Cops Used Fake Patient Ids To Buy Medical Pot;

[freemannabis]

Yes thank you Freemannabis

 

Thank You, Bob & Torey!

 

I am truly humbled when someone, such as yourselves, who have long (far too long!) been fighting for our TRUE FREEDOMS out on "the front lines," takes time to thank someone merely seeking to "support our troops" from the sidelines as much as we are able.

 

I wholeheartedly believe in "The Laws of Reciprocity;" Also known as KARMA.

 

May we all found and share the FREEDOM and COMPASSION we're all looking to establish for everyone.

 

Peace & Blessings to You & Yours.

 

FREE The CURE!

[bobandtorey]

http://www.freep.com...ate=fullarticle

 

By BILL LAITNER

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

 

Oakland County Sheriff's deputies used phony Michigan medical-marijuana cards -- created on a county computer -- to trick state-approved medical marijuana providers into selling the drug to the cops, according to documents obtained by the Free Press from defense attorneys.

 

Days after the drug buys, county narcotics agents raided two medical-marijuana dispensaries Aug. 25 in Ferndale and Waterford.

 

"These officers were denied entrance on several occasions because of improper paperwork, but when they appeared with these cards, I had no way to check," said Brian Vaughan, a doorman at the now closed Everybody's Café dispensary in Waterford, who is charged with multiple drug violations.

 

"You've got law enforcement spending time and money to entrap users of medical marijuana," Southfield attorney Michael Komorn said Tuesday.

 

But law-enforcement officials said Tuesday the phony patient ID cards were a legitimate way to get evidence.

 

"Regardless of whether the cards were real or not, the pure and simple fact is, dispensaries are not legal in Michigan," Oakland County Undersheriff Mike McCabe said.

 

Whether the fake cards constitute entrapment and whether dispensaries are legal will be decided by judges in cases expected to land in state appeals courts, as both sides predict that the raids could lead to landmark decisions that interpret the murky Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

 

Raids could settle state pot law

Oakland County authorities said that when their undercover officers used forged medical-marijuana identification cards -- near duplicates of those issued to more than 41,000 Michiganders -- it was a perfectly legitimate way to bust those selling medical marijuana who abused the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

 

But defense attorneys for more than two dozen medical-marijuana patients arrested in the Aug. 25 raids of medical-marijuana establishments in Ferndale and Waterford are crying foul, saying their clients were trapped into lawbreaking while trying to stay within the state law.

 

Both sides say the cases -- stemming from raids of Everybody's Café, a social club for patients in Waterford, and of the Clinical Relief storefront dispensary in Ferndale -- are sure to land in state appeals courts and likely to decide whether dispensaries, commercial outlets for selling the drug to patients, are legal in Michigan.

 

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper said Tuesday that using the fake ID cards "wasn't entrapment (because) entrapment is a legal defense that applies only in cases where someone is lured into committing an illegal act.

 

"They weren't lured, but instead were "so far outside the act (it's) absurd," Cooper said.

 

She cited evidence of "hand-to-hand buys of copious amounts of drugs."

 

And a state-approved caregiver, which many of the establishments' employees claim to be, can provide medical marijuana only to his or her five registered patients, "regardless of whether the cards were real or not," Oakland County Undersheriff Mike McCabe said.

 

"Obviously, none of these officers (with the Oakland County Narcotics Enforcement Team) were their patients," McCabe said Wednesday.

 

But officials with the Michigan Department of Community Health, the agency charged by the state Legislature with implementing the state law allowing medical marijuana, said many parts of the law are unclear to their department's attorneys.

 

"There's nothing in the act that addresses the change process if a patient wants to add a caregiver or remove a caregiver," and whether dispensaries are illegal "is nothing that we have any opinion on," Celeste Clarkson, manager of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Registry Program, said Tuesday.

 

Prosecutor Cooper and McCabe's boss, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, have said they're on a crusade -- supported by County Executive L. Brooks Patterson -- to show that medical marijuana dispensaries and related establishments are illegal in Michigan.

 

"They're using people like us as victims in this and they're destroying our businesses and our lives," William Teichman, 50, of Waterford said.

 

Teichman, a Chrysler engineer; his wife, Candi Teichman, and more than two dozen other Oakland County residents have been charged with multiple counts of illegal drug delivery, based on the alleged sales of medical marijuana to undercover officers at establishments including the Teichmans' former restaurant, Everybody's Café. The restaurant, now shuttered, used to close each day at 4 p.m. and operate as a compassion club for medical marijuana users, their attorney Jeffrey Perlman of Southfield said.

 

"Bill and Candi were giving people a place to use their medical marijuana, mostly by eating it, not smoking it, so they wouldn't have to do it at home in front of children or out on the streets," Perlman said.

 

"Nobody was allowed in without a document from the state showing they were a certified patient. And so, everyone in the café was legal except these officers" who used phony state ID cards, Perlman said Tuesday.

 

The case constitutes entrapment because "the people in the café who were caregivers would never have sold to someone who was illegal," Perlman said.

 

The cases could take years to be settled by the state's highest courts, or be resolved far more quickly by a Republican landslide in November if Lansing lawmakers subsequently repealed the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, which was passed in 2008.

 

Every time a marijuana patient or care giver comes up against the drug Nazis they don’t always lose.

For example the San Luis Obispo county Mounties, instead of going to court to fight a civil rights lawsuit brought by Richard Steeenken will cough up 25 large for the 43 marijuana plants they killed. The plants were seized in a botched raid of the medical marijuana patient’s home.

Up the Left Coast in San Francisco Cody Phillips was handed back his seven pounds of marijuana, in good condition, his grow lights, records and cash. The cops dropped the cultivation charge for sale charges they had slapped against him.

How far the cops will go to take out medical marijuana patients is amazing. It has been learned that police obtained entrance and medical marijuana from two dispensaries in Ferndale and Waterford with medical marijuana patient cards that they have forged on department computers. After posing as patients and purchasing medical marijuana they returned with guns drawn, ski masks and profanity to bust the dispensaries and the cancer patients that were on scene.

Spokesman for the Oakland County Sheriff’s office, the agency that made the busts, claim that forging and using state documents are a legitimate way for law enforcement to fight the scourge of medical marijuana that is invading Michigan. Both the county prosecutor and sheriff have called for a crusade to rid the community of medical marijuana

http://newspirates.com/?p=10018

 

this story is making news all over the U.S.A

[dmac]

Friends, as I interpret the MM law it seems fairly obvious to me that caregivers can only dispense to their patients. It appears to me the authorities are correct to enforce violations of the law. Good grief folks. We have a great thing going here with the new law. Why in the world would we want to jeopardize our ability to obtain our meds legally? I'm soon to be 51 yrs old and prior to 2009 thought this ability was still years and years away. Now it's here and we have a bunch of people still wanting to push past the limit of the law and do their own thing. Play by the rules as they are and if folks want to see the law expanded to include dispensaries, then work to get them legalized too. But by all means let's not give fuel to the anti-marihuana-law people by blinding stepping on our own parts.

[peanutbutter]

Friends, as I interpret the MM law it seems fairly obvious to me that caregivers can only dispense to their patients. It appears to me the authorities are correct to enforce violations of the law. Good grief folks. We have a great thing going here with the new law. Why in the world would we want to jeopardize our ability to obtain our meds legally? I'm soon to be 51 yrs old and prior to 2009 thought this ability was still years and years away. Now it's here and we have a bunch of people still wanting to push past the limit of the law and do their own thing. Play by the rules as they are and if folks want to see the law expanded to include dispensaries, then work to get them legalized too. But by all means let's not give fuel to the anti-marihuana-law people by blinding stepping on our own parts.

 

We worked over the idea of patient to patient transfers for months.

 

We probably had over twenty threads started up on the topic.

 

Any patient can acquire their medicine anywhere they wish to. That side of the transaction is nearly without question.

The seller in the transaction has less people that agree that side is legal on this site.

 

The issue has not been settled in court. It is likely that the courts will find they are legal for both sides of the transaction. But still undecided.

 

It is possible that the courts would find that a caregiver can sell to no more than his five registered patients. Yet if the caregiver is also a patient, they then would be protected by patient to patient transfers. So the court could find an action to be legal, not because the seller was a caregiver, but because the seller was a patient also.

 

In addition, there is no limits placed on the number of patients the unregistered caregiver can service. That would be section 8 of the law.

[AlgonacMac]

Friends, as I interpret the MM law it seems fairly obvious to me that caregivers can only dispense to their patients. It appears to me the authorities are correct to enforce violations of the law. Good grief folks. We have a great thing going here with the new law. Why in the world would we want to jeopardize our ability to obtain our meds legally? I'm soon to be 51 yrs old and prior to 2009 thought this ability was still years and years away. Now it's here and we have a bunch of people still wanting to push past the limit of the law and do their own thing. Play by the rules as they are and if folks want to see the law expanded to include dispensaries, then work to get them legalized too. But by all means let's not give fuel to the anti-marihuana-law people by blinding stepping on our own parts.

 

 

We worked over the idea of patient to patient transfers for months.

 

We probably had over twenty threads started up on the topic.

 

Any patient can acquire their medicine anywhere they wish to. That side of the transaction is nearly without question.

The seller in the transaction has less people that agree that side is legal on this site.

 

The issue has not been settled in court. It is likely that the courts will find they are legal for both sides of the transaction. But still undecided.

 

It is possible that the courts would find that a caregiver can sell to no more than his five registered patients. Yet if the caregiver is also a patient, they then would be protected by patient to patient transfers. So the court could find an action to be legal, not because the seller was a caregiver, but because the seller was a patient also.

 

In addition, there is no limits placed on the number of patients the unregistered caregiver can service. That would be section 8 of the law.

 

 

I don't think 20 threads had any efect on what the law now states, wich is if your a patient you get your meds from your caregiver. I did not see anywhere in the law that states you can get your meds from ANY caregiver. There are grey areas in this law but I don't see that being one of them. Don't get me wrong, I know theres folks that are testing this law and I am very greatfull to them. But my care giver cards say right on the back side who that patient is and if it ain't you , your not getting your meds from me !! I've been reading around the forums and theres talk of getting a top notch law firm to rep these hi profile cases and i think before you start a co-op we should donate to a fund for a law firm. that way when this S--t does go down the finacial burdon won't lie solely on the folks testing the grey areas. that is as long as it's not as the cops say and they were purchaseing LBS over the counter. I wouldn't want my donation being used for cases where folks are trying to cash in on a good thing and screwing it up for the caregivers and patients trying to stay within law.

[TomcatJones]

I don't think 20 threads had any efect on what the law now states, wich is if your a patient you get your meds from your caregiver. I did not see anywhere in the law that states you can get your meds from ANY caregiver. There are grey areas in this law but I don't see that being one of them. Don't get me wrong, I know theres folks that are testing this law and I am very greatfull to them. But my care giver cards say right on the back side who that patient is and if it ain't you , your not getting your meds from me !! I've been reading around the forums and theres talk of getting a top notch law firm to rep these hi profile cases and i think before you start a co-op we should donate to a fund for a law firm. that way when this S--t does go down the finacial burdon won't lie solely on the folks testing the grey areas. that is as long as it's not as the cops say and they were purchaseing LBS over the counter. I wouldn't want my donation being used for cases where folks are trying to cash in on a good thing and screwing it up for the caregivers and patients trying to stay within law.

 

 

not to yell.. but..

 

AS A PATIENT YOU CAN AQUIRE MEDS FROM ANY SOURCE. -it doesn't not say explicitly from "caregivers only" nor does it say, "only from your caregivier"

 

a patient can even buy meds from other patients and the black market. the restrictions most are confused about are the one's in place on caregiviers who are not patients also.

[DenturesLost]

not to yell.. but..

 

AS A PATIENT YOU CAN AQUIRE MEDS FROM ANY SOURCE. -it doesn't not say explicitly from "caregivers only" nor does it say, "only from your caregivier"

 

a patient can even buy meds from other patients and the black market. the restrictions most are confused about are the one's in place on caregiviers who are not patients also.

I think you are missing what AlgonacMac is saying. He isn't claiming that pts cannot get meds from anyone, rather, he is claiming that caregivers cannot GIVE meds to just anyone.

 

Here is what WILL happen in these cases:

Defendants charged. Some, who are also patients, will argue pt to pt transfer and maybe get off. Others, who can only argue cg to pt transfer, will have the real hill to climb. The question will become whether cg to pt transfers are legal (meaning transfer between the two, whom are not connected through registry). That is far from clear under the law.

 

The issue of whether there was entrapment is not relevant if unregistered cg to pt transfers are found to be illegal to begin with. In other words, if unreg. cg to pt transfers are illegal then entrapment won't be a defense because the cg is claiming that the only reason he engaged in the transfer is because he thought the pt was legit BUT if the transfer was illegal anyway, then whether the pt is legit is not relevant. So the question of the day is whether the transaction would have been legal if the officers were really pts. If it would have been legal then the fact that the officers used fake id cards would give the defendant a defense of entrapment against a charge of selling to a non-patient because the defendant would argue that he was lured into selling to a nonpatient. The prosecutor's argument will be that, even if the officer WERE a pt, the transaction is illegal. That will be one for the courts to decide and with a now-conservative supreme court I'm afraid it will be a hard sell in the end.

 

The fake cards are really a non-issue. There are likely two issues here: 1. whether pt to pt transfers are legal and, 2. whether unreg. cg to pt transfers are legal.

 

 

Oakland county is trying to see where the law stands in regard to these transfers and dispensaries and that is clear from the line in the article, below:

"Prosecutor Cooper and McCabe's boss, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, have said they're on a crusade -- supported by County Executive L. Brooks Patterson -- to show that medical marijuana dispensaries and related establishments are illegal in Michigan"

[Bon Scott]

Can one of the legal professionals on this site explain to me how Oakland County Law enforcement can manufacture a phony state of Mich ID when it is a felony to do so ? A detective for O.C admitted to doing so in court Friday

[peanutbutter]

The prosecution tried to convince everyone that they never took any patient records also.

 

The only patient ID there seems to be some sort of track record of was a Colorado ID card.

 

CYA mode .. They are afraid of something about patient records.

[The Digital Nomad]

The fake id is a part of the testing of the MMMAct.

LEO wants to prove that since 'we' can't verify ID, there is no trusted system to verify ANY ID.

 

LEO also did this as a test to see if dispensaries - in their haste to ring up your sale - will accept ANY ID - without a reasonable verification process. If the ID has an age of 120 years old, a req written for "hiccups", and its the only MDCH ID card you ever seen with a photo on it - its a test to see if you are careless or intentionally overlooking flaws in IDs. I remember buying alcohol with bogus ID, some clerks would play the game of pretending to inspect my ID, and ring up my illegal sale. Some party stores run by ignorant owners, should not have been selling booze - as they had no clue what a valid ID looked like.

 

This is an old trick - they still do this for alcohol sales testing - including making up fake IDs on computers for minors to pose as adults, as kids do these days.

LEO probably assumes that fake IDs, since they are used to buy alcohol illegally, fake IDs could also be used to buy marijuana in the same manner by kids or uncool peoples.

 

And all this talk about arresting the undercover who had permission by his boss - its called 'qualified immunity' - government workers cannot be held liable for civil or criminal actions while they are operating reasonably under the law. The undercover officer did not fake a doctor's req and obtain a REAL MDCH card - that would have been 'unreasonable' under the law BTW. That would be like obtaining a REAL driver's license for a minor to buy alcohol by submitting fake paperwork to the DMV office posing the minor as someone else.

 

-DN

[bobandtorey]

i know when the judge said know one is to release the names i was thinking my name is on the patient records.

[thanks2]

In reality we do not know. We can speculate, but that is it at this point. They may use case law from fake ID alcohol stings, but the courts might not think it is a good comparison. They could compare it to using fake prescriptions to get pain killers or fake patients trying to get doctors to prescribe pain meds. All have been done in the past by police. This case will give us some idea, but will not be binding until it is settled at the CAO.

[peanutbutter]

And all this talk about arresting the undercover who had permission by his boss - its called 'qualified immunity' - government workers cannot be held liable for civil or criminal actions while they are operating reasonably under the law. The undercover officer did not fake a doctor's req and obtain a REAL MDCH card - that would have been 'unreasonable' under the law BTW. That would be like obtaining a REAL driver's license for a minor to buy alcohol by submitting fake paperwork to the DMV office posing the minor as someone else.

 

-DN

 

And the SOS issued a fake drivers license to support the use of the fake mmj ID.

[The Digital Nomad]

In reality we do not know. We can speculate, but that is it at this point. They may use case law from fake ID alcohol stings, but the courts might not think it is a good comparison. They could compare it to using fake prescriptions to get pain killers or fake patients trying to get doctors to prescribe pain meds. All have been done in the past by police. This case will give us some idea, but will not be binding until it is settled at the CAO.

 

How did they stop or control fake ID in buying prescriptions? Lots of rules and laws. I was pissed as all hell - when I had a recent flu - I could not buy REAL sudafed - behind the counter cold meds - with an EXPIRED driver's license. I tried to explain that the driver's license number, name, and photo ID would be the same on the new ID, no cold meds!

 

They check your ID (at least before the first purchase of narcotics), they call the doctor's, and now the DEA has a computerized system to track prescriptions realtime.

 

So - the government thinks they need to put medical marijuana under the same system - the locked down system of pharmacies and pharmacy rules and laws. This is where the Fake ID test leads.

 

-DN

[The Digital Nomad]

And the SOS issued a fake drivers license to support the use of the fake mmj ID.

 

they did not say that - the ID was made up on computer. LEO might be able to assume IDENTITIES, as their vehicle plates for undercover are also masked, but hiding your name is not considered unreasonable. The driver's license will not help someone get a medical req or buy MM itself.

 

-DN

[peanutbutter]

they did not say that - the ID was made up on computer. LEO might be able to assume IDENTITIES, as their vehicle plates for undercover are also masked, but hiding your name is not considered unreasonable. The driver's license will not help someone get a medical req or buy MM itself.

 

-DN

 

I was there and heard the whole thing.

 

They faked the mmj ID card on their own computers. But the supporting drivers license was made by the Secretary of State.

 

The procedure is to present the mmj ID card along with a drivers license. You don't even get in the door at most Michigan dispensaries without a picture ID in addition to the ID card.

 

They tried to avoid the issue by having pictures on their fake ID cards. That didn't work. So they had the state make fake drivers licenses to make it complete. They did so entirely to be able to make a marijuana purchase.

 

Without the fake DL none of this would have been able to take place.

[The Digital Nomad]

I was there and heard the whole thing.

 

They faked the mmj ID card on their own computers. But the supporting drivers license was made by the Secretary of State.

 

The procedure is to present the mmj ID card along with a drivers license.

 

and it is legal for undercover to hide their real names - the fake driver's license was not the key component to obtain the MM, the faked MDCH card was. Undercover LEO use fake DMV driver's licenses all the time. The test was not if the driver's license was legit, but the MDCH card.

 

The point is not to waste time debating issues that are pointless and meaningless to the MMMP movement- fake MDCH cards is important, but debating undercover LEO policies is not. Undercover can lie, present bogus ID, and even commit misdemeanors - thats already known.

 

 

The point is - How do we verify IDs outselves? If the 'dispensary' was able to call the MDCH to confirm the card's status - that would have been the best option - in legal sense, and reasonable sense. We need a means to verify the card status ourselves - this would expose not just criminals abusing the MMMP, but undercover LEO trying to pose as a patient or CG.

 

That is what we need to accomplish, not expect to change how undercover LEO have been operating all these years.

 

-DN

[bobandtorey]

I was there and heard the whole thing.

 

They faked the mmj ID card on their own computers. But the supporting drivers license was made by the Secretary of State.

 

The procedure is to present the mmj ID card along with a drivers license. You don't even get in the door at most Michigan dispensaries without a picture ID in addition to the ID card.

 

They tried to avoid the issue by having pictures on their fake ID cards. That didn't work. So they had the state make fake drivers licenses to make it complete. They did so entirely to be able to make a marijuana purchase.

 

Without the fake DL none of this would have been able to take place.

 

and said he had fake every thing S.S.card driver license Medical Marihuana card pictures of fake family

[Guest Happy Guy]

Focus on the real issue; Is a store legally protected when they sell cannabis to any patient off the street with a card.

As a secondary precedent; Is a store legally protected when they buy cannabis from any patient with a card.

[peanutbutter]

and it is legal for undercover to hide their real names - the fake driver's license was not the key component to obtain the MM, the faked MDCH card was. Undercover LEO use fake DMV driver's licenses all the time. The test was not if the driver's license was legit, but the MDCH card.

 

I was responding to the drivers license not being used to purchase mmj.

 

It was indeed required to purchase the mmj. None of these undercover could even get in the building without:

 

1. The mmj ID card or paperwork.

2. A matching drivers license that confirmed the identity of the "patient."

 

Without the confirming drivers license they could not have made any purchases.

[The Digital Nomad]

I was responding to the drivers license not being used to purchase mmj.

 

It was indeed required to purchase the mmj. None of these undercover could even get in the building without:

 

1. The mmj ID card or paperwork.

2. A matching drivers license that confirmed the identity of the "patient."

 

Without the confirming drivers license they could not have made any purchases.

 

so you agree- we need a way to verify the MDCH cards ourselves - that would eliminate any chance of bogus DMV or MDCH card.

 

And having pictures of your sick family is not required - thats called 'fluff' in undercover terminology - suckers fall for that all the time. Don't.

 

-DN

[Guest Happy Guy]

I was responding to the drivers license not being used to purchase mmj.It was indeed required to purchase the mmj. None of these undercover could even get in the building without:1. The mmj ID card or paperwork.2. A matching drivers license that confirmed the identity of the "patient."Without the confirming drivers license they could not have made any purchases.

What is important to most of us patients are the precedents. Focus on that. The rest is just muddying the water up.

[phaquetoo]

The fake id is a part of the testing of the MMMAct.

LEO wants to prove that since 'we' can't verify ID, there is no trusted system to verify ANY ID.

 

LEO also did this as a test to see if dispensaries - in their haste to ring up your sale - will accept ANY ID - without a reasonable verification process. If the ID has an age of 120 years old, a req written for "hiccups", and its the only MDCH ID card you ever seen with a photo on it - its a test to see if you are careless or intentionally overlooking flaws in IDs. I remember buying alcohol with bogus ID, some clerks would play the game of pretending to inspect my ID, and ring up my illegal sale. Some party stores run by ignorant owners, should not have been selling booze - as they had no clue what a valid ID looked like.

 

This is an old trick - they still do this for alcohol sales testing - including making up fake IDs on computers for minors to pose as adults, as kids do these days.

LEO probably assumes that fake IDs, since they are used to buy alcohol illegally, fake IDs could also be used to buy marijuana in the same manner by kids or uncool peoples.

 

And all this talk about arresting the undercover who had permission by his boss - its called 'qualified immunity' - government workers cannot be held liable for civil or criminal actions while they are operating reasonably under the law. The undercover officer did not fake a doctor's req and obtain a REAL MDCH card - that would have been 'unreasonable' under the law BTW. That would be like obtaining a REAL driver's license for a minor to buy alcohol by submitting fake paperwork to the DMV office posing the minor as someone else.

 

-DN

 

 

I did that at the s. o. s office when i was younger. took 3 peices of my friends id and got a mich i,d with my face and his name and age on it!

 

Yea I would imagine some people are thinking just having the card on hand will give them get out of jail card free!

 

LE is not that safisticated yet, not to many of us just get let go with the card, usualy we were doing something else to get pulled over, and if a po po smells weed in your car,(smoked) your going in for dui!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[peanutbutter]

so you agree- we need a way to verify the MDCH cards ourselves - that would eliminate any chance of bogus DMV or MDCH card.

 

And having pictures of your sick family is not required - thats called 'fluff' in undercover terminology - suckers fall for that all the time. Don't.

 

-DN

 

If you are suggesting that I support a change in the law, that would be an error.

 

"reasonable" is a test that needs to apply here.

 

They had a real state issued document (drivers license).

 

The name doesn't impact the birth date .. that would be for alcohol purchases. Age is the requirement there.

For mmj age isn't the issue. Medical condition is the issue. This "fake" drivers license was issued to support a fake medical condition. Something that can't "reasonably" be determined by just looking at the person.

 

Looking closely at the drivers license, you could not have determined it was a "fake" made by the state itself.

 

It had a picture of the person .. printed by the state. I'm guessing that it has to do with the imprints in the plastic. The police just didn't have the ability to fake it.

 

Safeguards were in place to avoid diversion at these clinics. Without the efforts by the state and Oakland county to trick these people, the entire series of events could not have taken place.

 

The "fake" state issued drivers license was required for the police to proceed.

[peanutbutter]

Focus on the real issue; Is a store legally protected when they sell cannabis to any patient off the street with a card.

As a secondary precedent; Is a store legally protected when they buy cannabis from any patient with a card.

 

This question is about the triggering event for the raid. That triggering event was when the undercover cop sold one ounce of marijuana to the dispensary. To Tony Agro.

 

Tony Agro is allowed to acquire marijuana. He is licensed to do so by the MDCH.