Confiscated marijuana was key evidence in a civil forfeiture suit. Then, police destroyed it.

A licensed marijuana grower who contends Smithfield police lied about having a confidential source so they could illegally search his warehouse now alleges police also destroyed key evidence that could have proved he wasn’t exceeding his grow limits.

“This case is a travesty of justice,” wrote lawyer Megan Sheehan in court papers filed Friday for her client Joseph Ricci. “Indeed, it is patently clear here that the destruction of this evidence was intentional or intended to suppress the truth."

“Between the intentional destruction of contested vital evidence and impermissible police fabrications, it certainly appears that the conduct in this case was done in bad faith,” she continued.

Latest in a long-running dispute over pot raid

Since Smithfield police searched and confiscated Ricci’s warehouse at 256 Putnam Pike in 2017, Ricci and investigators for both the state and the town have been at odds in a long-running lawsuit over the civil forfeiture of his property. Much of the debate has centered on the confiscated marijuana.

Ricci, who is also a contractor, grew cannabis as a marijuana patient himself and as a "caregiver" for two other patients. Following the search, the police charged him with possession with intent to deliver and possession of 1 to 5 kilograms of marijuana.

In announcing the arrest, the police said detectives seized 42 marijuana plants and individual bags of marijuana weighing, in total, more than 1 kilogram.

The actual weight of the confiscated marijuana; however, some of which was still "wet" and not yet useable, has remained in dispute.

The drug charges were eventually dismissed. In May 2019, Ricci pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of “visiting a common nuisance,” which Sheehan has described as “essentially being at a property where there is drug activity occurring.” 

Meanwhile, weeks after the raid, the state Attorney General's Office moved to seize Ricci's commercial building, contending it had been used to violate state drug laws.

Lawyer: 'No reason' marijuana should have been destroyed

Despite this pending Superior Court case – and an ongoing federal civil rights lawsuit surrounding the alleged unlawful search – Smithfield police allegedly destroyed some of Ricci’s confiscated marijuana, which it was holding as evidence, just last year.

The evidence destruction only came to light after Ricci asked to view the seized marijuana. That’s when a lawyer representing the state and Smithfield informed Sheehan “that some of the marijuana was destroyed and, as a result, would be unavailable for viewing.”

“If Mr. Ricci and his counsel were afforded the opportunity to inspect the marijuana, there would be potential for Mr. Ricci to be vindicated and negate the state’s claim against his property by proving that he was not, in fact, over his possession limit,” wrote Sheehan.

More: Did Smithfield police lie about a confidential informant to raid a pot grow? A jury will decide.

“There is no reason the evidence should have been destroyed six years into a pending civil forfeiture case, and three years into this pending case, when at the heart of both the town and state’s arguments are that the destroyed evidence proved that Mr. Ricci was over the possession limits," Sheehan continued.

A hearing on Sheehan’s new motion for summary judgment is scheduled to be heard April 4.

Sheehan said she is also planning to ask that a new trial date be set for the federal case.

In November, U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy ordered the two sides into mediation to see if the dispute might be resolved first that way.

Judge in federal case says police may have lied about informant

In a pre-trial motion ruling last July, McElroy said there was a “strong” inference that police lied about the existence of a confidential informant to help establish probable cause for the search. 

She noted that while one officer, Joseph M. Marcello, said in his affidavit supporting a search warrant that he “had received information from a confidential informant” that Ricci was cultivating large amounts of marijuana on his commercial property on Putnam Pike, that statement “was clearly false.” When put under oath during a deposition, Marcello “denied having any personal contact with an informant,” the judge wrote. 

Further, wrote McElroy, “while Marcello said he knew that his [department] supervisor, defendant Michael Smith, had been the one to actually talk to the informant because Smith told him that he met with the informant, that was not accurate either, as Smith also denied under oath having personal contact with the informant.” 

Smithfield’s lawyer in the case, Marc DeSisto, could not be reached for comment.

Contact Tom Mooney at: tmooney@providencejournal.com 

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Did Smithfield police destroy key marijuana evidence in a civil suit?