A significant legal blow has been dealt to New York City’s aggressive crackdown on suspected illicit cannabis shops. In a ruling delivered Tuesday afternoon, Queens Judge Kevin J. Kerrigan declared the state law underpinning ‘Operation Padlock to Protect’ unconstitutional. This operation, spearheaded by Mayor Eric Adams, empowered the City Sheriff’s Office to padlock businesses suspected of selling cannabis illegally after a single raid.
The judge found that the law violated store owners’ fundamental right to due process, arguing that summarily shutting down a business for a year, even if it is later found to be operating legally, goes against the very core of American democracy and procedural fairness.
The ruling has immediate consequences for the numerous shops that were shut down under ‘Operation Padlock.’ Every store is now required to reopen, and those affected are free to pursue legal action against the city for damages incurred during the closure period.
Lance Lazzaro, an attorney representing over 100 shops that were targeted by the operation, celebrated the judge’s decision. “This decision validates what we have been arguing since this statute was enacted,” Lazzaro stated. He accused Mayor Adams, the City Council, and the Sheriff of violating the due process rights of every store owner who was shut down. He also predicted that the ruling would open the door for substantial lawsuits against the city, potentially leading to “astronomical damages.”
‘Operation Padlock to Protect’, which began in April 2024, faced mounting criticism and controversy even before the judge’s ruling. By September, negative publicity surrounding the operation had intensified, with the Department of Investigation launching a probe into Sheriff Anthony Miranda amidst allegations of cash theft from the smoke shops he closed.
The city has previously boasted about the success of ‘Operation Padlock,’ claiming to have shut down over 1,200 illegal cannabis shops and seized over $82 million worth of illegal products. However, the judge’s ruling casts a shadow over the legality and fairness of this aggressive enforcement strategy.
The judge’s decision marks a significant setback for Mayor Adams and his administration’s approach to regulating cannabis in New York City. It remains to be seen how the city will respond to this legal challenge and what impact the ruling will have on future efforts to control the sale of cannabis in the city.
