Jump to content

People V Koon - Coa Grants App For Leave To Appeal In Mmma Case 07-22-11


bobandtorey

Recommended Posts

COA's July 22 Order, the Grand Traverse Circuit Court Order that the prosecutor is appealing, and the appeal briefs filed by the prosecutor, the defense and the AG's office.

- - - - -

The COA order granting leave states that:

 

"O'Connell, J., would peremptorily reverse the circuit court's order of November 16,2010, and remand for further proceedings. I agree with the circuit court that Michigan law prohibits operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. See MCL 257.625(l)(a); MCL 333.26427(b)(4). I disagree, however, with the court's determination that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421 et seq. (MMMA), grants the right or permission to operate a motor vehicle with marijuana in the body. Prior to the passage of the MMMA, Michigan law prohibited operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana in the body. MCL 257.625(8). The MMMA did not change the law. MCL 257.625(8) still

prohibits any individual from operating a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana (as opposed to metabolites) in their body."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are heading for some rough waters ahead. Judges are completely discounting 333.26427 Scope of act; limitations, specifically (e) "All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act".

 

I hope we get some justice in the Supreme Court. This is why it's so important for us to VOTE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are heading for some rough waters ahead. Judges are completely discounting 333.26427 Scope of act; limitations, specifically (e) "All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act".

 

I hope we get some justice in the Supreme Court. This is why it's so important for us to VOTE!!!

 

 

:goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THEY can ignore parts of a law, but if WE did that, watch out! MISERABLE MUTHAFOKKERS! They are all in CONTEMPT! THROW THE BUMS OUT! GRRRR! This is no surprise to me either. :(:mad::angry::notfair::sword::growl: I swear, I do NOT recognize this world! Some miserable aliens have taken over! What part of that quote from Brad don't they understand????

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THEY can ignore parts of a law, but if WE did that, watch out! They are all in CONTEMPT! THROW THE BUMS OUT! GRRRR! This is no surprise to me either. :(:mad::angry::notfair::sword::growl: I swear, I do NOT recognize this world! Some miserable aliens have taken over! What part of that quote from Brad don't they understand????

Sb

There is no reason for cannabis to be treated different from any other medication the act clearly addresses driving as long as one is not under the influence ( which is considered a state where one is not in a full conciseness state of mind ) and allows internal possession . I just wouldn't want to be one of the test cases and it is scary as the Michigan Supreme Court has members that were behind zero tolerance legislation that has been used to put fault on drivers who were clearly in the right when injury accidents have taken place . A example is where a driver waiting for a red light was hit from behind and pushed into a intersection hitting another car . Without a positive test for cannabis it is obviously the car who hit the car into the intersections fault . However under zero tolerance if the driver of the car pushed into the intersection had cannabis in their system and anyone was killed they would be guilty of vehicular manslaughter though in reality nothing they did caused the injury . Prohibitionists have made a mockery of our legal system in my honest opinion and that is all it is .

 

When this is tested in a higher court it will be very important because prohibitionists in the case of cannabis have tried to carry it over to marinol which is schedule 3 . That could lead to other medications like pain medicines becoming obvious targets to disallow driving and it could then be pushed to go after those on mental health drugs . If you can't drive in our society you pretty much can't survive or work . You would have to move into a city with good public transportation and using it for many disabled individuals is very difficult or impassible something most able body people never would even think of . I can understand how difficult it is from some to recertify every year and it would be nearly impossible to be booked and or defend themselves in court . Suffering doesn't conform to common sense or regulation frustrating patients who are good people .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRAVERSE CITY — The Michigan Court of Appeals will hear the case of a local man arrested for driving a car after smoking medical marijuana, and the court’s decision will have statewide implications.

 

The court will determine whether Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Al Schnieder has to prove that Rodney Koon, a registered marijuana user, was impaired by marijuana in his system.

 

A Grand Traverse sheriff’s deputy arrested Koon after a traffic stop in February 2010. Koon told the deputy he smoked marijuana about five hours before the stop, and the deputy arrested him for operating under the influence of drugs.

 

Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Philip E. Rodgers ultimately determined that Schneider had to prove that Koon was impaired by the drug, but Schneider appealed. Existing laws make it a crime for an individual to operate with marijuana in his or her system, and Schneider doesn’t think a medical marijuana certification should change that.

 

“It’s either inherently dangerous or it’s not,” Schneider said. “That’s the issue.”

 

Appeals Judge Peter D. O’Connell said he would side with Schneider before hearing any arguments in the case, though the other two judges on the threejudge appeals panel won’t necessarily agree with his opinion.

 

“I disagree ... with the court’s determination that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act ... grants the right or permission to operate a motor vehicle with marijuana in the body,” O’Connell wrote. “Prior to the passage of the MMMA, Michigan law prohibited operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana in the body.”

 

Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an amicus curiae brief in the case. Such briefs, filed by people or groups with interest in a case, are reviewed by the court but don’t necessarily influence the court’s decision.

 

Schuette also agreed with Schneider.

 

“This case asks whether the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act displaced the long-standing Michigan law that it is ... illegal to drive with any marijuana ... in the body,” Schuette wrote. “The answer is clear: It did not.”

 

Schneider isn’t surprised Schuette filed a brief in the case.

 

“It does have statewide implications,” he said. “It’s not unusual for him to weigh in.”

 

Jesse Williams, a Traverse City attorney who specializes in medical marijuana, said authorities had no business charging Koon without proving the drug affected his driving.

 

“It’s akin to anyone else on any kind of prescription medication,” he said. “You have to show impairment.”

 

Rodgers said there’s plenty of “contradictory legislation” surrounding the state’s medical marijuana laws, and he believes the Koon case might help clarify some of it.

 

“This case needed to be appealed ... the only way to get this resolved is to start sending some issues up through the Court of Appeals” and on to the Michigan Supreme Court, he said.

 

 

 

Eric L. VanDussen <BR clear=all>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...