The Path to Amnesty for Persons Investigated, Arrested, Prosecuted, Convicted or suffered penalty of any kind for Marihuana Charges, related to possessing Non-Plant Material medical marihuana including brownies or other edibles.
Clearing your name of criminal charges in Michigan has always been an uphill battle. With the new retroactive changes in the MMMA law, some medical marijuana charges may be able to be fixed. You may be able to have an adjudication or judgement or conviction made nonpublic under MCL 780.621.
(5) An application to expunge a record can only be filed 5 or more years after the sentence, probation, discharge or completion of the prison term, whichever is later.
There are more requirements before a person can file to have these removed from your record.
(a) A person who is convicted of not more than 1 felony offense and not more than 2 misdemeanor offenses may petition the convicting court to set aside the felony offense.
Any felony or misdemeanor HYTA or 7411 adjudication or dismissal will be considered a misdemeanor conviction for purposes of expungement, and will count as one of the two possible misdemeanors an adult can have for expungement purposes. If you have more than 2 misdemeanors on your record, you cannot petition to remove any convictions. A conviction for an assaultive, sexual, or other specifically excluded crime cannot be expunged.
If you fail to get the conviction expunged by the court, you will not be able to try again for 3 years after the expungement denial, unless the court specifies an earlier time to refile.
Michigan Court Rule 6.500 spells out the rules and requirements and procedure for getting a relief from judgment of the court. This motion is for people who have run out of appeals and who want to raise additional issues. The 6.500 motion could also be used by defendants who have missed the appeal filing deadlines. Most 6.500 motions get dismissed by the judge, but with extreme diligence, some of these motions are successful.
#Prosecutor and #Police #Confess they never understood the #MMMA but #arrested and #prosecuted anyway #PureMichigan
On Tuesday September 22, 2016 Governor Rick Snyder signed into law several new bills allowing a state wide regulated licensing scheme for the Medical Marihuana Industry (4209- The Michigan Medical Marihuana Licensing Act). Unlike The Michigan Medical Marihuana Licensing Act, which created a new law, House Bill 4210 amended the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. The MMMA was specifically effected by amending the title and sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 (MCL 333.26423, 333.26424, 333.26426, and 333.26427), sections 3 and 4 as amended by 2012 PA 512 and section 6 as amended by 2012 PA 514, and by adding sections 4a and 4b.
When House Bill 4210 was signed into law, the most significant and important aspect of the new legislation was the amendatory language included within the amendments. Specifically the amendments included the following language:
“This amendatory act clarifies ambiguities in the law in accordance with the original intent of the people, as expressed in section 2(b) of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26422:
This amendatory act is curative and applies retroactively as to the following: clarifying the quantities and forms of marihuana for which a person is protected from arrest, precluding an interpretation of “weight” as aggregate weight, and excluding an added inactive substrate component of a preparation in determining the amount of marihuana, medical marihuana, or usable marihuana that constitutes an offense. Retroactive application of this amendatory act does not create a cause of action against a law enforcement officer or any other state or local governmental officer, employee, department, or agency that enforced this act under a good-faith interpretation of its provisions at the time of enforcement."
Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.
Enacting section 2. This amendatory act clarifies ambiguities in the law in accordance with the original intent of the people, as expressed in section 2(b) of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26422:
“(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.”. [Emphasis added.]
This amendatory act is curative and applies retroactively as to the following: clarifying the quantities and forms of marihuana for which a person is protected from arrest, precluding an interpretation of “weight” as aggregate weight, and excluding an added inactive substrate component of a preparation in determining the amount of marihuana, medical marihuana, or usable marihuana that constitutes an offense. Retroactive application of this amendatory act does not create a cause of action against a law enforcement officer or any other state or local governmental officer, employee, department, or agency that enforced this act under a good-faith interpretation of its provisions at the time of enforcement.
In November of 2008, 63% of Michigan voters overwhelmingly passed the Voter Initiative Proposition 1, acknowledging that cannabis is medicine, and that physicians, patients, and their caregivers would be protected from arrest prosecution and penalty of any kind. In the history of Michigan elections, the 3.3 million votes cast approving Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Voter Initiative was the most votes in the history of Michigan elections. An often overlooked and never quoted or cited in any Michigan Court of Appeal or Michigan Supreme Court cases are the following passage from the MMMA
The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:
1. Cannabis aka Marihuana is in fact a Medicine according to Michigan Law.
(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions. 333.26422(a)
Similarly to Michigan, at least 29 other states have passed Medical Marihuana Laws, however pursuant to federal law it remains illegal, and a schedule 1 drug making it challenging for research within the United States. Despite its federal classification there has been an enormous amount of medical research regarding medical cannabis, some of those studies can be read here
Using data on all prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D enrollees from 2010 to 2013, we found that the use of prescription drugs for which marijuana could serve as a clinical alternative fell significantly, once a medical marijuana law was implemented.
Conclusions. Suicides among men aged 20 through 39 years fell after medical marijuana legalization compared with those in states that did not legalize.
Conclusions and Relevance Medical cannabis laws are associated with significantly lower state-level opioid overdose mortality rates."
2. By Enacting the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, persons engaging in the Medical Use of Marihuana will be and should be protected against State prosecutions.
(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana. 333.26422(b)
3. The intent of the MMMA was explicitly for the benefit health and welfare of Michigan Patients, not intended to be a benefit for police, The Michigan Department of Treasury or private prisons.
(c) Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens. 333.26422(c)
The above reference language in the MMMA is found in the Findings and Declarations section MCL 333.26242 (a-c).
In addition to the 2008 MMMA, Michigan voters have overwhelmingly supported and approved local ballot proposals for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana in 21 cities since 2011. Initiatives to decriminalize marijuana have been approved in 15 communities: Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Flint, Kalamazoo, Saginaw, Port Huron, East Lansing, Mount Pleasant, Ypsilanti, Berkeley, Hazel Park, Huntington Woods, Oak Park and Pleasant Ridge. Since 2009, on a handful of ballot proposals were voted down in six communities: Frankfort, Clare, Harrison, Lapeer, Onaway and Montrose.
These facts are important when trying to understand the most recent Michigan State Police data which indicates arrests for marijuana possession and marijuana use are increasing — even as arrests for other crimes are going down, according to data collected by the Michigan State Police.
Between 2008 and 2014, arrests for marijuana possession or use went up 17 percent statewide, that data shows, while arrests for all crimes dropped by 15 percent. Despite these facts arrests for marijuana possession or use went up 17% between 2008 and 2014, according to data from the Michigan State Police. The MMMA was supposed to help protect patients and yet no clear decrease in marijuana possession cases has happened.
Since 2008, marihuana arrests in Michigan have risen 17%. The Michigan State Police have reported consistently millions in forfeiture proceeds per year.
Former director of the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division
Captain Gregoire Michaud has stated publicly that the forensic lab spends 40 percent of its resources testing marihuana, and that is the reason that they have been unable to catch up on the backlog of evidence rape kits. Additional disturbing trends from the Michigan State Police Data indicate:
1. The majority of marijuana arrests are for possession or use.
In 2014, there were 20,483 arrests for marijuana use or possession, which was 86 percent of all marijuana arrests. About 10 percent of the other arrests are for selling the drug. The remainder of the arrests are for "producing" the drug, smuggling or "other. “Arrests related to marijuana are about two-thirds of all drug arrests in Michigan and in 2014 were 9 percent of all criminal arrests.
2. Data from the Michigan State Police shows that there is a disproportionate number of arrests of persons between the age of 18-24 for marijuana-related crimes. Approximately 43 percent of those arrested in 2014 for marijuana were age 18 to 24. The breakdown for other age groups: 26 percent were age 25 to 34; 11 percent were age 35 to 44; 9 percent were under 18; 7 percent were age 45 to 54, and 3 percent were sage 55 or older. The data associated with the federal drug survey shows that marijuana use is highest among young adults and indicates 24 percent of male and 17 percent of female full-time college students age 18 to 22 use marijuana, the survey shows.
3. The Michigan State Police Data indicates that males make up a majority of the arrest for marihuana cases. Men comprised 83 percent of marijuana arrests in 2014, which is disproportionate compared to their rate of usage. The data goes on to indicate that about 9.7 percent of American males age 12 and older are users of marijuana compared to 5.6 percent of women, according to a 2013 federal survey on drug use. That means men are 1.7 times more likely to use marijuana, but are five times more likely to be arrested on marijuana charges.
4. The Michigan State Police Data clearly indicates that the number of arrest for marihuana is disproportionate for African Americans. An African-American in Michigan was three times more likely to be arrested in 2014 for violating marijuana laws compared to a white person, although surveys and research indicate little difference between usage rates between the two groups.
In all, African-Americans comprise about 14 percent of Michigan's population, but 35 percent of marijuana arrests.
5. On average, there were about 2.4 marijuana arrests per 1,000 Michigan residents statewide.
6. Since 2011, twenty-one Michigan cities have voted on legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.
8. Data from the 2013 federal drug survey shows daily use of marijuana is increasing. In 2013, 8.1 million persons aged 12 or older used marijuana on 20 or more days in the past month, which was an increase from the 5.1 million daily or almost daily past month users in 2005 to 2007. The number of daily or almost daily users in 2013 represented 41.1 percent of past month marijuana users, the survey shows.
It is unequivocal that in 2008 Michigan Voters declared that Marihuana is Medicine, persons engaging in the Medical Use of Marihuana should be protected from criminal prosecutions and the intent of the MMMA was explicitly for the benefit of the health and welfare of Michigan Citizens and not for police and government profit. It is often hard to understand how a law that received more than 50% vote in all 83 counties in Michigan, could have been so poorly misinterpreted and implemented. To the extent that one believes that the intention of the MMMA was to provide a shield for patients and caregivers, it is hard to reconcile the overwhelming evidence (from the Michigan State Police data) very little of the voter’s intention was honored.
Instead the Law Enforcement Community has utilized the MMMA as a sword, resulting in a string of 8 years of success defined by the increase of marihuana arrests and consistent profits from forfeiture proceeds.
On Tuesday September 22, 2016 Governor Rick Snyder signed into law several new bills allowing a state wide regulated licensing scheme for the Medical Marihuana Industry. Listening to how the Law Enforcement Community reacted to this news gives some insight into how the Law Enforcement Community has been able to get away with this shit. As so articulated by Michigan State Police and the Cheboygan County prosecutor Daryl Vizina, (who claims to be speaking on behalf of all prosecutors and all law enforcement), ignorance of the law shall be their excuse.
Michigan State Police say they are working with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and prosecutors to make sure they understand the law and enforce them properly. "Hopefully, there are some clarifications there." “Police and courts are determining how they go forward after years of confusion over the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.” "We had a lot of people assuming they knew what the law was," Vizina said. "They didn't, the prosecutors didn't, law enforcement didn't. It's been a mess in a way." Prosecutors like Daryl Vizina in Cheboygan County hope the laws will be clearer to people in the medical marijuana community. "It's just kind of been a learning process where charges get charged, maybe somebody gets prosecuted, maybe later down the line a higher court overturns the conviction," Vizina said.
The above quotes from those within the law enforcement community should bring shame to them personally but most importantly their profession. For starters, never has the Michigan State Police previously made a public statement that they are trying to learn about the MMMA, the medical use of marihuana or even how they as law enforcement officer shall enforce issues surrounding “usable marihuana.” To see them quoted 8 years after the enactment of the MMMA, in which the MSP are going to make sure they understand the law and enforce them properly, sounds more like an apology for not previously understanding the law and previously properly enforcing it.
But the quotes by the Cheboygan County prosecutor Daryl Vizina, (who claims to be speaking on behalf of all prosecutors and all law enforcement), is truly amazing. As a lawyer, I interpret his quotes as a confession to crimes he and others in the law enforcement community have committed against the Medical Marihuana Community. As a lawyer, I would have advised him to take the fifth.
Let’s look at and think about what he is actually saying.
"We had a lot of people assuming they knew what the law was." "They didn't, the prosecutors didn't, law enforcement didn't. It's been a mess in a way."
Vizina’s statement can only conclude that the prosecutions against medical marihuana patients were done in bad faith, by persons who should never have been involved with policing or prosecuting medical patients. To state that he personally didn’t know the law but prosecuted others for violating the same law is the definition of a “due process violation”. His statement objectively interpreted means that he expected those he was prosecuting to have a greater grasp and knowledge of the MMMA than himself, the elected County Prosecutor. To publicly state that not knowing or understanding the law this has been the guiding force for prosecutions is an expression of failure and ignorance. The statement reflects a lack of integrity, honesty and the requisite duty of fairness in any prosecution.
The duty of a prosecutor is not to “win at any cost” or even “try to win if the law is unclear to them and the police”. Prosecutors, as judicial officers, have a duty to the accused as well, and that is to ensure the protection of the accused constitutional rights when accused of a crime. This is the obligation of the prosecutor in any case that it chooses to prosecute. Often overlooked and seemingly forgotten in the modern justice system is the States moral and ethical obligation to ensure a fair trial for the accused. Failing to do this is the definition of an unequal and uneven playing field. But this is how it has been.
If you don't believe me, examine the recent amendments to the MMMA, wherein the Legislature has confirmed the States erred for the last 8 years. The legislatures recent amendments to the MMMA, acknowledge for the first time the declarations section of the MMMA. The Legislature acknowledges the intentions of the MMMA has always been to change state law to practically effect and protect from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana. In doing so, the Legislature has provided relief for those persons who have been wrongly prosecuted by the State for its failure to acknowledge the protections intended for patients and caregivers.
The curative and retroactive amendments to the MMMA, in House Bill 4210, unequivocally clarify and make legal the possession of non-plant material marihuana . The People v Carruthers holding is ultimately overruled and no longer applies to Michigan Patients and Caregivers.
Section 4 of the MMMA as amended
c) For purposes of determining usable marihuana equivalency, the following shall be considered equivalent to 1 ounce of usable marihuana:
(1) 16 ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a solid form.
(2) 7 grams of marihuana-infused product if in a gaseous form.
(3) 36 fluid ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a liquid form.
The new amendments create an opportunity to bring relief to those who have been wrongly accused. An opportunity to revisit and correct the situations where the probable cause of a crime in any investigation of patients and caregivers was illegally continued or escalated because the subject matter of the investigation was the non-plant material marihuana. It is important to understand the exponential number of scenarios where an investigation was continued or escalated because the material or substance associated with the investigation was "contraband" or non-plant material marihuana.
If this happened to you, you were right to believe that it was wrong. The police, the prosecutor and the state were wrong. You may have a remedy to right this wrong.
The new amendments are more than clear in what they fix and to which individuals may benefit from this correction. The state admits and acknowledges that the MMMA contained ambiguities that needed clarifying. The current state court interpretation of the law had failed to express the original intent of the MMMA. "Changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.” The amendatory language of the MMMA provides an opportunity to set aside a prior conviction or revisit a prior case that is over, and reopen the case to litigate the states admitted errors.
Legislatively enacted laws usually never apply retroactively unless the amended language contains an explicit reference to a retroactive application. This is a very unique opportunity that does not happen often. Persons who have been afflicted by the State’s own admitted errors now have a potential path to right this wrong.
The ability to set aside a conviction has limitations, and Courts are in the business of closing cases, not reopening them. Expungement, albeit expanded by law in 2015, and Motions to Set Aside Convictions MCR 6.500, based upon constitutional or statutory ground are generally difficult. The amendments to the MMMA found in HB 4210 create an entirely new statutory method to seek relief from conviction, and penalty.
If you or a loved one meets the criteria described above, and if you believe you have been a victim of the State and it’s admitted errors, or your case or conviction resulted from the irrational interpretation that non-plant material marihuana is not usable marihuana, call Komorn Law, 1-800-656-3557. We are currently offering Legal Services evaluating your case, and advising clients of potential remedies and or legal strategies to clearing your record from marihuana related conviction.
It is the obligation of the prosecutor in all cases to verify that the accused’s constitutional rights are respected. A prosecutor is not supposed to bring unconstitutional charges against a person. How can a prosecutor then give an excuse that they did not understand the law? Questions remain on how prosecutors will handle medical marijuana
Law Enforcement React to New Medical Marijuana Laws
September 22, 2016
New medical marijuana laws bring questions on how local law enforcement are reacting to the changes and how they’ll handle medical marijuana now.
9 & 10’s Blayke Roznowski and photojournalist Noah Jurik talked to a prosecutor and the state representative who authored part of the bill.
"Hopefully, there are some clarifications there," Cheboygan County prosecutor Daryl Vizina said.
Police and courts are determining how they go forward after years of confusion over the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.
"We had a lot of people assuming they knew what the law was," Vizina said. "They didn’t, the prosecutors didn’t, law enforcement didn’t. It’s been a mess in a way."
Michigan State Police say they are working with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and prosecutors to make sure they understand the law and enforce them properly.
It’s something the sponsor of one of the bills, state representative Mike Callton, says will make enforcement easier.
"Let’s say policeman pulls a person over and they have a medicine container of medicine. Well, it’s got a bar code or scantron on it and police can determine from that scantron, where it’s been grown, who transported it, where it was tested, where it was refined, if it was refined and where they bought it and that this is, indeed, the medicine for this patient," Callton said.
Prosecutors like Daryl Vizina in Cheboygan County hope the laws will be more clear to people in the medical marijuana community.
"It’s just kind of been a learning process where charges get charged, maybe somebody gets prosecuted, maybe later down the line a higher court overturns the conviction," Vizina said.
In the long run, lawmakers think the new laws will eliminate doubt, and increase safety when it comes to medical marijuana.
"We needed a way for patients to get this kind of medicine without having to buy it from somebody named Rick in the back alley," Callton said. "There had to be a legitimate way for people to buy this."
Komorn Law Pllc
 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin