LAKE COUNTY >> According to attorney Joe Elford, a lawsuit was filed Friday at the U.S. District Court in San Jose against Lake County authorities. Elford said the suit was on behalf of residents who claim they were subject to warrantless searches and unlawful abatement procedures by the Lake County Sheriff”s Office (LCSO) in violation of Measure N.

Complaints were originally aired publicly during a Board of Supervisors meeting on Aug. 19. At that meeting, county residents alleged that LCSO officers had visited more than 30 properties in Spring Valley without warrant. Some residents claimed they were not notified or contacted before the officers went on their property, other residents said their locks were cut and LCSO officers allegedly cut down marijuana plants without providing abatement notices or allowing time for a summary abatement to be disputed.

The LCSO maintained in statements to the Board of Supervisors that proper protocol had been followed in the searches. Law enforcement officers also indicated a willingness to review the protocol.

The lawsuit reportedly requests a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction against searches without notice. Elford, the San Francisco lawyer who will be representing the residents, said he expects the judge to make a decision on issuing a temporary restraining order today or Wednesday and to schedule a hearing for the temporary injunction within the next week.

The temporary restraining order would require the LCSO to stop searching property without a warrant and require the LCSO to provide five-day abatement notices, as required under Measure N, until a hearing can be held.

Attorney Ron Green of Lower Lake, who is not officially participating in the lawsuit, said he expects the court to be cognizant of the civil rights implications of the residents” claims. He also indicated that the wording of Measure N presents a challenge.

“It”s a poorly written ordinance and it”s ambiguous in places,” Green said. “As a lawyer, it (Measure N) didn”t seem to say they could go out there without notice or warrants. But it”s the ambiguous language in the measure that allowed this to happen ? the primary authority is invested in the Sheriff and that office has just run with it.”

Measure N is not being questioned in the lawsuit.

Elford is hopeful for the outcome.

“We”re very optimistic that the court will understand the very serious constitutional issues and hand here and will rule in our favor,” he said.

The lawsuit will not challenge the legality of Measure N. Instead it claims the enforcement of the measure has been conducted “in an unconstitutional way,” Elford said.