Auburn Hills Court Case

[anon333]

I'm sorry, but I just have to vent here. How can someone be so ignorant or blatant as this? Bad representation of the medical movement. Not sure where the court case goes, but I'm not sure who's side I'll be on.

 

 

AUBURN HILLS, Mich. -- Medical marijuana may soon be at the heart of a precarious case in Oakland County.The case stems from the confiscation of 12 marijuana plants from the backyard of a home on Caroline Street in Auburn Hills.

 

On Tuesday, the police department went to the home on Caroline Street after receiving several complaints of marijuana plants growing in the backyard.

Without knowing whether or not the resident had a medical marijuana card, police confiscated the 12 plants growing in the yard.

 

Officers then contacted the person living at the home and discovered the resident had a valid Michigan Department of Community Health Medical Marijuana Patient ID Card.According to the Michigan Department of Community Heath Administration rules 333.127 section 1B, a qualifying patient can keep 12 marijuana plants in an enclosed locked facility.

 

“Closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.”

 

Police said the plants at the home on Caroline Street were growing in a backyard that was fenced in one third of the way around. Police said the plants were also confiscated because they were less than 1,000 feet from an elementary school.

 

The case will be presented to the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office.

 

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/25024328/detail.html

[jsburn]

no reason for them to take something that does not belong to them! if they were not satisfied with the plants location,then he should have been afforded an opportunity to make it right. this man or woman deservers to be compensated for their months of work without relief. leo stop taking things that do not belong to you! STOP!

[pic book]

A patient card is a license to comply with the conditions for legal use and grow--this guy did not comply so he loses his plants. Fenced 1/3 of the way around? Does not comply with "must be enclosed." Next case.

[jsburn]

you are very wrong. that view is very anti mm. you go 5mph over the speed limit so they take your car? NO!

[Hempcheff]

perhaps the plants could have been moved, but isnt the school zone still come into play?

[jsburn]

so if a patient lives near a school zone. they should be forced to move? and some folks have learned not to believe what the police say. THEY LIE! for all we know it may have been fenced in anyway. we are only getting 1 side of the story.

[Hempcheff]

so if a patient lives near a school zone. they should be forced to move? and some folks have learned not to believe what the police say. THEY LIE! for all we know it may have been fenced in anyway. we are only getting 1 side of the story.

 

not forced to move there extremeing extremer! this is another example of why a caregiver was written into the law.

[jsburn]

yeah the lieutenant for auburn hills spoke of this case yesterday. he said he showed up and it was chain link on 3 sides with a fence wall as the 4th. he didnt know it was a mm patients, so they took everything. inserted his foot into his mouth and decided to let the court figure it out. the pics in the story are after they destroyed the facility.

[Ionic7]

They were not following the growing procedures, if they really cared they would have covered all of their bases not just 1/3 of them.

[Hempcheff]

i think i saw this on another thread too, http://www.dailytrib...a8637513206.txt but here

 

i wonder why the detective made this comment:

 

“A detective made a comment that if I had it in a greenhouse, I would’ve been all right,” he said. “A greenhouse, you can see right through it. I don’t see how it’s any better than what I did. I don’t have room to really do it indoors. I get so much more when I do it outdoors, it’s ridiculous. Probably tenfold, if not more than that.”

 

is there criteria that they use internally for "an enclosed locked facility..." ? If so, would that be public information?

 

Could this turn into a test case for "an enclosed locked facility..."?