Jump to content

Aclu Not Retained By Royal Oak Marijuana Patient

MI Compassion

Recommended Posts

MI Compassion Advanced Member

MI Compassion

Posted
Posted

By Catherine Kavanaugh

Daily Tribune Staff Writer

 

ROYAL OAK — The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan will not represent the patient whose medical marijuana was seized by police during a traffic stop earlier this year.

 

The ACLU offered to provide legal services for Christopher Frizzo, 46, of Royal Oak to help him get back 6.75 grams of medical marijuana prescribed for his multiple sclerosis. However, Frizzo declined.

 

“They don’t want to seek any type of compensation monetarily for the suffering I’ve gone through,” Frizzo said, adding that he was hospitalized within six weeks of police confiscating his medical marijuana.

 

“I have medical documents that prove I suffered a relapse. It’s clear I have suffered irreparable harm physically and emotional damage. I was harassed and had my medicine taken.”

 

Rana Elmir, ACLU spokesperson, said she couldn’t comment.

 

“Mr. Frizzo has chosen not to retain the ACLU in his challenge, but I can’t get into the details,” she said. “We do wish him the best and support his cause.”

 

Royal Oak police pulled over Frizzo for an improper lane change on Jan. 11 on Woodward Avenue. He has a state-issued card identifying him as a patient qualified to use medical marijuana. However, his card was stamped “no caregiver” to indicate he obtained it from someone registered with the Michigan Department of Community Health. Police confiscated the medical marijuana because Frizzo couldn’t show he got it from a registered caregiver.

 

“The officer took it and I went without it until my next disability check,” Frizzo said. “The next month I had a seizure, migraines and couldn’t breathe. I had to go to the hospital.”

 

The ACLU contends Royal Oak police “unlawfully confiscated” Frizzo’s medical marijuana. Their attorneys have said marijuana from any source enters a “safe harbor” once it is possessed by a registered patient and it can’t be taken by police.

 

The ACLU had asked Royal Oak police to return Frizzo’s medical marijuana or reimburse him for it. The ACLU also asked the police to assure the public the department wouldn’t seize medical marijuana from registered patients who obtain it from unregistered individuals.

 

Royal Oak City Attorney David Gillam said the state act passed in 2008 wouldn’t set up a caregiver registry if patients could obtain medical marijuana from anywhere. He recommended Royal Oak police refuse the ACLU’s requests.

 

Frizzo said the ACLU was ready to file a lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit Court, but he decided not to go forward with the Detroit affiliate. Frizzo said he will contact other ACLU branches and civil rights attorneys.

 

“The ACLU in New York sued Jet Blue for a man who had to cover his Arabic T-shirt and he was awarded $240,000,” Frizzo said, “but they don’t want to seek anything for someone who has a serious illness and had their medicine taken away. We’re not on the same page.”

 

Frizzo contends any lawsuit against Royal Oak police should seek damages for his personal suffering in addition to settling the question of whether police can seize medical marijuana from registered patients.

 

“This is an important issue,” Frizzo said. “People are not taking marijuana seriously as a medicine. To not seek compensation for medicine taken from a sick person puts out a bad message.”

 

Contact Catherine Kavanaugh at cathy.kavanaugh@dailytribune.com or (586) 783-0216.

 

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/04/10/news/doc4bc0d896ba6a1327831005.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

Mixed feelings about this one! Was looking forward to the ACLU taking this case on!

:) Frizzo said the ACLU was ready to file a lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit Court, but he decided not to go forward with the Detroit affiliate. Frizzo said he will contact other ACLU branches and civil rights attorneys.

so i think he said he will sue just with some one else :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meadow Advanced Member

Meadow

Posted
Posted

he told the police he got it from an unknown source that wasnt a registered caregiver. This is why talking to police about the situation and getting into an open dialogue with the police about this subject matter is a NO-NO! Because he chose to speak out to the LEO, LEO was able to twist his statement into something they could use against him. I wonder what the outcome would had been if Mr.Frizzo would of just kept his mouth shut, showed his card and then let the chips fall how they may. If he wouldnt of told LEO where he got the MM from, what argument would they be currently using to keep his meds under lock and key?

 

See my point....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

he told the police he got it from an unknown source that wasnt a registered caregiver. This is why talking to police about the situation and getting into an open dialogue with the police about this subject matter is a NO-NO! Because he chose to speak out to the LEO, LEO was able to twist his statement into something they could use against him. I wonder what the outcome would had been if Mr.Frizzo would of just kept his mouth shut, showed his card and then let the chips fall how they may. If he wouldnt of told LEO where he got the MM from, what argument would they be currently using to keep his meds under lock and key?

 

See my point....

i hope he sues the pants/ plants off of them if he gets he Meds back then so will we and others

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dutch&Dutchess Advanced Member

dutch&Dutchess

Posted
Posted

stickin to his guns and not rollin over for those who just want to use him legally?? meh not so much

The ACLU is not a civil recovery firm BUT they might be willing to work with one!

If the ACLU can show that the ROPD acted with bad faith or improperly then another attorney can actually sue them for the damages he clearly suffered. but not to the tune of 250k. the case to which he refers is on appeal and the judgment is unlikely to stand

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moss Advanced Member

Moss

Posted
Posted

Reading this has me wondering something.

 

As a patient the law says you can purchase off the black market legally however the person selling is still breaking the law. Which begs the question would the patient then be "aiding and abetting", the crime doesn't exist without the patient making the purchase so the patients cooperation and interest is what causes the crime to take place.

 

Then on top of that a patient could seemingly be charged with obstruction if they don't tell the officer who they obtained it from, assuming they know the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Obvious Advanced Member

Captain Obvious

Posted
Posted

 

Which begs the question would the patient then be "aiding and abetting", the crime doesn't exist without the patient making the purchase so the patients cooperation and interest is what causes the crime to take place.

 

 

The Patient is covered by the Act and is 100% Legal to purchase from any Source.

 

 

 

Then on top of that a patient could seemingly be charged with obstruction if they don't tell the officer who they obtained it from, assuming they know the person.

 

You have the RIGHT to Remain Silent, but most people give up their 5th Amendment Rights.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

Self-incrimination

The fifth amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal conduct punished by fines, penalties or forfeiture.[3]

 

Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[4][5]

 

The legal shift from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th century in England.[6] Anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was taken for guilty[6]. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly used to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case John Lilburne refused to take the oath in 1637. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with 13 demands, third of which was the right against self-incrimination in criminal cases. These protections were brought to America by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights.

 

In terms of Miranda rights, this is often referred to as the "right to remain silent". This amendment is also similar to Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other Commonwealth of Nations countries like Australia and New Zealand, the right to silence of the accused both during questioning and at trial is regarded as an important right inherited from common law, and is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights and in Australia through various federal and state acts and codes governing the criminal justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

Havnt seen ACLU help me get anything back that LEO Stole from me. They stole my meds. Was treated as a common crimial. But then again im white so i dint count

Right Mr ACLU MAN :)

kingpinn you don't need the ACLU you got Matt they the ACLU have sent me E-mails but are Lawyer said we don't need them because well i don't really no i just think he does not want them to have any Glory we we win i i do think we and you will win it's going to be some time :lol::(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...