Michigan Medical Marijuana Court Cases

[+ProPlayer420]

Some cases I've been following of importance. If you know of others that i've missed please add to this list.

 

Alpena Circuit Court Weighs in on Patient-to-Patient Sale of Medical Marihuana

On March 24, 2011, the Alpena County Circuit Court determined that "The Health Center," a medical marihuana facility that served 60 clients, acted outside the "medical use" exception provided in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) when it provided a location for qualified patients to sell medical marihuana to other qualified patients.

 

In interpreting what constitutes a "medical use," the Circuit Court found dispositive the fact that the MMMA specifically mentions caregiver-to-patient sales of medical marihuana. It says that "a registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana." The receipt of such compensation "shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances." Therefore, the Court concluded that the drafters of the MMMA considered the issue of medical marihuana sales and chose not to include patient-to-patient in the definition. It found patient-to-patient sales did not constitute the "medical use" of marihuana and "The Health Center," to the extent that it is engaged in prohibited sales, is a public nuisance. This opinion is at odds with a case out of Isabella County currently awaiting appeal, State v McQueen, which held patient-to-patient sales fell within the MMMA.

 

Schuette Supports Quest to Clarify Marihuana Law

 

On March 28, 2011, the Office of the Attorney General announced that it filed two amicus briefs in support of Oakland and Isabella County Prosecutors. The two cases involved are State v McQueen and People v Redden.

 

In McQueen, the Isabella County Prosecutor challenged the legality of a for-profit medical marihuana dispensary. Schuette's brief urges the Michigan Court of Appeals to hear the case and argues operating the dispensary violates the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) for three reasons: 1) the MMMA does not allow the sale of medical marihuana for profit; 2) the MMMA does not provide for patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana; and 3) the dispensary owners are in possession of an amount of medical marihuana in excess of the legal limit provided under the MMMA. Therefore, Schuette argues that because the dispensary violates state law, it should be declared a public nuisance and closed to protect public health and safety.

 

In Redden, the Oakland County Prosecutor asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review whether unregistered users of medical marihuana are entitled to assert a defense under the MMMA. Schuette argues that only qualified patients and caregivers registered with the Michigan Department of Community Health are protected by the MMMA

 

People v Koon

 

On May 21, 2010 Rodney Koon was charged with driving under the influence of a drug (OUID). After being pulled over for speeding, Koon admitted to smoking marihuana earlier in the day. A blood test revealed that Koon had active THC in his system. At trial, the judge required the Grand Traverse County Prosecutor prove Koon was actually impaired. Unlike alcohol, there is currently no objective standard to establish that a driver of a vehicle is impaired by marihuana. The Prosecutor has requested leave to appeal the trial court's decision. Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schuette, filed a brief in support urging the Court of Appeals to grant leave and reverse. Schuette argues that any amount of THC in a driver's system is a crime. This case presents a difficult balance between public safety and the rights of patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. On one hand, Michigan drivers should not be put at risk by those who choose to operate a vehicle while under the influence of marihuana. On the other, THC may stay in a patient's system for up to a month after ingestion and long after the psychotropic effects of the drug have worn off. If adopted, Schuette's interpretation would make it generally unlawful for medical marihuana patients to operate motor vehicles.

 

People v Brandon

 

On March 7, 2011, the 19th Judicial District Court held that the entire Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) is void under preemption principles. The defendant was stopped by police on January 19, 2010 and charged under a Dearborn municipal ordinance for illegal possession of marihuana. Defendant did not obtain a doctor's recommendation that he would benefit from the medical use of marihuana until 4 months after his arrest. Instead of resolving the issue by resort to the Court of Appeals' January decision in People v Kolanek (i.e., in order to assert the affirmative defense, an individual must receive a physician recommendation to use marihuana prior to his arrest and subsequent to the MMMA's effective date) the District Court concluded that the entire MMMA was preempted by federal legislation.

 

In the court's view, because Congress banned the manufacture, distribution, and possession of all schedule I narcotics there is no room for States to regulate those substances. Secondly, the court stated that "it is simply beyond credulity to believe the MMMA has any practical effect other than to officially sanction, encourage and facilitate the manufacture, distribution and possession of a Schedule I narcotic in direct violation of federal law. Therefore, not only has Congress expressed its intent to preempt the field, but the MMMA is in direct conflict with Congressional efforts to ban those substances from interstate commerce. As a consequence, it is impossible to comply with both the MMMA and Federal law.

 

COA: Defendant Must Obtain Physician Approval Prior to Arrest to Assert Medical Marihuana Affirmative Defense

 

On February 10, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its unpublished opinion in People v Walburg. Here, the defendant, who was charged with the delivery and manufacture of marihuana, did not possess a medical marihuana registry identification card or a statement from a doctor regarding his medical need for marihuana at the time of arrest. Despite those facts, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act's affirmative defense provision. The appellate court reversed the court below.

 

While many issues surrounding the MMMA remain unresolved, the courts have recently provided guidance on the legal status of patients lacking a registry identification card or a doctor's recommendation. For example, in People v Redden, issued September 14, 2010, the Court held that possession of a registry identification card is not required to assert the affirmative defense. Further, in People v Kolanek, issued January 11, 2011, the Court held that in order to assert the affirmative defense, an individual must receive a physician recommendation to use marihuana prior to his arrest and subsequent to the MMMA's effective date.

 

With Redden and Kolanek as guidance, the Court of Appeals reinstated the charges because the defendant failed to obtain a physician recommendation prior to his arrest.

 

People v Larry King

On February 3, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals published a decision clarifying the definition of an "enclosed, locked facility" pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).

 

In May 2009, and acting on an anonymous tip, local police observed marihuana plants growing in a dog kennel in defendant's backyard. The 6 foot tall dog kennel was made of chain link fence, had an open top which was covered with black shrink wrap, and was not anchored to the ground. Defendant also had multiple plants growing inside an unlocked closet in his home.

 

Defendant, a qualifying patient pursuant to the MMMA, was charged with two counts of manufacturing marihuana. The trial court determined that defendant's dog kennel and house constituted enclosed, locked facilities and dismissed the charges pursuant to the affirmative defense available under Section 8 of the MMMA.

 

The MMMA defines "enclosed, locked facility" as a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permits access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling, finding that defendant's dog kennel did not satisfy the statutory definition of an enclosed, locked facility. The court limited the definition to those "things of the same kind, class, character, or nature" as the specifically enumerated items, being a "closet" or "room." In coming to its decision, the court found the dog kennel lacked the characteristics of a closet or room.

 

The court further held that the marihuana plants cultivated within a closet did not meet the statutory requirements because the closet, and the house as a whole, was not secured by locks.

 

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Fitzgerald opined that the dog kennel did fit the definition of an "enclosed, locked facility" because the fence was six feet high and by definition, a top is not required to enclose something. Further, the kennel was locked, the plants were obscured from view, and the police officers were only able to gain access to the plants after the defendant retrieved a key from inside his home. Additionally, Judge Fitzgerald noted that defendant's home was not required to have a lock because the MMMA contemplates the use of "other security devices" to secure marihuana plants.

[pic book]

These summaries make it clear that diametrically opposed interps of the MMMA from District Court judges have resulted in 2011 being the year that the Court of Appeals decisions will control the field of enforcement and decision, while 2013 will be the year that the meaning of the law passed in 2008 is finally settled by appeals of Court of Appeals decisions to the Supreme Court. At the moment, what is legal (or illegal) is clear only in those jurisdictions that have issued decisions bearing directly on the matters. Until/unless those are reversed, do the same or similar act and suffer definite consequences if busted. Doing the same thing in a different jurisdiction, you have the protection of that judge's opposed opinion unless/until it is reversed. Doing the 'crime' and doing the time depends upon your address. Out of legally inspecific legislation comes division and misery, wealth for a few lawyers, and local control of a supposedly "state" issue.

[phaquetoo]

Good post! thank you for putting all of the work into this! im hoping it is all accurate,,if not im sure we will hear from some of the now famous names to correct it!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[pic book]

One of the items summarized by ProPlayer420 directly affected me and my business. Given the Alpena decison I closed my dispensary, which had only opened on March 1. Prior to the Alpena decision on March 24, the appeal of the Isabella decision by that prosecutor was possibly nothing but sour grapes from a loser who opposed every aspect of the law. But given Alpena, the decision by a district judge who thoroughly disagreed on proper interpretation of MMMA, it seemed unwise to continue operation of a dispensary, even a 'Chamberlain model' dispensary, as the DEA could say that it was clearly not possible to operate a dispensary and be completely within MI law as the law was unclear even to judges of different districts. At the federal level the standard for leaving alone those who are acting completely within state mmj laws was stated in the Ogden memo. Ogden (in which Obama's policy of no prosecution for medical marijuana matters was endorsed by the agency) clearly did not any longer cloak dispensaries since the Isabella and Alpena judges diametrically disagreed. It opened the door for the DEA to raid MI dispensaries as they wished, and the Walled Lake and Novi raids, arrests and closures followed immediately, and it seems to me dozens more are to follow. Unless the MI Court of Appeals picks Isabella as the law of MI, dispensaries within MI are operating within the crosshairs of the DEA. I chose not to risk those odds and immediately closed.

[Dr. Bob]

Well done, excellent summary.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

One of the items summarized by ProPlayer420 directly affected me and my business. Given the Alpena decison I closed my dispensary, which had only opened on March 1. Prior to the Alpena decision on March 24, the appeal of the Isabella decision by that prosecutor was possibly nothing but sour grapes from a loser who opposed every aspect of the law. But given Alpena, the decision by a district judge who thoroughly disagreed on proper interpretation of MMMA, it seemed unwise to continue operation of a dispensary, even a 'Chamberlain model' dispensary, as the DEA could say that it was clearly not possible to operate a dispensary and be completely within MI law as the law was unclear even to judges of different districts. At the federal level the standard for leaving alone those who are acting completely within state mmj laws was stated in the Ogden memo. Ogden (in which Obama's policy of no prosecution for medical marijuana matters was endorsed by the agency) clearly did not any longer cloak dispensaries since the Isabella and Alpena judges diametrically disagreed. It opened the door for the DEA to raid MI dispensaries as they wished, and the Walled Lake and Novi raids, arrests and closures followed immediately, and it seems to me dozens more are to follow. Unless the MI Court of Appeals picks Isabella as the law of MI, dispensaries within MI are operating within the crosshairs of the DEA. I chose not to risk those odds and immediately closed.

 

As further guidance, the Haag memo clarifies the position of the DOJ as 'hands off' for individuals following their state laws for medical use, but indicated that they still considered any commercial use (dispensaries, commercial grows, etc) to be illegal.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/legal/feds/doj.haag.memo.pdf

 

Hope it adds to the discussion and information presented here.

 

Dr. Bob

[jimbojinx]

Some cases I've been following of importance. If you know of others that i've missed please add to this list.

 

Alpena Circuit Court Weighs in on Patient-to-Patient Sale of Medical Marihuana

On March 24, 2011, the Alpena County Circuit Court determined that "The Health Center," a medical marihuana facility that served 60 clients, acted outside the "medical use" exception provided in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) when it provided a location for qualified patients to sell medical marihuana to other qualified patients.

 

In interpreting what constitutes a "medical use," the Circuit Court found dispositive the fact that the MMMA specifically mentions caregiver-to-patient sales of medical marihuana. It says that "a registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana." The receipt of such compensation "shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances." Therefore, the Court concluded that the drafters of the MMMA considered the issue of medical marihuana sales and chose not to include patient-to-patient in the definition. It found patient-to-patient sales did not constitute the "medical use" of marihuana and "The Health Center," to the extent that it is engaged in prohibited sales, is a public nuisance. This opinion is at odds with a case out of Isabella County currently awaiting appeal, State v McQueen, which held patient-to-patient sales fell within the MMMA.

 

Schuette Supports Quest to Clarify Marihuana Law

 

On March 28, 2011, the Office of the Attorney General announced that it filed two amicus briefs in support of Oakland and Isabella County Prosecutors. The two cases involved are State v McQueen and People v Redden.

 

In McQueen, the Isabella County Prosecutor challenged the legality of a for-profit medical marihuana dispensary. Schuette's brief urges the Michigan Court of Appeals to hear the case and argues operating the dispensary violates the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) for three reasons: 1) the MMMA does not allow the sale of medical marihuana for profit; 2) the MMMA does not provide for patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana; and 3) the dispensary owners are in possession of an amount of medical marihuana in excess of the legal limit provided under the MMMA. Therefore, Schuette argues that because the dispensary violates state law, it should be declared a public nuisance and closed to protect public health and safety.

 

In Redden, the Oakland County Prosecutor asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review whether unregistered users of medical marihuana are entitled to assert a defense under the MMMA. Schuette argues that only qualified patients and caregivers registered with the Michigan Department of Community Health are protected by the MMMA

 

People v Koon

 

On May 21, 2010 Rodney Koon was charged with driving under the influence of a drug (OUID). After being pulled over for speeding, Koon admitted to smoking marihuana earlier in the day. A blood test revealed that Koon had active THC in his system. At trial, the judge required the Grand Traverse County Prosecutor prove Koon was actually impaired. Unlike alcohol, there is currently no objective standard to establish that a driver of a vehicle is impaired by marihuana. The Prosecutor has requested leave to appeal the trial court's decision. Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schuette, filed a brief in support urging the Court of Appeals to grant leave and reverse. Schuette argues that any amount of THC in a driver's system is a crime. This case presents a difficult balance between public safety and the rights of patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. On one hand, Michigan drivers should not be put at risk by those who choose to operate a vehicle while under the influence of marihuana. On the other, THC may stay in a patient's system for up to a month after ingestion and long after the psychotropic effects of the drug have worn off. If adopted, Schuette's interpretation would make it generally unlawful for medical marihuana patients to operate motor vehicles.

 

People v Brandon

 

On March 7, 2011, the 19th Judicial District Court held that the entire Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) is void under preemption principles. The defendant was stopped by police on January 19, 2010 and charged under a Dearborn municipal ordinance for illegal possession of marihuana. Defendant did not obtain a doctor's recommendation that he would benefit from the medical use of marihuana until 4 months after his arrest. Instead of resolving the issue by resort to the Court of Appeals' January decision in People v Kolanek (i.e., in order to assert the affirmative defense, an individual must receive a physician recommendation to use marihuana prior to his arrest and subsequent to the MMMA's effective date) the District Court concluded that the entire MMMA was preempted by federal legislation.

 

In the court's view, because Congress banned the manufacture, distribution, and possession of all schedule I narcotics there is no room for States to regulate those substances. Secondly, the court stated that "it is simply beyond credulity to believe the MMMA has any practical effect other than to officially sanction, encourage and facilitate the manufacture, distribution and possession of a Schedule I narcotic in direct violation of federal law. Therefore, not only has Congress expressed its intent to preempt the field, but the MMMA is in direct conflict with Congressional efforts to ban those substances from interstate commerce. As a consequence, it is impossible to comply with both the MMMA and Federal law.

 

COA: Defendant Must Obtain Physician Approval Prior to Arrest to Assert Medical Marihuana Affirmative Defense

 

On February 10, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its unpublished opinion in People v Walburg. Here, the defendant, who was charged with the delivery and manufacture of marihuana, did not possess a medical marihuana registry identification card or a statement from a doctor regarding his medical need for marihuana at the time of arrest. Despite those facts, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act's affirmative defense provision. The appellate court reversed the court below.

 

While many issues surrounding the MMMA remain unresolved, the courts have recently provided guidance on the legal status of patients lacking a registry identification card or a doctor's recommendation. For example, in People v Redden, issued September 14, 2010, the Court held that possession of a registry identification card is not required to assert the affirmative defense. Further, in People v Kolanek, issued January 11, 2011, the Court held that in order to assert the affirmative defense, an individual must receive a physician recommendation to use marihuana prior to his arrest and subsequent to the MMMA's effective date.

 

With Redden and Kolanek as guidance, the Court of Appeals reinstated the charges because the defendant failed to obtain a physician recommendation prior to his arrest.

 

People v Larry King

On February 3, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals published a decision clarifying the definition of an "enclosed, locked facility" pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).

 

In May 2009, and acting on an anonymous tip, local police observed marihuana plants growing in a dog kennel in defendant's backyard. The 6 foot tall dog kennel was made of chain link fence, had an open top which was covered with black shrink wrap, and was not anchored to the ground. Defendant also had multiple plants growing inside an unlocked closet in his home.

 

Defendant, a qualifying patient pursuant to the MMMA, was charged with two counts of manufacturing marihuana. The trial court determined that defendant's dog kennel and house constituted enclosed, locked facilities and dismissed the charges pursuant to the affirmative defense available under Section 8 of the MMMA.

 

The MMMA defines "enclosed, locked facility" as a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permits access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling, finding that defendant's dog kennel did not satisfy the statutory definition of an enclosed, locked facility. The court limited the definition to those "things of the same kind, class, character, or nature" as the specifically enumerated items, being a "closet" or "room." In coming to its decision, the court found the dog kennel lacked the characteristics of a closet or room.

 

The court further held that the marihuana plants cultivated within a closet did not meet the statutory requirements because the closet, and the house as a whole, was not secured by locks.

 

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Fitzgerald opined that the dog kennel did fit the definition of an "enclosed, locked facility" because the fence was six feet high and by definition, a top is not required to enclose something. Further, the kennel was locked, the plants were obscured from view, and the police officers were only able to gain access to the plants after the defendant retrieved a key from inside his home. Additionally, Judge Fitzgerald noted that defendant's home was not required to have a lock because the MMMA contemplates the use of "other security devices" to secure marihuana plants.

 

Hi Pro !

 

Many thanks for giving us this summary !!!

 

I now realize just how f**ked up everything is !!!

 

There is only solution !

 

"Let's Make It Legal !".

 

Dr. Jinx

[bobandtorey]

Some cases I've been following of importance. If you know of others that i've missed please add to this list.

 

Alpena Circuit Court Weighs in on Patient-to-Patient Sale of Medical Marihuana

On March 24, 2011, the Alpena County Circuit Court determined that "The Health Center," a medical marihuana facility that served 60 clients, acted outside the "medical use" exception provided in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) when it provided a location for qualified patients to sell medical marihuana to other qualified patients.

 

In interpreting what constitutes a "medical use," the Circuit Court found dispositive the fact that the MMMA specifically mentions caregiver-to-patient sales of medical marihuana. It says that "a registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana." The receipt of such compensation "shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances." Therefore, the Court concluded that the drafters of the MMMA considered the issue of medical marihuana sales and chose not to include patient-to-patient in the definition. It found patient-to-patient sales did not constitute the "medical use" of marihuana and "The Health Center," to the extent that it is engaged in prohibited sales, is a public nuisance. This opinion is at odds with a case out of Isabella County currently awaiting appeal, State v McQueen, which held patient-to-patient sales fell within the MMMA.

 

Schuette Supports Quest to Clarify Marihuana Law

 

On March 28, 2011, the Office of the Attorney General announced that it filed two amicus briefs in support of Oakland and Isabella County Prosecutors. The two cases involved are State v McQueen and People v Redden.

 

In McQueen, the Isabella County Prosecutor challenged the legality of a for-profit medical marihuana dispensary. Schuette's brief urges the Michigan Court of Appeals to hear the case and argues operating the dispensary violates the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) for three reasons: 1) the MMMA does not allow the sale of medical marihuana for profit; 2) the MMMA does not provide for patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana; and 3) the dispensary owners are in possession of an amount of medical marihuana in excess of the legal limit provided under the MMMA. Therefore, Schuette argues that because the dispensary violates state law, it should be declared a public nuisance and closed to protect public health and safety.

 

In Redden, the Oakland County Prosecutor asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review whether unregistered users of medical marihuana are entitled to assert a defense under the MMMA. Schuette argues that only qualified patients and caregivers registered with the Michigan Department of Community Health are protected by the MMMA

 

People v Koon

 

On May 21, 2010 Rodney Koon was charged with driving under the influence of a drug (OUID). After being pulled over for speeding, Koon admitted to smoking marihuana earlier in the day. A blood test revealed that Koon had active THC in his system. At trial, the judge required the Grand Traverse County Prosecutor prove Koon was actually impaired. Unlike alcohol, there is currently no objective standard to establish that a driver of a vehicle is impaired by marihuana. The Prosecutor has requested leave to appeal the trial court's decision. Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schuette, filed a brief in support urging the Court of Appeals to grant leave and reverse. Schuette argues that any amount of THC in a driver's system is a crime. This case presents a difficult balance between public safety and the rights of patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. On one hand, Michigan drivers should not be put at risk by those who choose to operate a vehicle while under the influence of marihuana. On the other, THC may stay in a patient's system for up to a month after ingestion and long after the psychotropic effects of the drug have worn off. If adopted, Schuette's interpretation would make it generally unlawful for medical marihuana patients to operate motor vehicles.

 

People v Brandon

 

On March 7, 2011, the 19th Judicial District Court held that the entire Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) is void under preemption principles. The defendant was stopped by police on January 19, 2010 and charged under a Dearborn municipal ordinance for illegal possession of marihuana. Defendant did not obtain a doctor's recommendation that he would benefit from the medical use of marihuana until 4 months after his arrest. Instead of resolving the issue by resort to the Court of Appeals' January decision in People v Kolanek (i.e., in order to assert the affirmative defense, an individual must receive a physician recommendation to use marihuana prior to his arrest and subsequent to the MMMA's effective date) the District Court concluded that the entire MMMA was preempted by federal legislation.

 

In the court's view, because Congress banned the manufacture, distribution, and possession of all schedule I narcotics there is no room for States to regulate those substances. Secondly, the court stated that "it is simply beyond credulity to believe the MMMA has any practical effect other than to officially sanction, encourage and facilitate the manufacture, distribution and possession of a Schedule I narcotic in direct violation of federal law. Therefore, not only has Congress expressed its intent to preempt the field, but the MMMA is in direct conflict with Congressional efforts to ban those substances from interstate commerce. As a consequence, it is impossible to comply with both the MMMA and Federal law.

 

COA: Defendant Must Obtain Physician Approval Prior to Arrest to Assert Medical Marihuana Affirmative Defense

 

On February 10, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its unpublished opinion in People v Walburg. Here, the defendant, who was charged with the delivery and manufacture of marihuana, did not possess a medical marihuana registry identification card or a statement from a doctor regarding his medical need for marihuana at the time of arrest. Despite those facts, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act's affirmative defense provision. The appellate court reversed the court below.

 

While many issues surrounding the MMMA remain unresolved, the courts have recently provided guidance on the legal status of patients lacking a registry identification card or a doctor's recommendation. For example, in People v Redden, issued September 14, 2010, the Court held that possession of a registry identification card is not required to assert the affirmative defense. Further, in People v Kolanek, issued January 11, 2011, the Court held that in order to assert the affirmative defense, an individual must receive a physician recommendation to use marihuana prior to his arrest and subsequent to the MMMA's effective date.

 

With Redden and Kolanek as guidance, the Court of Appeals reinstated the charges because the defendant failed to obtain a physician recommendation prior to his arrest.

 

People v Larry King

On February 3, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals published a decision clarifying the definition of an "enclosed, locked facility" pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).

 

In May 2009, and acting on an anonymous tip, local police observed marihuana plants growing in a dog kennel in defendant's backyard. The 6 foot tall dog kennel was made of chain link fence, had an open top which was covered with black shrink wrap, and was not anchored to the ground. Defendant also had multiple plants growing inside an unlocked closet in his home.

 

Defendant, a qualifying patient pursuant to the MMMA, was charged with two counts of manufacturing marihuana. The trial court determined that defendant's dog kennel and house constituted enclosed, locked facilities and dismissed the charges pursuant to the affirmative defense available under Section 8 of the MMMA.

 

The MMMA defines "enclosed, locked facility" as a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permits access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling, finding that defendant's dog kennel did not satisfy the statutory definition of an enclosed, locked facility. The court limited the definition to those "things of the same kind, class, character, or nature" as the specifically enumerated items, being a "closet" or "room." In coming to its decision, the court found the dog kennel lacked the characteristics of a closet or room.

 

The court further held that the marihuana plants cultivated within a closet did not meet the statutory requirements because the closet, and the house as a whole, was not secured by locks.

 

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Fitzgerald opined that the dog kennel did fit the definition of an "enclosed, locked facility" because the fence was six feet high and by definition, a top is not required to enclose something. Further, the kennel was locked, the plants were obscured from view, and the police officers were only able to gain access to the plants after the defendant retrieved a key from inside his home. Additionally, Judge Fitzgerald noted that defendant's home was not required to have a lock because the MMMA contemplates the use of "other security devices" to secure marihuana plants.

 

 

Thanks for the post Jack i told you about this at the last MOCC meeting this hole Law will be gone if the A.G gets his way we are trying to get it out of the high courts so that we can fight it 50/50 chance

[Guest Medicinal Patient]

Thank you for all your time and efforts keeping us informed Pro. You should stop in more often.

[+ProPlayer420]

Thanks you all. Just wanted to make sure people are aware that patients and caregivers are still being dragged through our court system and it needs to be stopped ASAP.

 

This is why we need every able body in Lansing May 25th to let our legislators know that we are not happy and will not take anymore of this nonsense.

 

The will of the people is being trampled on by the people who are supposed to protect it. Lets show them who we really are!!!

 

See you there!

[bobandtorey]

Thanks you all. Just wanted to make sure people are aware that patients and caregivers are still being dragged through our court system and it needs to be stopped ASAP.

 

This is why we need every able body in Lansing May 25th to let our legislators know that we are not happy and will not take anymore of this nonsense.

 

The will of the people is being trampled on by the people who are supposed to protect it. Lets show them who we really are!!!

 

See you there!

 

Am not sure about Lansing but the court rooms i will be at April 20 inn oakland county court house for the Ferndale people and June 8 for the waterford people

hope to see some people their

[imiubu]

Thank you ProPlayer for all the time you took to post this much needed

information.

I have been asking for some way to keep updated w/ all the court cases.

Hopefully those that aren't known already,

will post their cases here.

Nice work.

[bobandtorey]

T.J Rice has a case on April 20 it;s inn Ann arbor if any one wants to go for support i will be their

[bobandtorey]

T.J Rice has a case on April 20 it;s inn Ann arbor if any one wants to go for support i will be their

 

Dear friends, April 20 th at 1:00 pm I will be represented by Michael Komorn, on charges stemming from the Ann Arbor Patient 2 Patient Caregivers Collective Raid dated March 14th 2010 Preliminary on 2 - 4 year Felony counts of Manufacture With Intent at 1:00pm arriving 12:30 22ND Circuit Court Survive Center4133 Washtenaw Ave.Ann Arbor, Mi 48107 Any show of support ( karma, moral or physical ) is (will) be greatly appreciated