Jump to content

Charges Reinstated After Court Finds Marijuana Enclosure Lacking

thanks2

Recommended Posts

thanks2 Advanced Member

thanks2

Posted
Posted

http://www.freep.com/article/20110204/NEWS06/110204022/Charges-reinstated-after-court-finds-marijuana-enclosure-lacking

 

A 6-foot-tall, chain-link fence dog kennel secured by padlock is not an “enclosed, locked facility” under the Michigan medical marijuana act, a divided Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, reinstating felony drug manufacture charges against a medical marijuana patient in Shiawassee County.

 

The court, in a 2-1 majority opinion released this morning, said Larry Steven King was not entitled to protection under the act (approved by voters in 2008) because the backyard structure where he was growing marijuana was not anchored to the ground or enclosed from above as required by the law. They also ruled that marijuana plants found in a closet in King’s Owosso home were not secured.

 

King was targeted in May 2009 after an anonymous tip to state police about plants growing in the kennel.

 

The opinion was signed by Judges Henry Saad and David Sawyer.

 

Judge Thomas Fitzgerald, in a dissenting opinion, said King’s backyard enclosure and home met the act’s requirements and said he would have affirmed a lower court decision to dismiss the charges.

 

The prosecution of King is one of several cases involving prosecution of defendants who claimed to have the legal right to grow or possess marijuana under the MMA that have reached the appeals court. Some of the issues raised are expected to be decided over the next few years by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jtgeme Advanced Member

jtgeme

Posted
Posted

Michigan court of appeals issued an opinion today regarding the section 8 defense and narrowing the definition of enclosed locked facility.

 

I'm out and about and can't seem to be able to link it easily.

 

There is a majority opinion and a dissent.

 

I will link PDFs to both when I get to a computer u less someone beats me to it.

 

Edit:

Apparently the opinions are released to the CoA website one business day after they are released on its listserv list. Working on getting them posted now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thanks2 Advanced Member

thanks2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This thread can be deleted or combine with the other thread on the same topic that is better located, if the Mods wish.

 

This decision also concludes that a house is not a locked and enclosed facility, which make grow tents illegal. Unless of course they are in a locked bedroom or other room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregS Advanced Member

GregS

Posted
Posted

The dissenting opinion is much more appropriate, and is what is best for us. I think it better reasoned and argued. But then I have a stake in it.

 

Who will argue the case when it goes before the Supreme Court?

 

It has always been hysterically funny to me that people sometimes say that the law is blind, in the sense that it precludes opinion in preference to fact. I quit shaking my head a looong time ago. Now it is just another bullzhit moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washtenaut Advanced Member

+washtenaut

Posted
Posted

This really has become a witch hunt where personal feelings have overwhelmed these civil servants. They seem unable to step back from the emotion of the situation and simply do their jobs.

 

I can't recall the word, but isn't a judge supposed to remove themselves from a case if there is a significant question whether or not they will be able to rule fairly? Recuse? or something like that. Judges that are blinded by prior experiences with marijuana users and are unable to objectively interpret the law, should recuse themselves from judging the case.

 

Is there anyone in the system able to question a judges obvious bias? I know there are appeals but if a pattern is obvious, who would talk to the judge about his behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solabeirtan Advanced Member

solabeirtan

Posted
Posted

Im sure we had a Ruling about the house being considered a "Locked Enclosed Facility", especially if you're in it.

 

There is no Requirements for the Enclosure to be "Anchored" only Locked. It was apparent that some dillegence

had been used they were Locked and Enclosed. Truly a Witch Hunt.

 

Agreed this is some of the most underhanded Government Action since they interfered in the Unions back in the 30's.

 

.... Sorry for your Bad Luck, Kingpin. Maybe you Let the Cat out w/ da *50talk , just sayin ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washtenaut Advanced Member

+washtenaut

Posted
Posted

Does anyone have email addresses for these two judges that voted against Mr King? Maybe we could send our opinions of their opinions to them to read. Henry Saad and David Sawyer ??

 

I just read in his bio that Judge Saad taught Professional Responsibility at Wayne State. Wow, please review those old notes your honor!

 

I just know what I read but this sounds like a case study in irresponsible judicial rulings.....one of those how could it happen studies. How were these men so blinded as to make this decision.

 

The spirit of the law is clearly to let patients and caregivers grow medicine. If these patients or caregivers are not selling marijuana to nonpatients under cover of the MMJ card, please focus your prosecutorial efforts elsewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

Hello everyone guess we get a jury trial. These two judges are wrong to think 12 of my peers are going to find me guilty of these ridiculous charges. Matt's out of town haven't talked with him yet. Stay tuned more to come I'm sure. Had the decision here but see its already posted. I see this as only a stalling tactic

 

so their you are KP they are stalling for sure they are trying to get us on the plants not being locked up and we had them in a room with a lock see you inn court i guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregS Advanced Member

GregS

Posted
Posted

Hello everyone guess we get a jury trial. These two judges are wrong to think 12 of my peers are going to find me guilty of these ridiculous charges. Matt's out of town haven't talked with him yet. Stay tuned more to come I'm sure. Had the decision here but see its already posted. I see this as only a stalling tactic

 

Just got done reading the whole thing . These two judges dont feel as if this new law carrys very much weight. They see it as MMA Patients have to walk a very thin line ad if they so chose they can make their own rules to fit their needs.

 

I haven't had the chance to even tell my story yet in court. And i don't see a jury finding me guilty of any of these trumped up charges

See ya in court Randy

 

 

 

Oooh. I am soo jealous. You get to beat Colbry to a bloody pulp in public. Lucky dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

Hello PB These two judges dont see as the new marijuana law carrys very much weight. They see it as we as card holders walk a very thin line .Or am i reading there decision wrong. Think it was page 4 of their decision. They dont sound to friendly about our new law

 

 

Hey KP!

 

I know "they" don't like the law. In fact "they" intend to ignore as much of it as possible. "They" have contempt for the law and the voters.

 

Many people are stepping up against this evil machine .. people like yourself.

 

Without people standing up, "they" could completely do away with this law.

 

Then there are those people that want to keep it as quiet as possible. They do everything they can to avoid any possibility of police involvement. It is those people that have been helped with this ruling.

 

How so? They now have a line they can, supposedly, live inside of. A precise line. This COA has affirmed that outdoor grows are legal.

 

This was a bad ruling .. with a little good in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TajMahal Advanced Member

TajMahal

Posted
Posted

If all they say is true. Then why isn't this matter just being taken up with the MDCH as a simple infection . Specially seeing how these laws have not been clearly defined in any way shape or form. I dont even seeing as it is Law Enforcement jurisdiction to even be involved in these matters . This should have been a MDCH matter . And the State Police dont conduct inspections of cardholders grow operations. These politician's are overstepping their bounds. It needs to be stopped . You could be next.for them to interpret the law in their favor.Im just a guy with a back injury im not a MNF/Deliverer of marijuana just a card holder. Plain and simple. I can look a jury in the eye and tell them that

 

Absolutely!!!!

 

Compliance with any other state program, where there are rules for being licensed, certified, or card holder, a representative of the state pays a visit, looks around and talks with the licensee, if any infractions are found it is written up and reported, then a follow up visit.

Only then does the fine book come out if at all.

 

The MDCH should operate in a similar "friendly" manner, which embraces the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Where is the justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...