Ashland board holds off on revoking Mary Jane's Place license amid disputes over lab evidence and process

The Ashland Board of Aldermen voted to take no action at this session on a request to suspend or revoke the business license of Mary Jane's Place, after a hearing dominated by disputes over late evidence disclosures and whether tested samples were legal industrial hemp or marijuana.

Mayor Gore opened the semi‑judicial hearing under Chapter 21 of the Ashland city code. City attorney Nathan Nicholas said the city would present evidence that it had been able to purchase controlled substances at the premises and urged the board to consider the testimony and exhibits. "The question is is what they are doing legal or illegal," Nicholas said during his opening remarks.

Defense attorney Greg Pfeiffer told the panel the city had not produced laboratory reports and other materials until the evening before the hearing. "They did not produce any materials to us that they planned to introduce tonight until March 15. That was a Sunday. It was approximately 5 p.m. on Sunday," Pfeiffer said, asking the board to exclude the late documents or continue the hearing so the defense could obtain expert review of methodology and chain‑of‑custody.

The city proceeded. Retired Boone County detective Sgt. David Wilson testified he entered Mary Jane's Place on Sept. 5, 2025, paid $50 for a plant sample he believed to be marijuana and later submitted that package into Boone County evidence; he said he subsequently released the sealed package to Ashland Police Chief Scott Young. Chief Young said his department kept the material in its evidence room and later delivered it to Innovation Laboratories in Fayette for potency testing because the lab was represented to be licensed and able to test such samples.

Phil Sarf, identified as lab manager for Innovation Laboratories, described validated testing methods and told the board the lab tested the submitted sample on a dry‑weight basis. Sarf testified the report listed delta‑9 tetrahydrocannabinol at 2.7 percent and THCA (the acidic form of THC) at 22.1 percent and that the lab retained portions of the sample and followed chain‑of‑custody procedures. "We perform the potency testing to determine how much cannabinoids are in the product," Sarf said.

Defense counsel repeatedly challenged foundation for the exhibits, noting multiple versions of the lab report were circulated (some with photographs, some without), that uncertainty and measurement‑of‑error details were not included in the copies provided to the defense that evening, and that the provenance tying the tested sample to the premises was incomplete in places. Pfeiffer argued those gaps, and the short notice, deprived the licensee of due process.

Owner Chip Stroop (who testified under oath) said Mary Jane's Place relies on product certificates supplied by licensed agricultural vendors, runs a vendor agreement that requires certificates of analysis, and operates a members‑only indoor area where patrons sign a release. "I buy my stuff from reputable places. These people have agriculture numbers. They have to test for this," Stroop said, arguing his suppliers provided paperwork and third‑party testing showing many products passed federal hemp thresholds when sampled.

After extended argument and procedural rulings admitting and excluding parts of the submitted record, a board member moved that the board "take no action on the business license of Mary Jane's Place at this time." The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (members responded "Aye"). The board did not issue a suspension or revocation at that meeting.

What remains unresolved is whether the tested sample, the chain of custody that delivered it to Innovation Laboratories, and the late disclosure of some documents provide a sufficiently certain basis for formal action. The lab manager testified to the numeric results in the exhibit admitted into evidence, and the owner submitted vendor certificates and vendor agreements to show a compliance program; defense counsel argued the defense lacked timely access to full testing data and uncertainty metrics.

The board's action leaves open both administrative follow‑up and potential court proceedings. City counsel indicated the city may pursue other avenues if it concludes additional evidence or legal steps are necessary; defense counsel said the defense has already filed motions in other fora to protect the licensee's due‑process rights. The board recessed several times for evidentiary clarification and to allow retrieval of physical exhibits during the hearing.

The hearing record shows contested factual claims on both sides: the city asserts the business permitted sales of marijuana‑range product; the owner says it purchased and relied on certificates for industrial hemp. The board declined to resolve that dispute with a licensing penalty at this session; further administrative or judicial steps could follow.

The city clerk can provide the official hearing record and any subsequently filed exhibits; the board did not set a follow‑up date on the public record at the end of this meeting.