Judge O’Connell Has Done A Great Disservice For Our State.

[+RevThad]

The ID card is not evidence of a bonafide relationship. To get the card you need a Dr willing to say you qualify. Then you have your card. How does the card indicate the relationship was bonafide? Clearly there can be instances where the Dr is running a recommendation mill to make the $200 a pop. Just because the pts get a card doesn't mean the relationship was bonafide. Time and time again we see stings where docs are busted for submitting false medicare claims. Many times there are patients who go in and get a few dollars for using themselves as the means for a doc to submit a claim. Do those drs and pts have a bonafide relationship just because the doc submitted a claim to medicare saying they have condition x and were treated for it?

 

Obviously there are instances of abuse and that is why the law was written to leave the door open to question the dr/pt relationship. Getting your card means a licensed dr signed a rec for you and you paid your money to the state. It is not proof of a bonafide relationship.

The paperwork submitted to obtain a card surely does prove that it was in the course of a bonafide relationship. A licensed, insured, and bonded doctor must state that in their professional opinion x,y, and z, and further that if such condition ceases they will notify the department... If such certification is accepted by MDCH and they perform whatever checks they do on the status of the doctor's license, it is the state recognizing that the relationship was bonafide, otherwise the state itself is violating the law... no?

 

If the state (read prosecutor) has an issue with certain doctors rubber stamping certifications, there are other avenues to pursue in correcting that issue.

[DenturesLost]

Actually, I think the clause was included for a very essential reason, and it relates directly to what we are discussing. It informs folks that would assume they are immune (for the various reasons discussed the last few days) from such actions that they are included....

You're missing the point. "Nonessential clause" is a grammatical term of art. Nonessential clause doesn't go to the content of the clause, it describes the clause in relation to sentence structure. How about this, since people can't seem to grasp the concept of nonessential clause--let's call it Bob. So now the clause is Bob. That way you won't infer a meaning as to the substantive content of the clause.

 

The point is that based on grammar rules Bob can be removed from the sentence and the sentence still remains a sentence. Bob is not necessary for sentence formation. That, however, is incidental to the main point. The main point is that being Bob makes the clause INCLUSIVE and not EXCLUSIVE in relation to the rest of the sentence (eg: "A person...") according to proper English grammar. What does this mean? It means that to interpret the sentence in PB's fashion is to abandon English grammar in favor of some other made-up way of interpreting the sentence. No different than me arguing to you that in the sentence "The car is red." that red is not referring to the car. I am taking proper grammar rules and tossing them out the window and telling you that I'm coming up with a new way to interpret that sentence.

[+RevThad]

Sorry .. the burden of proof in on the state, not the patient.

 

This law says the claim, by the patient, that this was medical use may be rebutted by evidence. Not by wild claim.

 

No need for the doctor in court yet ..

 

In fact, it looks like the only time the doctor can be brought into court is if the patient wishes to do so.

Actually the law states "that conduct related to marihuana" may be rebutted, not the relationship of a doctor and patient. If the state of Michigan thinks it is okay to drag doctors into court for the purposes of challenging a recommendation made to a patient (or all patients who use mmj), perhaps we should just move the licensing board over to AG or prosecutors office, and lets do away with the MDCH...

[DenturesLost]

Sorry .. the burden of proof in on the state, not the patient.

 

This law says the claim, by the patient, that this was medical use may be rebutted by evidence. Not by wild claim.

 

No need for the doctor in court yet ..

 

In fact, it looks like the only time the doctor can be brought into court is if the patient wishes to do so.

I didn't shift the burden of proof.

[+RevThad]

You're missing the point. "Nonessential clause" is a grammatical term of art. Nonessential clause doesn't go to the content of the clause, it describes the clause in relation to sentence structure. How about this, since people can't seem to grasp the concept of nonessential clause--let's call it Bob. So now the clause is Bob. That way you won't infer a meaning as to the substantive content of the clause.

 

The point is that based on grammar rules Bob can be removed from the sentence and the sentence still remains a sentence. Bob is not necessary for sentence formation. That, however, is incidental to the main point. The main point is that being Bob makes the clause INCLUSIVE and not EXCLUSIVE in relation to the rest of the sentence (eg: "A person...") according to proper English grammar. What does this mean? It means that to interpret the sentence in PB's fashion is to abandon English grammar in favor of some other made-up way of interpreting the sentence. No different than me arguing to you that in the sentence "The car is red." that red is not referring to the car. I am taking proper grammar rules and tossing them out the window and telling you that I'm coming up with a new way to interpret that sentence.

 

I get what you are saying, and we are on the same page of who is included in that subsection... I believe it covers everybody, with the caveat I have already noted. My point is that certain employees of various municipalities may have assumed they weren't covered by that subsection, if not put in word for word. Indeed, the phrase is not necessary, but it does highlight and help describe some of the persons that are covered by the opening clause.

 

This is very much the same as stating that "among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was nonessential. I think we all understand how often that clause has been relied upon for various rulings...

[DenturesLost]

I get what you are saying, and we are on the same page of who is included in that subsection... I believe it covers everybody, with the caveat I have already noted. My point is that certain employees of various municipalities may have assumed they weren't covered by that subsection, if not put in word for word. Indeed, the phrase is not necessary, but it does highlight and help describe some of the persons that are covered by the opening clause.

 

This is very much the same as stating that "among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was nonessential. I think we all understand how often that clause has been relied upon for various rulings...

Well this is a first. I think this is the one time in the course of this thread that I can say I totally agree.

I agree that Bob was put in there to make things clear to certain people (eg: employees). I am not saying that Bob has no purpose all I was saying is that Bob also has a grammatical purpose and reading the sentence from a grammatical standpoint negates PB's claim that Bob is the exclusive coverage meant by "A person."

 

My analogy to fruit, above, is an example that basically says the same thing you are saying regarding life, liberty...

[peanutbutter]

OK .. for the sake of argument, I'll agree that I'm a bumbling fool, as far as English goes.

 

Either way, a judge or PA would be included.

 

So then. A defendant hands a judge their signed letter of recommendation. The judge sees that it is part of an application to the MDCH.

 

Can the judge then hand the document to the PA? or place it in public record? I think not .. let's see what others say.

 

As I tried to point out from the very first, the judge ignored confidentiality issues when he tried to cause an endless line of doctors to be drug through the court system.

 

The court "world" he envisions includes ignoring confidentiality, fifth amendment, a burden of proof and a presumption built into the law.

[+RevThad]

OK .. for the sake of argument, I'll agree that I'm a bumbling fool, as far as English goes.

 

Either way, a judge or PA would be included.

 

So then. A defendant hands a judge their signed letter of recommendation. The judge sees that it is part of an application to the MDCH.

 

Can the judge then hand the document to the PA? or place it in public record? I think not .. let's see what others say.

 

As I tried to point out from the very first, the judge ignored confidentiality issues when he tried to cause an endless line of doctors to be drug through the court system.

 

The court "world" he envisions includes ignoring confidentiality and the fifth amendment.

If there is a bumbling fool around here it would be me...

 

The same argument that some folks are making around here would also allow police to simply ignore the registration card and arrest based on complying with federal law, and then keeping or destroying anything that was seized during that arrest, essentially ignoring the state law completely because they favor the federal prohibition.

 

I may not be the most schooled or eloquent person around these parts, but that to me in itself is a very dangerous and slippery slope to begin down.

[peanutbutter]

If there is a bumbling fool around here it would be me...

 

The same argument that some folks are making around here would also allow police to simply ignore the registration card and arrest based on complying with federal law, and then keeping or destroying anything that was seized during that arrest, essentially ignoring the state law completely because they favor the federal prohibition.

 

I may not be the most schooled or eloquent person around these parts, but that to me in itself is a very dangerous and slippery slope to begin down.

 

This is an important enough issue that the writers attached criminal penalties for violation.

 

Yet judge O'Connell ignored it.

[+RevThad]

This is an important enough issue for the writers to attach criminal penalties to violation.

 

Yet judge O'Connell ignored it.

I agree.

 

I would even go so far as stating that the only folks that would have an interest in disclosing the confidential information in violation of the act would be those on the LEO or PA side and those "civil" servants that are pro prohibition.

 

Good thing that his opinion is not binding, or we would all be back to pre 2008 standards...

 

 

Edited to add your edit and respond

Edited October 26, 2010 by RevThad

[peanutbutter]

Edited to add your edit and respond

 

yep .. had to fix my grandma

[DenturesLost]

If there is a bumbling fool around here it would be me...

 

The same argument that some folks are making around here would also allow police to simply ignore the registration card and arrest based on complying with federal law, and then keeping or destroying anything that was seized during that arrest, essentially ignoring the state law completely because they favor the federal prohibition.

 

I may not be the most schooled or eloquent person around these parts, but that to me in itself is a very dangerous and slippery slope to begin down.

Arresting is enforcing not complying. There is a difference between active enforcement and passive comliance. How do you not see that?

[Highlander]

Sorry .. the burden of proof in on the state, not the patient.

 

This law says the claim, by the patient, that this was medical use may be rebutted by evidence. Not by wild claim.

 

No need for the doctor in court yet ..

 

In fact, it looks like the only time the doctor can be brought into court is if the patient wishes to do so.

 

Take this example.

 

A Dr. gets the reputation that if you show up to his house and slip your DL and $500 under the door along with an essay about why medical marijuana is good for you, he will sign your application and slide it back under the door. In the Dr's opinion, he has conducted a thorough evaluation and has established a bona fide relationship with said patient.

 

This goes on for awhile.

 

Eventually, the Dr. gets raided after he certifies several LEOs. The Dr.'s records become evidence. LEO pours through the records and finds two patients whose records state,

 

"I get my feelings hurt every time I ask a girl for a date and she says 'No.' I have tried this every week for 5 years. This condition is chronic. Marijuana makes me feel better about it, and my feelings don't hurt anymore. Marijuana alleviates my chronic pain."

 

and

 

"When I haven’t been shopping for two days or so, I spazzz out. I’m 28, and this has been going on for 12 years. I have a chronic spastic condition. Marijuana relieves this.”

 

The patients committed no fraud. They truthfully explained to a Dr. how marijuana helps them. They feel they are legal and rightful cardholders.

 

Under the theory that the Dr./patient relationship cannot be challenged if compelling evidence is sufficient to indict a person, these two “patients” get to keep their cards until the cards expire. In fact, if the Dr. goes to prison over the matter but still has a license, he can continue to opine that marijuana will help these patients, and they can get their cards renewed.

I realize that this is an extreme example, but because the act is worded the way it is, like it or not, the validity of the Dr.-patient relationship can and will be challenged in court. If it weren’t, then a defendant could present a witness that the prosecution could not cross-examine. This makes no sense.

 

The drafters of the Act had two choices:

1. In order for a patient to qualify for MMJ, a Dr. must have a bonafide relationship with a patient and must conduct a thorough evaluation before recommending marijuana.

Vs.

2. . In order for a patient to qualify for MMJ, a Dr. must sign a recommendation for the patient and that recommendation must state: I have a bonafide relationship with this patient and conducted a thorough evaluation before recommending marijuana.

 

Because our law is as outlined in #1, the validity of the Dr.-patient can be challenged. The Act doesn’t say that the relationship is bonafide because it exists or otherwise define what constitutes - or who can identify a bonafide relationship. This is why the bonafidity (new word coined) of the relationship will be fair game.

[DenturesLost]

OK .. for the sake of argument, I'll agree that I'm a bumbling fool, as far as English goes.

 

Either way, a judge or PA would be included.

 

So then. A defendant hands a judge their signed letter of recommendation. The judge sees that it is part of an application to the MDCH.

 

Can the judge then hand the document to the PA? or place it in public record? I think not .. let's see what others say.

 

As I tried to point out from the very first, the judge ignored confidentiality issues when he tried to cause an endless line of doctors to be drug through the court system.

 

The court "world" he envisions includes ignoring confidentiality, fifth amendment, a burden of proof and a presumption built into the law.

Are you versed in court procedure? A defendant wouldn't hand a letter to a judge. That isn't how it works. If an atty wants something entered into evidence the atty first must let the opposing side inspect it (usually providing a copy for them to keep). Then the atty questions a witness to establish a foundation to enter the item into evidence. Then the opposing atty can voir dire the exhibit. Then the atty will move the item be admitted into evidence. During this whole time a judge doesn't see the exhibit. If it is a jury trial the judge may NEVER see the exhibit. There is no reason for a judge to handle the evidence when s/he is not the trier of fact. Many (if not most) times an atty won't even publish the info to the jury and it is just entered into evidence for ease of handling and reference during trial.

 

With that quick description of procedure your argument is that the judge disclosed something? The judge probably never saw the exhibit himself. Furthermore, when evidence is only testimonial in nature the only person disclosing is the questioned witness. If info from an application is presented it is highly likely that the defendant himself disclosed that.

 

Much to the opposite of your, and most people's, impression a judge is not in control of everything in a courtroom. It's the attys' courtroom during trial. The judge is there to be a living edition of Robert's Rules of Order (well kind of, Robert's rules aren't used but it's an analogy). Someone to make sure things move along smoothly and someone to rule on disputes such as objections.

 

Generally speaking a judge does NOT have an affirmative duty to rule on anything. For example if one atty is presenting tons of hearsay testimony and the other atty doesn't object the judge is not obligated to tell the atty that hearsay is inadmissible. In a way one could say a judge doesn't have standing to bring up collateral issues. That's not the proper way to put it, but for ease of explanation that is a good way to look at it. Is hearsay admissible? No, it is directly contrary to what is admissible under the court rules. But that doesn't mean a judge will interfere. It isn't his job. He has discretion but not a duty. Similarly, if evidence is presented that someone out there has a privacy interest in it is not the judge's duty to decide if there is a possible person with a privacy interest. That is an issue for a party with standing to assert. An attorney could present evidence that is literally top secret and the judge still does not have a duty to make it non-public absent some motion from an interested party.

 

Lastly, a judge has judicial immunity for things that happen during judicial proceedings. Which makes sense. No person, judge, atty, or otherwise, is fully informed as to all laws in the state of Michigan. There is no possible way to expect a judge to know all of the laws. If we had judges constantly worried that they would be subject to lawsuits or criminal proceedings because of rulings then our system would shut down.

 

But judicial immunity is not relevant anyway because it is not the judge disclosing the info.

[bobandtorey]

This is an important enough issue that the writers attached criminal penalties for violation.

 

Yet judge O'Connell ignored it.

 

 

am sure the judge said it's OK they are just POT heads they don't care

[peanutbutter]

Are you versed in court procedure? A defendant wouldn't hand a letter to a judge.

 

A good reason to ask questions.

 

Generally speaking a judge does NOT have an affirmative duty to rule on anything.

 

I believe there are, at least, two orders issued by the voters to the judge in this law.

 

One would be in section 8 "The case shall be dismissed." This is an order to the court. Not to any attorney or defendant.

 

Another would be in section 4 "shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution." An order to the court to keep hands off.

 

There is no possible way to expect a judge to know all of the laws.

 

This has got to be the most revolting statement you've made.

 

If we had judges constantly worried that they would be subject to lawsuits or criminal proceedings because of rulings then our system would shut down.

 

Is that supposed to be a problem?

 

But judicial immunity is not relevant anyway because it is not the judge disclosing the info.

 

You didn't answer my question. Instead you detailed why the question would never need to be asked.

 

Side bar stuff happens all the time. "Off the record" happens all the time. The defense attorney doesn't have to ask for the document to be entered into record.

 

I don't know normal procedure in a courtroom. But I've been watching a few cases lately.

 

Someone would ask for a sidebar. Then the defense attorney would pull out a document.

 

So, based on what you are saying, the defense attorney would hand the document to the PA.

 

So far the information isn't in a public record.

 

So the defense attorney might have violated the confidentiality law. Defensible as the rep of the patient.

 

The PA has not, yet, because the PA has not handed the information to anyone else, yet. Then the PA hands the document to the judge.

 

I think that is the procedure you outline.

 

At this point it is not in the record. It is not public information.

 

Does the PA have the lawful ability to hand the document to the judge?

[DenturesLost]

A good reason to ask questions.

 

 

 

I believe there are, at least, two orders issued by the voters to the judge in this law.

 

One would be in section 8 "The case shall be dismissed." This is an order to the court. Not to any attorney or defendant.

 

Another would be in section 4 "shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution." An order to the court to keep hands off.

 

 

 

This has got to be the most revolting statement you've made.

 

 

 

Is that supposed to be a problem?

 

 

 

You didn't answer my question. Instead you detailed why the question would never need to be asked.

 

Side bar stuff happens all the time. "Off the record" happens all the time. The defense attorney doesn't have to ask for the document to be entered into record.

 

I don't know normal procedure in a courtroom. But I've been watching a few cases lately.

 

Someone would ask for a sidebar. Then the defense attorney would pull out a document.

 

So, based on what you are saying, the defense attorney would hand the document to the PA.

 

So far the information isn't in a public record.

 

So the defense attorney might have violated the confidentiality law. Defensible as the rep of the patient.

 

The PA has not, yet, because the PA has not handed the information to anyone else, yet. Then the PA hands the document to the judge.

 

I think that is the procedure you outline.

 

At this point it is not in the record. It is not public information.

 

Does the PA have the lawful ability to hand the document to the judge?

Why would the PA hand the document to the judge when it isn't in evidence? That is NOT a procedure I outlined. A judge doesn't review something before it is admitted. A judge doesn't necessarily review it even AFTER its admitted.

 

As far as your quote of the language in the statute, "shall be dismissed," That doesn't create an affirmative duty on the court. In other words a court doesn't initiate a dismissal. The MOTION for dismissal has to be MADE by a party. That's how the process works.

 

You've further illustrated your ignorance of the system with your comment calling it "revolting" that a judge doesn't know every law in Michigan. Do you know how many volumes of laws there are? It isn't a judge's job to know every law. We have what is known as an adversarial system. It is the parties' (attorneys) job to know the law and present it to the judge. The attorneys, in theory, specialize in certain areas of law so have a general grasp of a certain area of law. The attorneys RESEARCH the law and argue their position in briefs and oral arguments. The judge reviews and interprets the law, often after having a clerk do some research as well. Do you know what a motion brief is? Do you know why it is written? If a judge knew all of the law there would be no need for briefs. You have what amounts to either a schoolboy's, or a very naive shut-in's, knowledge of the system and you call my comment revolting? Really, get a grip. I was probably protesting US intervention in Viet Nam before you were even in diapers.

 

Spoon-feeding you everything from grammar rules to legal procedure has really been a waste of time. It's like telling a child don't eat too much candy or they will get sick. They don't listen and in the end, when they see that they do get sick, it doesn't change future behavior.

 

It astounds me that

[peanutbutter]

What I found revolting is the idea that the defendant is held to a higher standard than the judge himself.

 

The judge isn't expected to know the law, but the defendant can go to jail if they didn't.

 

And you still evade the question.

[peanutbutter]

A judge would indeed be held responsible if their actions were criminal.

 

They would then become the defendant.

[peanutbutter]

What you have been trying to say is that a patient has protection until they try to prove they have protection.

 

How perverted.

 

Confidentiality exists until proof of confidentiality is submitted to the court. Then, because the defendant tried to prove their protection, they are stripped of their protection because they divulged the information themselves.

[DenturesLost]

What you have been trying to say is that a patient has protection until they try to prove they have protection.

 

How perverted.

 

Confidentiality exists until proof of confidentiality is submitted to the court. Then, because the defendant tried to prove their protection, they are stripped of their protection because they divulged the information themselves.

How am I saying that? You don't have to reveal confidential info to prove it is confidential. You make a motion to make certain info nonpublic. You explain in your brief or at oral argument what the info generally is, without revealing the content. You argue why it should be kept confidential. The judge hears both sides and decides whether that type of info (pt info or whatever) should be kept confidential based on whatever authority (law). How is the info revealed before the motion is heard? You aren't making any sense. You don't make a motion to keep, "my Dr., John X's name" confidential---you make a motion to keep "my Dr's name" confidential. Similarly you don't motion that my "condition of herpes flare ups" be kept confidential you motion that "my medical condition" be kept confidential. Knock, knock, helllllllo, is anyone in there?

[DenturesLost]

A judge would indeed be held responsible if their actions were criminal.

 

They would then become the defendant.

The criminality of a judge's actions is only relevant if you understand immunities put into place and the standard by which the judge is expected to conduct himself. Judge's rulings are often discretionary and based on fleeting information and fact scenarios. A judge can sustain or overrule an objection and he may actually get the ruling wrong. Why? Because law isn't as tidy, easy, and nicely packed and ribboned like you apparently think. That's why we have APPEALS COURTS! So that when judges get it wrong it can be examined in an environment that allows for thorough investigation as to whether a ruling went in the right direction. Every single day judge's make rulings based on law and/or procedure. What percentage of those rulings do you think follow the law? Rulings are based on a judge's interpretation of law. Oftentimes their interpretation is different than that of a different judge's interpretation. To say that a judge does something illegal because they make a ruling that maybe doesn't follow with the law is disingenuous at best. The very nature of a judge's job is such that many times a ruling WILL be wrong. So, yeah, let's prosecute judge's. That'll fix 'em.

 

There is a reason for judicial immunity and this is part of that reason. Because anytime a ruling is overturned in a higher court then, in theory, the lower court judge was WRONG! Hello!

 

Furthermore, and for the last time, a judge isn't in breach of a duty for allowing information on the record. Confidentiality can be waived by the person to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed. Your claim that confidentiality is owed to ANYONE other than the pt is flat out wrong. Bottom line. Wrong. And think about this....if you weren't wrong then a patient cannot waive confidentiality and show an application to a cop after the 20 day wait but before his plastic card arrives,. Why? Because they would be breaching some strange interest in confidentiality owed to, as you claim, the state, the dr., the cg, and themselves. Your analysis of this whole situation is wrong. Accept it. On top of that, the plastic card itself would need to be kept in a secret envelope in your closet because, afterall, it contains info submitted with the app. So if you open your mail and find your card be sure not to read it lest you violate your own confidentiality and end up in prison.

[+RevThad]

How am I saying that? You don't have to reveal confidential info to prove it is confidential. You make a motion to make certain info nonpublic. You explain in your brief or at oral argument what the info generally is, without revealing the content. You argue why it should be kept confidential. The judge hears both sides and decides whether that type of info (pt info or whatever) should be kept confidential based on whatever authority (law). How is the info revealed before the motion is heard? You aren't making any sense. You don't make a motion to keep, "my Dr., John X's name" confidential---you make a motion to keep "my Dr's name" confidential. Similarly you don't motion that my "condition of herpes flare ups" be kept confidential you motion that "my medical condition" be kept confidential. Knock, knock, helllllllo, is anyone in there?

Please stick to the discussion of points and topics, there is no need for the extra curricular jabbing.

 

I am interested again though in your position on whether a PA would have an obligation to turn over a list of patients and or caregivers to the feds, if they would be allowed to do so, if such an obligation would be considered a violation of state law, and what the consequences would be in either scenario. Thanks in advance for your time in responding.

[peanutbutter]

How am I saying that? You don't have to reveal confidential info to prove it is confidential. You make a motion to make certain info nonpublic. You explain in your brief or at oral argument what the info generally is, without revealing the content. You argue why it should be kept confidential. The judge hears both sides and decides whether that type of info (pt info or whatever) should be kept confidential based on whatever authority (law). How is the info revealed before the motion is heard? You aren't making any sense. You don't make a motion to keep, "my Dr., John X's name" confidential---you make a motion to keep "my Dr's name" confidential. Similarly you don't motion that my "condition of herpes flare ups" be kept confidential you motion that "my medical condition" be kept confidential. Knock, knock, helllllllo, is anyone in there?

 

A very constructive post. Thank you.

 

I believe this method is being attempted right now.

 

In the case where a defendant only has his complete paperwork that is more than 20 days old. The law says the paperwork is the ID card until the plastic arrives. One major difference is that the paperwork names the doctor while the ID card does not.

 

When the documents are presented as evidence, have they not become public information? ie already disclosed to the public record?

 

The PA would get a copy. Would the PA have the confidentiality burden on themselves? Does there exist a gap between the time the documents are placed on record and the ruling of the judge? Is there a material difference in PA responsibilities between those times?

 

If the motion is denied, then the documents are part of public record. Correct?

 

BTW this represents two different systems of applications of mmj rights.

 

preemptive when considering employees of the MDCH.

or

requiring action to activate within the court system. The burden placed on the patient to activate by their own action.

[DenturesLost]

Please stick to the discussion of points and topics, there is no need for the extra curricular jabbing.

 

I am interested again though in your position on whether a PA would have an obligation to turn over a list of patients and or caregivers to the feds, if they would be allowed to do so, if such an obligation would be considered a violation of state law, and what the consequences would be in either scenario. Thanks in advance for your time in responding.

Is there a fed law that says a state prosecutor (or anyone for that matter) must turn over a list of people for some reason? No. So the answer is no. Turning over a list would be actively ENFORCING federal law as opposed to passively complying with fed law. A state prosecutor is not charged with the enforcement of fed law, in general. Although, in some instances special AUSA status is given to a prosecutor. Most often in gun crime cases in order to charge with a fed. gun violation.

 

Also, consider that the "list" is just that, a LIST. Not a list of law breakers. Being a mmj pt is not a violation of fed law. As I indicated above, being on that list does not create probable cause that you use or possess mj. It creates probable cause that you applied for a card. Hardly the same thing as using mj. So there is a strong case to be made that the pros is neither enforcing nor complying.

 

So, obligation? No.

Allowed or obligated to turn over a list? No. It violates confidentiality.

Consequences for violating confidentiality? Maybe criminal under the MMA. However, I am not entirely convinced of that as of yet as I have to examine the issue further. Probably civil suit raminifications for violating confidentiality if the act were not seen as an act in the course of or in the furtherance of prosecutorial duties such that pros. immunities applied.