People V Provost

[Hibbyhibby]

Nothing is confidential that is made an issue/brought into court by someone who has the right to waive confidentiality. When the defendant filed his brief, it became part of the official record. It is also public record. You, me, Joe down the street has the right to see those documents. Here, the patient/caregiver had the absolute right to defend himself the way he chooses. In doing so, he chose to assert a defense that is based upon and dependent upon the concurrence and testimony (likely via affidavit) of the patients (qualifying or otherwise at the time of arrest)for whom he was acting as caregiver. I expect his attorney obtained some kind of waiver or consent from his patients to use their information in a public filing. Most likely they did so willingly to help out the person who has helped them out, if the facts are as the defendant presents. As such, it was the defendant, most likely with the full consent and knowledge of his patients, that first revealed the information. It's out there. It can't be taken back. Once it's part of the public record, it is no longer anything that is close to confidential. In fact, it's now the opposite.

 

Oh, I forgot to add. As far as the physician's rights under this, the privilege is held by the patient...always. If the patients gave the defendant the right to use their names and status as patients, presumably they also okayed the release of the name of their doctor.

[+RevThad]

I guess I missed that part. I will go back and read it once over again. If you remember the wording, I would appreciate the help, other wise I am sure I can find it. It is unusual for an appeals court to address an issue that is not at hand in a case. Since it was not a question in Bob's case, I am surprised they covered it. Unless you are referring to the concurring opinion?

Sorry I misspoke the 20 day thing was a ruling from one of the district courts, I have been reading so many documents, that I confused a statement between a couple of opinions. Again, I apologize for any confusion.

[peanutbutter]

Nothing is confidential that is made an issue/brought into court by someone who has the right to waive confidentiality. When the defendant filed his brief, it became part of the official record. It is also public record. You, me, Joe down the street has the right to see those documents. Here, the patient/caregiver had the absolute right to defend himself the way he chooses. In doing so, he chose to assert a defense that is based upon and dependent upon the concurrence and testimony (likely via affidavit) of the patients (qualifying or otherwise at the time of arrest)for whom he was acting as caregiver. I expect his attorney obtained some kind of waiver or consent from his patients to use their information in a public filing. Most likely they did so willingly to help out the person who has helped them out, if the facts are as the defendant presents. As such, it was the defendant, most likely with the full consent and knowledge of his patients, that first revealed the information. It's out there. It can't be taken back. Once it's part of the public record, it is no longer anything that is close to confidential. In fact, it's now the opposite.

 

So then, in a case where the defendant has not disclosed the name of the doctor. Has not signed such a release.

 

Could the judge command the identity be disclosed?

[peanutbutter]

Nothing is confidential that is made an issue/brought into court by someone who has the right to waive confidentiality. When the defendant filed his brief, it became part of the official record. It is also public record. You, me, Joe down the street has the right to see those documents. Here, the patient/caregiver had the absolute right to defend himself the way he chooses. In doing so, he chose to assert a defense that is based upon and dependent upon the concurrence and testimony (likely via affidavit) of the patients (qualifying or otherwise at the time of arrest)for whom he was acting as caregiver. I expect his attorney obtained some kind of waiver or consent from his patients to use their information in a public filing. Most likely they did so willingly to help out the person who has helped them out, if the facts are as the defendant presents. As such, it was the defendant, most likely with the full consent and knowledge of his patients, that first revealed the information. It's out there. It can't be taken back. Once it's part of the public record, it is no longer anything that is close to confidential. In fact, it's now the opposite.

 

I find it odd that a person can give permission to another to commit a crime.

 

Court records are sealed all the time. Further disclosure can be prevented. It was the option of OConnell to use the doctors name or not. Again his action violated the spirit if not the law.

 

This law clearly was not intended to bring half of the doctors in the state into court.

 

Chain of ownership could be brought into question.

 

In the Oakland county cases. Records were at the dispensaries. Were they disclosed at that time? Not a public record.

 

I would guess that the claim would be made that they were disclosed already so not protected.

 

So then .. officer #1 takes the records. #1 hands them to #2. #2 passes them off to the assistant PA. APA makes copies for five people in the office. PA hands them to the judge.

 

Several people have passed the information to someone else.

 

No permission by the patient.

 

Have their been crimes committed? Did section 6 (h) (4) get violated?

 

Would a crime have taken place if the records were found on the side of the road?

 

What about an officer that takes a patient ID card and copies the caregiver information off the back of the card?

[thanks2]

Sorry I misspoke the 20 day thing was a ruling from one of the district courts, I have been reading so many documents, that I confused a statement between a couple of opinions. Again, I apologize for any confusion.

 

It happens. Thanks for the following up Rev, I appreciate it.

[DenturesLost]

I find it odd that a person can give permission to another to commit a crime.

 

Court records are sealed all the time. Further disclosure can be prevented. It was the option of OConnell to use the doctors name or not. Again his action violated the spirit if not the law.

 

This law clearly was not intended to bring half of the doctors in the state into court.

 

Chain of ownership could be brought into question.

 

In the Oakland county cases. Records were at the dispensaries. Were they disclosed at that time? Not a public record.

 

I would guess that the claim would be made that they were disclosed already so not protected.

 

So then .. officer #1 takes the records. #1 hands them to #2. #2 passes them off to the assistant PA. APA makes copies for five people in the office. PA hands them to the judge.

 

Several people have passed the information to someone else.

 

No permission by the patient.

 

Have their been crimes committed? Did section 6 (h) (4) get violated?

 

Would a crime have taken place if the records were found on the side of the road?

 

What about an officer that takes a patient ID card and copies the caregiver information off the back of the card?

 

The fact is that once the defendant's attorney disclosed all of he confidential information then the cat was let out of the bag. It isnt the court's job to review all documents filed by parties and decide if info is confidential. The moment it is filed by the parties it is public information. Could the court seal parts of the filing? Yes but the court won't do that on its own motion it would take a reuest from one of the parties. It's sort of like saying the judge is liable if confidential info is disclosed during testimony. The second the testimony is made it is public info which is the same as filing things with the court. The second it is filed it is a public record. That is when the cat is let out of the bag. Once the cat is let out it is no longer confidential. To say that the court should be liable for repeating something in pleadings or a motion brief is absurd. The information is part of the court record at that point and is public. If the info should have been kept confidential then the defendant's attorney should have first filed a motion to keep the names confidential BEFORE filing his brief that revealed them.

[peanutbutter]

The fact is that once the defendant's attorney disclosed all of he confidential information then the cat was let out of the bag. It isnt the court's job to review all documents filed by parties and decide if info is confidential. The moment it is filed by the parties it is public information. Could the court seal parts of the filing? Yes but the court won't do that on its own motion it would take a reuest from one of the parties. It's sort of like saying the judge is liable if confidential info is disclosed during testimony. The second the testimony is made it is public info which is the same as filing things with the court. The second it is filed it is a public record. That is when the cat is let out of the bag. Once the cat is let out it is no longer confidential. To say that the court should be liable for repeating something in pleadings or a motion brief is absurd. The information is part of the court record at that point and is public. If the info should have been kept confidential then the defendant's attorney should have first filed a motion to keep the names confidential BEFORE filing his brief that revealed them.

 

So there may be a benefit if those arrested in Oakland county were to avoid a section 8 motion.

 

It is possible that such a motion filed could absolve all of the officers involved.

 

Thanks

[Hibbyhibby]

"I would guess that the claim would be made that they were disclosed already so not protected."

 

That's exactly the point. Once made part of the public record, the information is no longer confidential.

 

Now as far as filing documents under seal, there has to be a pretty compelling reason to keep the public from accessing such records. It may appear to you that it happens all of the time, but the percentage of cases where this actually occurs is probably in the neighborhood of .001% of all the cases filed (one out of a thousand...and that's being very generous). Can it be done, probably, under the right circumstances. However, it would be incumbent upon the defendant (at least in cases such as these) to move to court for permission to file under seal. I've seen no evidence of that.

 

Also, look at it this way. Mr. VanDussen posted the opinion and the competing briefs. Has he broken the law because of the information is contained thereon? Clearly no, as the information is public record. Once waived in a court, through testimony at a hearing or document filed, it's available for all and there is nothing to keep confidential.

[peanutbutter]

I'm asking these things because I've had you examine this section of our law. You have considered and respond to it. I am very interested in what you see here.

 

This law clearly was not intended to bring half of the doctors in the state into court.

 

Chain of possession could be brought into question. When considering confidentiality.

 

In the Oakland county cases. Records were at the dispensaries. Were they disclosed at that time? Not a public record.

 

I would guess that the claim would be made that they were disclosed already so not protected.

 

So then .. officer #1 takes the records. #1 hands them to #2. #2 passes them off to the assistant PA. APA makes copies for five people in the office. PA hands them to the judge.

 

Several people have passed the information to someone else.

 

No permission by the patient.

 

Have their been crimes committed? Did section 6 (h) (4) get violated?

 

Would a crime have taken place if the records were found on the side of the road?

 

What about an officer that takes a patient ID card and copies the caregiver information off the back of the card? Did the patient remove the confidentiality aspect of their own records by presenting the ID card to the officer?

 

[peanutbutter]

"I would guess that the claim would be made that they were disclosed already so not protected."

 

That's exactly the point. Once made part of the public record, the information is no longer confidential.

 

What I was asking about is when a patient discloses the information to someone that does not work for the government. Does that remove criminal penalties from everyone else that may come into the information in the future?

 

Now as far as filing documents under seal, there has to be a pretty compelling reason to keep the public from accessing such records. It may appear to you that it happens all of the time, but the percentage of cases where this actually occurs is probably in the neighborhood of .001% of all the cases filed (one out of a thousand...and that's being very generous). Can it be done, probably, under the right circumstances. However, it would be incumbent upon the defendant (at least in cases such as these) to move to court for permission to file under seal. I've seen no evidence of that.

 

"I've seen no evidence of that." Not yet. I think that protecting the information in the MDCH files is a compelling reason.

[Hibbyhibby]

PB, as always you bring interesting points to the discussion. I will address your post some time later today. I actually have to pay attention to the day job today, as I'm going to be in court for the next couple of days at least.

 

One of the things you keep hitting on is the intent of the law. That is one of the problems with a law that comes from the citizens, such as this. While "we all know" what was intended by the law does not necessarily equate to what the language of the law itself says. Furthermore, as this was a citizen initiative (note: legislative laws are titled something along the lines of "Sec. XX of the Public Acts of 2008" wherein the MMMJA is "Initiated Law 1 of 2008") there is no Legislative history. The Legislative history is something we can point to when arguing the intent of the law. It involves the arguments made by those in support and those against whatever the pending legislation is in front of the legislators. In a public initiative, there is no "legislative history" to turn to. As such, the strict interpretation of the words of the statute prevail. For instance, the first prong of the affirmative defense test is that a Doctor "has said" that a patient will receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana as a medicine. The courts are apparently relying on this to say that the AD doesn't apply unless a doctor has already said there will be the benefits to the medicine. However, had the law read "a doctor of physician will say" would support the argument that it doesn't matter when the doctor made the recommendation, pre or post arrest, just that they will say it in court.

 

In other words, nothing is as clear as we'd all like it. If I were an opponent to the law, there is a lot in there that I could play with linguistically. I guess the only thing about this law that I see as absolutely clear is that it needs some tweaking to actually fulfill what we believe the intent of the law was/is. The way I look at it, this law is the doorway to show that the people support it, but in order to go through we have to ensure we are saying EXACTLY what we want it to say. These loopholes can and should be closed. The question is, is the legislature going to step up and do what they're supposed to in representing the will of the people, or are we going to have to wrestle it back through another rather expensive and time consuming initiative? I fear it will be the latter, though hold out hope the legislature will do what's right. Forgive me, I'm the eternal optimist...especially when the will of the people is so clear.

[Hibbyhibby]

The fact is that once the defendant's attorney disclosed all of he confidential information then the cat was let out of the bag. It isnt the court's job to review all documents filed by parties and decide if info is confidential. The moment it is filed by the parties it is public information. Could the court seal parts of the filing? Yes but the court won't do that on its own motion it would take a reuest from one of the parties. It's sort of like saying the judge is liable if confidential info is disclosed during testimony. The second the testimony is made it is public info which is the same as filing things with the court. The second it is filed it is a public record. That is when the cat is let out of the bag. Once the cat is let out it is no longer confidential. To say that the court should be liable for repeating something in pleadings or a motion brief is absurd. The information is part of the court record at that point and is public. If the info should have been kept confidential then the defendant's attorney should have first filed a motion to keep the names confidential BEFORE filing his brief that revealed them.

 

 

Amen, brother. I'm assuming you have your P number.

[peanutbutter]

PB, as always you bring interesting points to the discussion. I will address your post some time later today. I actually have to pay attention to the day job today, as I'm going to be in court for the next couple of days at least.

 

Thank you. I know sometimes I can be a pest. I think to little attention has been paid toward the crime that can be committed by government officials. This is a new crime. People are just getting familiar with the overall law. This area of the law most are unaware of.

 

Have we overlooked civil vs criminal law?

 

For instance it wouldn't be Redden vs OConnell but rather the people vs OConnell.

 

One of the things you keep hitting on is the intent of the law. That is one of the problems with a law that comes from the citizens, such as this. While "we all know" what was intended by the law does not necessarily equate to what the language of the law itself says. Furthermore, as this was a citizen initiative (note: legislative laws are titled something along the lines of "Sec. XX of the Public Acts of 2008" wherein the MMMJA is "Initiated Law 1 of 2008") there is no Legislative history. The Legislative history is something we can point to when arguing the intent of the law. It involves the arguments made by those in support and those against whatever the pending legislation is in front of the legislators. In a public initiative, there is no "legislative history" to turn to. As such, the strict interpretation of the words of the statute prevail. For instance, the first prong of the affirmative defense test is that a Doctor "has said" that a patient will receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana as a medicine. The courts are apparently relying on this to say that the AD doesn't apply unless a doctor has already said there will be the benefits to the medicine. However, had the law read "a doctor of physician will say" would support the argument that it doesn't matter when the doctor made the recommendation, pre or post arrest, just that they will say it in court.

 

Yeah .. I agree that the attempt to argue intent is weak.

 

The only record, of intent, is the direct questions asked of the voters. That is recorded.

 

"the case shall be dismissed" is an order to the courts. A defendant can not dismiss their own case. I believe the ID card provides evidence that a doctor did indeed "say" these things.

 

In other words, nothing is as clear as we'd all like it. If I were an opponent to the law, there is a lot in there that I could play with linguistically. I guess the only thing about this law that I see as absolutely clear is that it needs some tweaking to actually fulfill what we believe the intent of the law was/is.

 

Tweaking will do nothing at all, if the government refuses to obey. There have been violations of this section of the law that are supposed to result in arrests of government officials. If they won't arrest the offenders, then such action as tweaking the law will do nothing except make more ways that we can be arrested.

 

The way I look at it, this law is the doorway to show that the people support it, but in order to go through we have to ensure we are saying EXACTLY what we want it to say. These loopholes can and should be closed. The question is, is the legislature going to step up and do what they're supposed to in representing the will of the people, or are we going to have to wrestle it back through another rather expensive and time consuming initiative? I fear it will be the latter, though hold out hope the legislature will do what's right. Forgive me, I'm the eternal optimist...especially when the will of the people is so clear.

 

The government needs to obey the law we have while we have the law.

[Hibbyhibby]

Thank you. I know sometimes I can be a pest. I think to little attention has been paid toward the crime that can be committed by government officials. This is a new crime. People are just getting familiar with the overall law. This area of the law most are unaware of.

 

Have we overlooked civil vs criminal law?

 

For instance it wouldn't be Redden vs OConnell but rather the people vs OConnell.

 

 

 

Yeah .. I agree that the attempt to argue intent is weak.

 

The only record, of intent, is the direct questions asked of the voters. That is recorded.

 

"the case shall be dismissed" is an order to the courts. A defendant can not dismiss their own case. I believe the ID card provides evidence that a doctor did indeed "say" these things.

 

 

 

Tweaking will do nothing at all, if the government refuses to obey. There have been violations of this section of the law that are supposed to result in arrests of government officials. If they won't arrest the offenders, then such action as tweaking the law will do nothing except make more ways that we can be arrested.

 

 

 

The government needs to obey the law we have while we have the law.

 

 

The problem with your final point is that they are, in fact, applying the law as written. They are strictly interpreting the law and clearly making the burden needing to be met quite high. The problem is that the law permits such multiple interpretation, as noted in my "has said/will say" example. When I say the law needs tweaked, it is to foreclose the possibility that such multiple interpretations by clearly and specifically saying what is and is not permitted. It would be stupid of us to quit trying to improve the law when it's been shown to be defective in a lot of ways (unfortunately).

 

In other words, my research into this issue has convinced me that the courts and prosecutors are by and large applying the law as written correctly, regardless of what we all hoped it would be. Rather than bury our heads in the sand and keep trying to say that the law means this or the law means that, we should probably do something to ensure that it says exactly what it is supposed to. This is certainly something I would be willing to put my energies toward. I'll see what I can do about re-writing the law so as to remove the uncertainty as an academic exercise. Maybe then we can debate it and see what, if anything, can or should be done. It will take me some time, and there are some people I want to speak with, but we'll see what I can come up with.

 

Any other members of the bar out there willing to work with me on this? If so, please don't hesitate to contact me and we'll put our heads together.

[peanutbutter]

The problem with your final point is that they are, in fact, applying the law as written. They are strictly interpreting the law and clearly making the burden needing to be met quite high. The problem is that the law permits such multiple interpretation, as noted in my "has said/will say" example. When I say the law needs tweaked, it is to foreclose the possibility that such multiple interpretations by clearly and specifically saying what is and is not permitted. It would be stupid of us to quit trying to improve the law when it's been shown to be defective in a lot of ways (unfortunately).

 

In other words, my research into this issue has convinced me that the courts and prosecutors are by and large applying the law as written correctly, regardless of what we all hoped it would be. Rather than bury our heads in the sand and keep trying to say that the law means this or the law means that, we should probably do something to ensure that it says exactly what it is supposed to. This is certainly something I would be willing to put my energies toward. I'll see what I can do about re-writing the law so as to remove the uncertainty as an academic exercise. Maybe then we can debate it and see what, if anything, can or should be done. It will take me some time, and there are some people I want to speak with, but we'll see what I can come up with.

 

Any other members of the bar out there willing to work with me on this? If so, please don't hesitate to contact me and we'll put our heads together.

 

What you say has clear merit. If you assume the government will obey legal orders.

[GregS]

I read recently that local departments must be trained via some kind of classroom instruction to use the LEIN system and that each of those departments sign on to use it. Some have. Some have not.

 

It is notable that all of the cases but one that are cited by the prosecution are district court rulings, which have no real standing as precedent, although they can be used to advise an issue.

 

Judges frequently decide issues of law wrongly. For instance, the Americans with Disabilities act was signed by Geo. H.W. Bush in 1990. The courts consistently ruled too narrowly regarding the rights of the injured, (e.g.) Toyota v Williams and Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc. In 1988 the federal legislature, with support from every corner, to include injured worker groups and the Chambers of Commerce (it does not get much stranger than that), unanimously amended the act to ensure that the language that was written into the law be properly used to offer a fair chance at justice for injured or diseased plaintiffs by requiring the courts to more broadly consider what makes someone disabled, and diminshed the ability of these judges and wealthy defendants to interject confusion and wrong headed arguments, and language was added to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission texts regarding enforcement of the law spelling it out more clearly for them. Many people tried to use the act to keep their jobs, but were denied. Judges ruled out arguments prior to trial and gave jury instructions that cornered those juries where they had to decide in favor of the defendant employers, who had refused reasonable accommodation to disabled individuals. Even Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas, and some of the other right wing players did their part in twisting the law.

 

That is how the game is played. For eight years judges with ideological agendas perverted the law, which was pretty plainly written. Those idiot judges are out there and everywhere, to include here. The issues might be different, but the moves are the same.

 

It looks like this case will have to be appealed. Higher courts are typically populated with more intelligent judges who respect the law, but there are still enough cretin judges to be found there. More of them have intentionalist attitudes toward the law, and rule more consistently within the purpose, and less than with the closely defined text, of the law. The intention of the law can be argued to the jury and can be effective.

 

Where the law is concerned, District Courts are pre-k sandboxes for Judges. Inasmuch as they have cocky attitudes and behave like playground bullies, they are bush league but don't seem to get it. Even if they are found to have judged wrongly there is little to no real form of punishment, except possibly in the most extreme cases.

[Hibbyhibby]

Not disagreeing with you, Greg. However, regardless of the fact that there is still legitimate arguments to be made and higher courts to be appealed to the fact of the matter is the law appears flawed in a lot of ways.

[Southern Cross]

Not disagreeing with you, Greg. However, regardless of the fact that there is still legitimate arguments to be made and higher courts to be appealed to the fact of the matter is the law appears flawed in a lot of ways.

You said a mouthful there! Even the parts that are clear are confusing.

[bobandtorey]

I think the PA here in Oakland County said it best 5 people 12 pants thats it

[Michael Komorn]

Gersh,

i agree that a dr should not have to testify, and that the card or even a letter by the dr would be enough to establish prong one of section 8. I have often told other lawyers to object, as least initially to the request for the Dr. to testify. I believe the certification should be enough. I also have been told that the limited testimony of Dr. Eisenbud, was intended for this very reason. I love the policy argument to support this that you stated, suggesting wasted resources. Unfortunately, i think that things will probably go the other way in most jurisdictions and the dr will be required to show the bonafide relationship, i disagree with this, but am concerned that this may be the trend. At greentrees we have been having the patients fill out forms every quarter reflecting on how there cannabis use has effected there condition. Thus unlike Eisenbud testimoy, if ever called to testify, our Dr's can state that they have been monitoring their condition after certification.

Thanks for the orders, i am going to print and review them. Hoping for a big show wednesday. How is Penut Butter?

[peanutbutter]

Goin' crazy .. nothing new.

 

I see this set of teeth in our new law. You see them also.

 

I asked hibyhiby above about can a judge order a disclosure. More important can a judge be charged under 6 (h) (4) by issuing the order?

 

He conceded that the judge is an employee of the government. Didn't explore in that direction any further. The unasked question would be does this section include a judge.

 

hh claims that confidentiality can be waived by the patient. I'm thinking that I can wave any future obligation you might have to myself. But I can't wave your obligation to the people.

 

For instance I could ask you to assist me to commit suicide. I can wave obligation you have toward myself. The state still has it's criminal charges for you no matter what I signed.

 

The law defines exactly what is confidential. Anything that you or I would say would not change that written law.

 

I can sign a document that would make it so I could never sue you. But that doesn't fulfill the requirements to the People of the State of Michigan.

 

This is a crime against the people of Michigan. Not against myself.

[Hibbyhibby]

Goin' crazy .. nothing new.

 

I see this set of teeth in our new law. You see them also.

 

I asked hibyhiby above about can a judge order a disclosure. More important can a judge be charged under 6 (h) (4) by issuing the order?

 

He conceded that the judge is an employee of the government. Didn't explore in that direction any further. The unasked question would be does this section include a judge.

 

hh claims that confidentiality can be waived by the patient. I'm thinking that I can wave any future obligation you might have to myself. But I can't wave your obligation to the people.

 

For instance I could ask you to assist me to commit suicide. I can wave obligation you have toward myself. The state still has it's criminal charges for you no matter what I signed.

 

The law defines exactly what is confidential. Anything that you or I would say would not change that written law.

 

I can sign a document that would make it so I could never sue you. But that doesn't fulfill the requirements to the People of the State of Michigan.

 

This is a crime against the people of Michigan. Not against myself.

 

 

I didn't "concede" that a judge is a governmental employee, I acknowledged it. Also, the information is already public due the acts of the defendant. This may not be the preference, but it is the law.

 

As far as whom the crime is committed against, and even though every crime is technically a violation against the People of the State of Michigan, that doesn't change the fact that there has to be a complaining witness. The cops certainly aren't going to do it, and if the patient did it he'd be laughed out the of room because they were the ones that first made it public. If we want the law to be as is indicated and argued, then we need to change the law to say that. Unfortunately, the current statute leaves too much open to interpretation.

[peanutbutter]

I didn't "concede" that a judge is a governmental employee, I acknowledged it. Also, the information is already public due the acts of the defendant. This may not be the preference, but it is the law.

 

As far as whom the crime is committed against, and even though every crime is technically a violation against the People of the State of Michigan, that doesn't change the fact that there has to be a complaining witness. The cops certainly aren't going to do it, and if the patient did it he'd be laughed out the of room because they were the ones that first made it public. If we want the law to be as is indicated and argued, then we need to change the law to say that. Unfortunately, the current statute leaves too much open to interpretation.

 

Sorry .. as you probably realize I don't have one of those P numbers.

 

I concede that "acknowledged" would probably have been a better word.

 

"complaining witness" .. interesting .. not an injured party? Just a witness to the crime? I think that is what an officer does. They are a witness to a crime. Not an injured party.

[Hibbyhibby]

Sorry .. as you probably realize I don't have one of those P numbers.

 

I concede that "acknowledged" would probably have been a better word.

 

"complaining witness" .. interesting .. not an injured party? Just a witness to the crime? I think that is what an officer does. They are a witness to a crime. Not an injured party.

 

 

An injured party is usually the primary complaining witness. They are the ones that have to call the cops, say something is wrong, tell what is wrong, and then the police begin an investigation as is appropriate (or sometimes in my opinion, not appropriate). The complaining witness/injured party is the party that gets the ball rolling.

 

BTW, signed up a couple of clients this morning that will be asserting the affirmative defense in Roscommon County. Will give more info as appropriate.

[peanutbutter]

An injured party is usually the primary complaining witness. They are the ones that have to call the cops, say something is wrong, tell what is wrong, and then the police begin an investigation as is appropriate (or sometimes in my opinion, not appropriate). The complaining witness/injured party is the party that gets the ball rolling.

 

Ummm .. I believe that isn't what takes place in a traffic stop. The officer smells something and goes after a search.

 

I guess the officer is then the complaining witness. But not an injured party.

 

 

BTW, signed up a couple of clients this morning that will be asserting the affirmative defense in Roscommon County. Will give more info as appropriate.

 

Thank you .. please protect the identity of the doctor and caregiver as long as you can.