]one of the funds” appropriated to the Department by
Congress may be used “to prevent [the states] from implementing their own laws that
authorize 	the 	use, 	distribution, 	possession, 	or 	cultivation 	of 	medical 	marijuana.”
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-6, § 537, 133 Stat. 13, 138 (2019).
As written, “[t]he rider expressly forbids the DOJ from spending congressionally
appropriated funds in a manner that ‘prevent[s]’ a state such as Maine ‘from implementing
[its] own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical
marijuana.’” Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 712 (quoting Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 §
537). 	Based on the rider, in this Circuit a person who participates in a state medical
marijuana program who is charged federally with marijuana trafficking may bring a motion
to enjoin prosecution, but success on such a motion requires a showing that the prosecution,
if allowed to proceed, would “prevent[] a state from giving practical effect to its medical
marijuana laws.” Id. at 711, 713 & n.6, cert. denied, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1094. This showing
might be based on evidence demonstrating full compliance with state law and related
regulations, evidence that any noncompliance with state law involved only technical
violations, or perhaps even evidence of a nontechnical violation where the violation would
not be grounds under state law to revoke the person’s participation in the state program.
Id. at 713-14. Proceedings on a motion to enjoin prosecution logically precede trial and a
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 455 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
decision on such a motion is amendable to interlocutory review by the First Circuit. Id. at
712.
F ACTUAL B ACKGROUND
The Sirois Defendants have been participants on the supply side of Maine’s medical
marijuana program, conducting operations primarily from a facility located on High Street
in Farmington, known locally as the Shoe Shop. The Sirois Defendants also used a second
facility located in Avon. The Sirois Defendants and others used these facilities primarily
for growing, harvesting, and sorting marijuana. They also used the Shoe Shop location to
transact business operations associated with the purchase and sale of marijuana.
In 2018, the Sirois operations, headed by Defendant Lucas Sirois, came under
investigation for suspected illicit activity. Though there was, at that time, merely the scent
of illicit marijuana sales in the air, in 2019 the Government obtained information that Ryan
Nezol, an individual associated with Lucas Sirois, had unlawfully sold marijuana of
unknown origin to out of state buyers. 	The investigators arranged for a controlled buy
from Nezol. 	Immediately after the buy, they observed Nezol travel to a marijuana grow
supply shop owned by Lucas Sirois. 	By means of a wiretap placed on Nezol’s phone,
investigators were able to determine that Nezol was working at the Shoe Shop, even though
Nezol was not registered to participate in Maine’s medical marijuana program. Based on
these developments, investigators inferred that the marijuana Nezol trafficked in and was
continuing to traffic in was sourced from the Shoe Shop. Although they lacked evidence
to prove that the Shoe Shop was Nezol’s source or that the Sirois Defendants knew of
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 455 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Nezol’s illicit activity, from an investigative standpoint smoke was now emerging from the
Shoe Shop (and by association from other Sirois grow facilities).
In April of 2020, the investigation took on added dimension when the Maine Office
of Marijuana Policy referred the Shoe Shop and related Sirois operations for investigation
based on the report of a disgruntled former Shoe Shop employee that she was witness to
and participated in several black-market sales involving Brandon Dagnese during her
tenure. This same individual also provided information to support the inference that Lucas
Sirois conducted his medical marijuana operations as a “collective” in violation of Maine
marijuana law and policy. Code of Me. R. tit. 18-691, Ch. 2, § 6(K). Based on these and
other evidentiary developments, investigators secured warrants to search the Shoe Shop
and other Sirois facilities and the Government eventually obtained an indictment from the
grand jury.
D ISCUSSION
The Sirois Defendants contend that the Government’s investigation of their
involvement in Maine’s medical marijuana program, execution of a search warrant, seizure
of marijuana and related products, institution of a criminal complaint, presentation to the
grand jury, and prosecution of this case pursuant to grand jury indictment would not have
been possible but for the Government’s unlawful expenditure of funds in violation of the
rider. They therefore request an order dismissing the case against them or enjoining any
further proceedings.
In a prior order, I ruled that the hearing on the motions to enjoin prosecution would
encompass not merely the decision to prosecute, but also the decision to investigate, but
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 455 Filed 08/18/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
that I would review these administrative decisions using a substantial evidence standard
based on administrative law. 	I also explained that because the rider does not confer an
individual right on persons subject to investigation or prosecution for violation of federal
law the Government’s substantial evidentiary showing did not need to be personalized to
each and every defendant. Lastly, I explained that the burden to show that the investigation
and prosecution were and are unsubstantiated would fall upon the movants, though I ruled
that the Government would proceed first by producing a record in support of its actions.
Procedural Order (ECF No. 348).2
Based on the evidence presented during the hearing, I find that the Government
carried its burden of producing a record containing substantial evidence in support of both
the 2018 and continuing3 investigation and its decision to prosecute. In short, a reasonable
mind might accept that the investigation and prosecution arose from sufficient evidence of
nontechnical noncompliance with Maine medical marijuana law and that, by extension, the
Department of Justice has not expended federal dollars in support of this proceeding in a
manner that would “prevent Maine’s medical marijuana laws from having their intended
practical effect.” Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 715.4
2 I do not see why a proceeding of this kind could not be decided on a paper record. Here, the Sirois
Defendants received a more fulsome process, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
3 Although the evidence suggests that some investigative activity transpired prior to 2018, the record does
not suggest that early investigative efforts amounted to anything that as a practical matter would have
prevented or interfered with the State of Maine’s implementation of its medical marijuana program.
4 I do not believe that it is necessary or wise for a district court to perform an analysis that amounts to a
constitutional review of each step of an investigation and prosecution, similar to how it would review a
warrant application or motion to suppress. In Bilodeau, this Court and the First Circuit observed that the
evidence against the movants was strong, a fact that tended to simplify the courts’ determination that the
rider was not violated. Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 715. I do not read Bilodeau as requiring district courts to
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 455 Filed 08/18/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
As for the Sirois Defendants’ 5 burden to persuade me of the lack a substantial
evidentiary basis, I am left unpersuaded. 	The presentation they made at the hearing and
the argument presented in their post-hearing briefs are designed more to sow doubt as to
the existence of knowledge on their part of the illegal distribution of Shoe Shop marijuana
by others (in particular co-defendant Brandon Dagnese) and the failure of the Office of
Marijuana Policy to find them in violation of Maine regulations during the pendency of the
investigation. Such a showing could prove effective at trial, where the Government must
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but it was not sufficient to demonstrate that either
the decision to investigate or the decision to prosecute lacked a substantial evidentiary
basis. 	Nor was it sufficient to suggest that either decision was arbitrary or irrational.
Furthermore, although I do not consider it necessary to make a probable cause assessment,
the Sirois Defendants’ presentation did not persuade me of the absence of probable cause,
but rather suggested to me that there are evidentiary issues for a jury to evaluate, in
particular the credibility of witnesses. I also conclude that an order enjoining prosecution
assess the likelihood of a conviction and have instead focused on whether the record demonstrates conduct
by agents of the Department of Justice that, if unchecked, would prevent a state from implementing its
medical marijuana program, such as through unjustified prosecution of participants based on technical
violations of state laws and regulations.
5 Defendants Alisa Sirois and Robert Sirois observe that the Government’s presentation did little, if
anything, to justify the grand jury’s indictment of them for participating in a black-market drug distribution
conspiracy. I am not persuaded that the individual movants enjoy a private right under the Rohrabacher-
Farr Amendment to compel the Government to prove its case in advance of trial, United States v. Evans,
929 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2019), though I recognize that overzealous conspiracy prosecutions might
dissuade individuals from participating in Maine’s medical marijuana program. In any event, given the
evidence of both black-market transactions in Shoe Shop marijuana and the collective nature of the
operation, I conclude that the prosecution of Alisa and Robert Sirois does not undermine Maine’s
implementation of a medical marijuana program. Furthermore, neither Alisa nor Robert Sirois introduced
evidence to suggest the existence of special circumstances that would make it unreasonable to include them
in a conspiracy prosecution.
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 455 Filed 08/18/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
based on the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment would be ill-advised here, as the State of
Maine, through its Office of Marijuana Policy, ultimately requested an investigation based
upon, among other things, the report of black market sales by an insider and possible
violation of the rule against collective grow operations.6
C ONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the Sirois Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or Enjoin
Prosecution (ECF Nos. 285/288/292) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of August, 2023
/s/ Lance E. Walker
United States District Judge
6 Given these conclusions, I also am not persuaded that the Sirois Defendants have made a compelling
showing on likelihood of success, the equities of the matter, or service of the public interest to warrant the
extraordinary remedy of a preliminary, let alone final injunction.
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 455 Filed 08/18/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>