Probation

[billups]

Hello everyone,

 

This is my first post and I just got certified to use and was wondering how it works when your on probation I have talked to two different layers and they both gave me different answers. I have probation out of 48th district Birmingham court and was wondering if there was anyone on probation there using the medicine or how if they knew how I can go about using it.

 

Thanks much

[______]

Have your lawyer talk to your P.O.

[MiMedicalMJ]

Have your lawyer talk to your P.O.

 

That is the best advice out there!!!

 

If you do not do that in advance and they do test you and you come up dirty its gonna be headaches!

[phaquetoo]

I was on prob in alpena county, when i became legal.(after check cashed 20 days) I sent my paper work to my p.o along with my reporting form, and went and pp'd dirty for thc. she violated me, I went to the hearing presented my case and paper work to the judge, He gave me enough time to get the actual plastic card, or report to jail!

luckily I got the card in time, the paperwork does not prove your legal to a judge,(i know the law says your legal after 20 days) there is no way for the court or leo to see if you got a denial letter, or if you have been approved, so its one of the grey area's, I hope this helped,,you mite want to do a dif aproach than I did! the judge there may not be mm friendly! When I got put on prob I was taking methadone for pain and Xanax and a whole lot of other stuff, and they let me take that., I dont see why they wont let you do mm? but probation has a whole dif set of rules, they realy dont have to let you take your narcotic pain meds, unfortunatly its one of them If you Play you Pay! and I payed!

Peace

[JohnB RPh]

My probation and drug diversion program agreement states I may not use, consume, be around, think about, lust over or dream of illicit substances.

 

OK, maybe I exagerated a tad there.

 

In reading the conditions of my medical marihuana card (obtained after probation received), it specifically states the authorization does not supercede any court order.

 

I'm not taking any chances by poking the bear, that's for sure.

[phaquetoo]

My probation and drug diversion program agreement states I may not use, consume, be around, think about, lust over or dream of illicit substances.

 

OK, maybe I exagerated a tad there.

 

In reading the conditions of my medical marihuana card (obtained after probation received), it specifically states the authorization does not supercede any court order.

 

I'm not taking any chances by poking the bear, that's for sure.

 

It dont hurt to talk to your p.o! see whats up in that city, if you are denied and you only have to test once a month than, plan on spending an extra 38 bucks a month on a clean out formula!

Peace

[peanutbutter]

In reading the conditions of my medical marihuana card (obtained after probation received), it specifically states the authorization does not supercede any court order.

 

Very interesting .. So the MDCH sent you a statement that any judge can ignore the law?

 

The law says:

 

in "ANY prosecution involving marijuana" .. Can a judge choose to ignore that? Not legally. So why would the MDCH tell someone that a judge CAN ignore the law?

 

Is a probation violation a "prosecution involving marijuana?" If the probation violation is for something completely covered by our new law, then yes it is. Say you fail a pee test because of marijuana. The alleged violation is marijuana related.

 

A probation violation case is a situation in which our new law applies. The judge can not legally ignore the law. Now then, that doesn't mean that the judge will completely obey the law. They mis understand the law all of the time. That is why there is the ability to appeal.

 

Anyway .. back to the law.

 

Once the test "any prosecution involving marijuana" has been satisfied, we go on to the next areas.

1. medical condition

2. doctors letter (before the court date .. not needed at the time of the "crime")

3. No stupid stuff .. (you can't roll blunts on a school bus, for instance)

 

If you can make it past those items, our new law says "the case MUST be dismissed."

 

 

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

Must be dismissed.

 

Please note that Vicoden is not protected this way. No other medicine is protected this way.

Only marijuana is protected this way. Marijuana is a special case with it's own law.

[JohnB RPh]

PeanutButter, I should have been more clear. Due to my own hopefully unfounded fear of the governments use of information concerning who is registered as a Medical Marijuana patient, I did not apply for my card until after my run in with the law. Stupid of me, but there it is.

 

I still fear the states nefarious use of the information, to be honest, but after what I've been through I'm just about one step away from being a broken man, both mentally and physically, and just don't give a crap anymore. However, the Medical Marijuana application clearly stated approval does not supercede a courts order.

 

Phaque.....I have to test twice weekly, although hopefully that will be reduced to weekly soon. Makes alot of sense considering how long it tests in your system, huh? Real efficient use of the taxpayers money. Either schedule, however, precludes the use of a "system flush", and that's just not my style anyway. I also wouldn't trust their effectiveness enough to risk the repurcussions of a failed test, to be honest.

 

I did touch briefly on the subject of the card with my probation officer initially, and he actually indicated he thought it might allow my use of marijuana, but wasn't sure. I didn't push the subject any further, and have not informed him I have since received approval. I am positive the judge will not allow it, and as I said I am definitely not going to poke the bear by arguing about it with the judge. Having seen the devastation caused by oral pain relief medication, I refuse to use them. I've resigned myself to gimping along hunched over for nine more months and snapping at people at work.

[peanutbutter]

PeanutButter, I should have been more clear. Due to my own hopefully unfounded fear of the governments use of information concerning who is registered as a Medical Marijuana patient, I did not apply for my card until after my run in with the law. Stupid of me, but there it is.

 

I still fear the states nefarious use of the information, to be honest, but after what I've been through I'm just about one step away from being a broken man, both mentally and physically, and just don't give a crap anymore. However, the Medical Marijuana application clearly stated approval does not supercede a courts order.

 

edit ** I looked it up and it wasn't there on the application. ** end edit

 

OK .. so it's on the application. I'll look it up. If it's there it will be the first time that I've seen a direct statement anywhere that is anything like that. I'm sure that it doesn't exist in the law itself. It is possible that some bureaucrat tacked in something. There was several areas that the folks in the MDCH tried to make themselves more important by beefing up their power. Attempting to upgrade their authority.

 

BTW this is the location where the law itself exists on the State of Michigan web server.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28aeahqo55rnzc3jugpjj13555%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

The phrase "court order" does not exist in the law itself. I did a scan of the entire law and the phrase simply doesn't exist there.

 

This is the location of the rules by the MDCH:

http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?/page/articles/compassionclubs/org/proposed-admin-rules

I did a search for the word "order." There is no place in the rules for the combined words "court order."

 

So "court order" doesn't exist in the law that the voters gave us and it doesn't exist in the rules issued by the MDCH.

 

So now I'll take a look at the application for the phrase.

Here is where the application is stored on the state web server:

http://michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Medical_Marihuana_Packet_3-27-09_272862_7.pdf

Again the phrase "court order" doesn't exist there.

 

Again .. where does it say that a court order superceds this law passed by the voters?

 

At all three locations I looked for the word "order" and then looked at the context of every place the word "order" existed to find the phrase "court order."

 

Most of the places that "order" existed it was talking about money orders.

[phaquetoo]

well personly I would use mm and let them violate me!(and I have) and than bring it to the judge, if your p.o violates you, bring all nesicary paper work with you! A card In hand Is better than the paper work in court! after you recieve your card send a copy to your p.o and medicate!

Peace!

[cwick925]

im on probation in detroit and i just told my p.o. she looked at my paperwork and said ok and stop giving me drug tests but thats just her i doubt they are all going to let you even though they should

[JohnB RPh]

edit ** I looked it up and it wasn't there on the application. ** end edit

 

OK .. so it's on the application. I'll look it up. If it's there it will be the first time that I've seen a direct statement anywhere that is anything like that. I'm sure that it doesn't exist in the law itself. It is possible that some bureaucrat tacked in something. There was several areas that the folks in the MDCH tried to make themselves more important by beefing up their power. Attempting to upgrade their authority.

 

BTW this is the location where the law itself exists on the State of Michigan web server.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28aeahqo55rnzc3jugpjj13555%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

The phrase "court order" does not exist in the law itself. I did a scan of the entire law and the phrase simply doesn't exist there.

 

This is the location of the rules by the MDCH:

http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?/page/articles/compassionclubs/org/proposed-admin-rules

I did a search for the word "order." There is no place in the rules for the combined words "court order."

 

So "court order" doesn't exist in the law that the voters gave us and it doesn't exist in the rules issued by the MDCH.

 

So now I'll take a look at the application for the phrase.

Here is where the application is stored on the state web server:

http://michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Medical_Marihuana_Packet_3-27-09_272862_7.pdf

Again the phrase "court order" doesn't exist there.

 

Again .. where does it say that a court order superceds this law passed by the voters?

 

At all three locations I looked for the word "order" and then looked at the context of every place the word "order" existed to find the phrase "court order."

 

Most of the places that "order" existed it was talking about money orders.

 

Well dangit in looking through my paperwork I cannot find the paper with the statement I referred to. That's what going without does to you, messes up your short term memory, lol. I should also clarify I was paraphrasing what I had read anyway, but that was definitely the jist of it. Although it's not the paperwork I was originally refering to (I know I read it, dangit!), when going through my paperwork, I did find this in a "Frequently Asked Questions" flyer from the State of Michigan, copyright 2010:

 

Question: "Can I use marihuana while on parole/probation if I have an MMMP card?"

 

Answer: "The authorities that are responsible for your probation/parole/post-prison supervision can impose restrictions on your possession and use of medical marihuana as a condition of your supervision, even if you have a valid MMMP card. Most offenders' supervision is subject to an "obey all laws" condition. Since marihuana possession and use is illegal under federal law, supervisory authorities can sanction an offender for possessing marihuana, even if he or she has an MMMP card. Sanctions could result in your arrest and return to jail. If you are on probation....or other other form of conditional supervision for conviction of a crime, you should consult with your parole and probation officer regarding whether your possession or use of marihuana may subject you to sanction for violation of the conditions of your supervision. The MMMP will revoke the card of a cardholder if a court issues an order that prohibits the the cardholder from participating in the medical use of marihauana or otherwise participating in the MMMP."

 

In my view, that raises enough question that I'm not willing to bring it up to either my probation officer or judge. In fact, now that I read the last sentence of that answer more closely, it sounds to me like the court could actually get my card revoked if they wanted to be oppressive about it. I certainly have lost faith in the judicial system to follow a sensical or empathic approach when they could follow the malicious path instead.

[peanutbutter]

Question: "Can I use marihuana while on parole/probation if I have an MMMP card?"

 

Answer: "The authorities that are responsible for your probation/parole/post-prison supervision can impose restrictions on your possession and use of medical marihuana as a condition of your supervision, even if you have a valid MMMP card. Most offenders' supervision is subject to an "obey all laws" condition. Since marihuana possession and use is illegal under federal law, supervisory authorities can sanction an offender for possessing marihuana, even if he or she has an MMMP card. Sanctions could result in your arrest and return to jail. If you are on probation....or other other form of conditional supervision for conviction of a crime, you should consult with your parole and probation officer regarding whether your possession or use of marihuana may subject you to sanction for violation of the conditions of your supervision. The MMMP will revoke the card of a cardholder if a court issues an order that prohibits the the cardholder from participating in the medical use of marihauana or otherwise participating in the MMMP."

 

 

Got it!! In the Q&A at the MDCH .. cool.

 

First off .. you don't need a ID card to legally smoke and grow marijuana in Michigan.

 

Our law is intended to protect patients.

 

So if you have a legit usage for it, you can LEGALLY go out and find a doctors letter AFTER getting busted and they are supposed to let you go!

** edit -> This was in error. The supreme court ruled that the doctors letter is required before the arrest. Thanks CL. end edit **

 

The section of the law that allows that to take place DOES NOT REQUIRE A DEFENDANT TO HAVE A ID CARD FOR THE CASE TO BE DISMISSED. So if they do take it away you are still allowed to have consume and grow marijuana.

Edited December 11, 2012 by peanutbutter

[JohnB RPh]

PeanutButter, while I agree with you on the intent of the law, I fear it only applies in a Utopian world. While I do think since obtaining my card I should be able to now "legally" use marijuana, I think the courts and especially our local dickhead drug prosecutor would see it as an affront to their power, and punish me harshly because of it. While I might be able to eventually win the argument, it would probably require me to hire an attorney and spend an enormous amount in time, mental anguish and monetary value, and I believe this is often the intent of the court system.

 

Although the terms of my diversion program prohibit me from using drugs period (I'm tested for the gamut, from opiates to amphetamines, another example of the efficient use of the taxpayers money), were I to seek a prescription for Vicodin for my medical condition, which physicians practically want to throw at me, I am sure the court wouldn't bat an eye. A double standard? Of course. Nothing about what I have read or experienced with the judicial system has convinced me they are ready to be so enlightened, however, especially if they have the federal law to fall back on.

[peanutbutter]

PeanutButter, while I agree with you on the intent of the law, I fear it only applies in a Utopian world. While I do think since obtaining my card I should be able to now "legally" use marijuana, I think the courts and especially our local dickhead drug prosecutor would see it as an affront to their power, and punish me harshly because of it. While I might be able to eventually win the argument, it would probably require me to hire an attorney and spend an enormous amount in time, mental anguish and monetary value, and I believe this is often the intent of the court system.

 

Although the terms of my diversion program prohibit me from using drugs period (I'm tested for the gamut, from opiates to amphetamines, another example of the efficient use of the taxpayers money), were I to seek a prescription for Vidodin for my medical condition, which physicians practically want to throw at me, I am sure the court wouldn't bat an eye. A double standard? Of course. Nothing about what I have read or experienced with the judicial system has convinced me they are ready to be so enlightened, however, especially if they have the federal law to fall back on.

 

So you believe that the police and courts will ignore the law and voters for a long time yet.

 

I believe they intend to ignore the law as long as possible. In many areas. Not all. And those areas are getting fewer and fewer.

 

It's interesting that you view the system obeying the law as a Utopian idea. I guess you figure you have nothing to lose by agreeing with them.

[JohnB RPh]

So you believe that the police and courts will ignore the law and voters for a long time yet.I believe they intend to ignore the law as long as possible.

 

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your response. Aren't we saying the same thing here? It seems we both agree the system is doing it's best to circumnavigate the will of the people.

 

It's interesting that you view the system obeying the law as a Utopian idea. I guess you figure you have nothing to lose by agreeing with them.

 

What in any of my responses or tone has indicated I agree with them? My intent was certainly to indicate the exact opposite. If I have indicated otherwise, I have poorly expressed myself. Perhaps I should have said "I fear the system obeying the Michigan Medical Marijuana law only applies in a Utopian world"

[Walter Whye]

So I have a card, obtained before a drunk driveing. Went to prison, now on parole. The agent said I can,t use it. So I can,t smoke and there not a thing I can do about it. Is that right, or is there and what do I do?

[t-pain]

ask your judge to change your parole conditions to allow you to use medical marijuana.

 

its the only way to be sure. you might also have luck asking your P.O. , but thats what robert platshorn did and his P.O. went and died on him, his next P.O. didnt give two defecates about his medical need and said hes going back to prison if he didnt stop using.

[CaveatLector]

Our law is intended to protect patients.

 

So if you have a legit usage for it, you can LEGALLY go out and find a doctors letter AFTER getting busted and they are supposed to let you go!

 

So I have a card, obtained before a drunk driveing. Went to prison, now on parole. The agent said I can,t use it. So I can,t smoke and there not a thing I can do about it. Is that right, or is there and what do I do?

Well Walter, where did you drag this thread up from? This is a blast form the past.

 

First off, in the interest of those reading this, it should be pointed out that peanut's advice, quoted above, is completely wrong. The COA ruled on that very issue subsequent to peanut's post and their ruling tells us that you need to have your Dr. letter BEFORE arrest. This is exactly the bad advice that I, and many othesr here, tried for months, if not years, to quell in an effort to keep people safe. Unfortunately it still exists in uncontested form on these forums. Use caution when seeking advice here as bad advice still floats around in current posts.

 

But I digress. As for your problem, let's examine it closely. If you had your card before going to prison then how is it still valid? Generally people only go to prison if they are sentenced to more than one year. If you were sentenced to more than a year I would caution you regarding whether you are still holding a valid card. It may be that you need to reapply.

 

If you do, by chance, have a valid card then file a motion to amend terms of parole and see if the judge will let you use. If the judge won't let you then you better not unless you want to risk a parole violation.

 

Parenthetically, if you did go to prison on a drunk driving then that means you had a felony drunk driving which means at least 3rd offense. I think that it is unlikely that a judge will allow you to use a substance when he already sees that you are at risk for addiction.

Edited December 11, 2012 by CaveatLector

[michaelscott]

The first two responses to op was to talk to his lawyer or have his lawyer talk to the probation officer. Seems like sound advice to me.

 

 

[CaveatLector]

The first two responses to op was to talk to his lawyer or have his lawyer talk to the probation officer. Seems like sound advice to me.

Yes this is about Walter's question and not the OP now. I think he wants advice on what to do. Appears as though he may want to handle it himself.

[michaelscott]

Yeah and you decided to quote pb from the op in 2010 and warn folks of the bad advice offered here. I was merely pointing out the op did receive good advice right from the start.

 

 

[mibrains]

Well Walter, where did you drag this thread up from? This is a blast form the past.

 

 

Google search.. (well actually to be fair.. any search engine) they do not time stamp usually.. they prioritize based on "relative context" first.

i assume...

i know this because when i Google things it always sends me to old pages..

and now..

i have been watching the "people online" at any given time on our site..

a lot actually...

and the trend i see is people in threads from the beginning of this site as well as now pretty much equally...

interestingly enough..

the majority of guests (50-75 at any given time) are usually browsing old threads. ( it surprises me sometimes..)

it seems that the search engines return links to criteria that matched their search guidelines as "best" and not necessarily as most recent.

 

so a person asking a question from a 2 year old thread is to be expected is all..

it happens a lot.. way more than people see because most of the time guests don't bother to post a question. or ask. they just read...

sometimes they ask tho.. let's see if we can't help answer the question..

[peanutbutter]

First off, in the interest of those reading this, it should be pointed out that peanut's advice, quoted above, is completely wrong. The COA ruled on that very issue subsequent to peanut's post and their ruling tells us that you need to have your Dr. letter BEFORE arrest. This is exactly the bad advice that I, and many othesr here, tried for months, if not years, to quell in an effort to keep people safe. Unfortunately it still exists in uncontested form on these forums. Use caution when seeking advice here as bad advice still floats around in current posts.

 

So who did have the 100% accurate crystal ball?

 

About that same time, people were screaming that outdoor grows were illegal.

 

BTW thanks for pointing that out. I edited it to reflect the SC ruling on the topic.

Edited December 11, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

So who did have the 100% accurate crystal ball?

 

About that same time, people were screaming that outdoor grows were illegal.

 

BTW thanks for pointing that out. I edited it to reflect the SC ruling on the topic.

No one has a crystal ball. That's kind of the point. That is why there are people who advocate for a safe approach. Making conclusive statements about the law based on your interpretation is dangerous. This issue regarding the Dr. recommendation is a perfect example of why telling people that p2p is completely legal is a dangerous position to take.

 

Kudos to you for editing.