New Bill In The Works As Of Today - House Bill 5286

[MMJ Intern]

Thanks Barb Byrum

 

background check for possession of medical marihuana card prior to issuance or execution of search warrant

 

House Bill 5286

[peanutbutter]

Thanks Barb Byrum

 

background check for possession of medical marihuana card prior to issuance or execution of search warrant

 

House Bill 5286

 

Interesting .. hard not to like.

 

I'll wait to see if someone spots something to worry about.

[MMJ Intern]

Very true PB

[Timmahh]

(g) Possession of, or application for, a registry

 

identification card shall not constitute probable cause or

 

reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of

 

the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the

 

registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or

 

property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state

 

governmental agency.

 

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

 

(1) Applications and supporting information submitted by

 

qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary

 

caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

 

(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the

 

persons to whom the department has issued registry identification

 

cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the

 

list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the

 

freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

 

(3) The department shall verify DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

(A) VERIFY to law enforcement personnel whether a registry

 

identification card is valid, without disclosing more information

 

than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the

 

registry identification card.

 

(B) FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING OR EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT

 

ONLY, 1 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

(i) VERIFY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHETHER A NAMED

 

 

INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN ISSUED A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.

 

(ii) VERIFY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL

 

RESIDING AT A SPECIFIED ADDRESS HAS BEEN ISSUED A REGISTRY

 

IDENTIFICATION CARD.

 

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the

 

department or another state agency or local unit of government, who

 

discloses confidential information in violation of this act is

 

guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more

 

than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.

 

Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law

 

enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to

 

the department.

 

it appears the only change is noted in bold.

 

 

This does seem to be very incredulous. But it does appear that the proposed change, is a simple and minor change, Solely to make it undertsandable the only reason the cops are to have access is to verify in the prossession, or lack there of, of a current registry card that is valid.

 

 

Personally, I have no problem really with this, as it is how i was supppect it should be handled, though i dont really believe this exact wording is necessary, as it would seem it would be SOP of getting a warrant in a state with Medical Cannabis Laws on the books.

 

So while I see the clarity it brings to the act, and does just that, simply clarifys HOW the registry is to be accessed by LEO Only, no one else, so i can get behind it.

 

what i cant get behind, is opening the Act up for any change, even as one as innocuous as this is, as it opens the door to any other changes.

It would be Good to clarify exactly how LEO is supposed to Proceed in Cannabis situations that are not related to Real Illicit drugs like Cocain, Heroin, LSD ect..

But that can ALL be handled in Seperate Legislation they can pass now, without changes to the current Act.

[mike44]

It all depends who's point of view you look at this from. To many, having a card would be grounds to issue the search warrant. With the pending legislation that gives implied consent to search any one growing plants, this bill would only confirm that they will find what they are looking for when they do search. I cannot see where this would give anyone any protection, unless it involed law enforcement that honor the MMMA in it's present form. To many judges, the confirmation that the property owner has a card would be justification to sign a search warrant.

[peanutbutter]

It all depends who's point of view you look at this from. To many, having a card would be grounds to issue the search warrant. With the pending legislation that gives implied consent to search any one growing plants, this bill would only confirm that they will find what they are looking for when they do search. I cannot see where this would give anyone any protection, unless it involed law enforcement that honor the MMMA in it's present form. To many judges, the confirmation that the property owner has a card would be justification to sign a search warrant.

 

A procedure that Michael would like to see is that if a warrant has been issued and leo then finds out a patient or caregiver is involved, leo goes back to the judge before they proceed.

 

I didn't see what is supposed to happen if they find out it IS a mmj house.

[Timmahh]

thats my point, while this black and whites (no pun intended but it works) the law in how LEO is supposed to deal with this process of getting a warrant, it gives little to no guidance in how they are to procede, which is why they say there is a grey area. Um Dont most police departments have a procedure in place for obtaining a search warrant? Per the MMM Act, as BB just pointed out, they (LEO) already have the ability to query the Registry (or should have after 3 yrs and the LEIN System) in checking the validity of anyone that presents them a MMMP card. So this Change, simply makes black and white, what should already be black and white, thru the simple idea of when asking for a search warrent for a Possible Cannabis violation, they can simply que the registry, and if the name, address, of the warrant subject is in the system, that must be noted in the decision of making the warrant. this is only a logical step in what is already set up in any Law Department under what should be a S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure) where obtaining a search warrent is required.

 

 

While I applaud the Proper way to clear up some possible ambiguities in the law, and the Representatives intent, I dont see the need for this bill.

anthing of this nature as i noted above, could be handled under normal legislation, IF the state would fully implement the Act as it Currently Presides.

[mike44]

The law forbids that from happening.

(6)(g) Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency.

This will all change if their "implied consent" bill passes.

If it does, many of us will have to stop growing.

[mike44]

thats my point, while this black and whites (no pun intended but it works) the law in how LEO is supposed to deal with this process of getting a warrant, it gives little to no guidance in how they are to procede, which is why they say there is a grey area. Um Dont most police departments have a procedure in place for obtaining a search warrant? Per the MMM Act, as BB just pointed out, they (LEO) already have the ability to query the Registry (or should have after 3 yrs and the LEIN System) in checking the validity of anyone that presents them a MMMP card. So this Change, simply makes black and white, what should already be black and white, thru the simple idea of when asking for a search warrent for a Possible Cannabis violation, they can simply que the registry, and if the name, address, of the warrant subject is in the system, that must be noted in the decision of making the warrant. this is only a logical step in what is already set up in any Law Department under what should be a S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure) where obtaining a search warrent is required.

 

 

While I applaud the Proper way to clear up some possible ambiguities in the law, and the Representatives intent, I dont see the need for this bill.

anthing of this nature as i noted above, could be handled under normal legislation, IF the state would fully implement the Act as it Currently Presides.

 

If I am not mistaken, they cannot check the registry to see if a supect or suspected residence has a card. I believe they must get your card first and then do the registry search.

At least that is the way I have understood the law.

[Timmahh]

right, and Per the Act, they (LEO) can access the registry to verify an identity on it.

 

problem is, the ACT isnt fully implemented. If it was, this would not be an issue. BS and his crew know this, as well does many in legislature, thus the exact reason they REFUSE TO FULLY IMPLEMENT IT.....

 

they are literally causing the grey areas they are complaining about, in a vile attempt to subvert the Vote of the People...

its Sickening.

 

Implement the Act in its entirety, write SEPERATE Legislation on implemention of dispensaries, make a bible on how police are suppose to do the job they were supposedly trained for, and hired because they were supposed to have learned the needed skills to do the job. Leave the act as it is, Implement it, and watch the grey areas melt away.

 

their will only be a few. Where/How can those with authorization to grow, safely obtain the genetics needed, with in the limited amounts described in the act, and do it without prosecution. the other area that will be grey, is required amounts, as that would vary by scenario to an extent. For instance making eatables. Making Oils ect... The amounts needed for certain preparations can cause a person to have more than legally allowed at the very beginning of the process. and then perhaps again after if the reduction is then infused into say a pan of brownies or cookies, as the weight of the entire pan of brownies or batch of cookies, would then be consindered in the total weight of the Meds allowed to be held on hand.

 

So these few remaining points of interest, can and would easily be taken care of with some PROPERLY GUIDED and Implemented legislation, that is seperate of the Act, and does not require the need to open the act to implement.

 

the Government needs to make the Right and simple choice to fully put in place, all the facets of the Act as We the People passed it. Then once it is, in good faith, fully and properly implemented, the minor issue left to deal with will be exactly that, Minor Deals, that are Easily handled.

[mike44]

Nothing in the law requires that. In fact Section 8 of the law specifies that Any offense involving Marijuana. That is why it is legal to query the registry. Because all citizens are covered by the MMMA. Thanks, Bb

 

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

So you are saying that as the act stands now, all LEO needs to do is plug in a name or address and they get the information if that person or address is a card holder? Not the way I read the law. Isn't this what we have been fighting against? If they can do this already, why oppose the registry access bill in the legislature now?

[Medcnman]

Just a single one of these bills would cause me to shut down completely. My patients that receive their meds for free, delivered, would be on their own and I myself would have to find a caregiver. If I could even find one. Its discrimination. its time to get our law back. It frosts my cheeks to see "The People of the State of Michigan Enact" on these proposals. "We" already "Enacted" "They" never "implemented"!! Medcnman.

[Timmahh]

So you are saying that as the act stands now, all LEO needs to do is plug in a name or address and they get the information if that person or address is a card holder? Not the way I read the law. Isn't this what we have been fighting against? If they can do this already, why oppose the registry access bill in the legislature now?

 

 

 

Mike, here is the wording of the Act that describes what LEO can do to query the registry.

 

 

(A) VERIFY to law enforcement personnel whether a registry

 

identification card is valid, without disclosing more information

 

than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the

 

registry identification card.

 

they can VERIFY, which means they can Query the Registry, but they DO need to do it Manually currently, they can not use LEIN i believe at the moment. and they can not do that because they will not fully implement the Act as it is. Doing so will take away 99% of their ammunition in their premise the Act is Grey and Confusing.

[mike44]

(A) VERIFY to law enforcement personnel whether a registry

 

identification card is valid, without disclosing more information

 

than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the

 

registry identification card.

 

 

That is what I am saying. In order to do this, they need the card first. I just don't want LEO to be able to say "we are planning on serving a search warrant and need to know if this address is registered" It could be used to find a place to issue a search warrant. We are all on the same page here, if a warrant is to be served in the first place, knowing if the occupant was indeed a patient or caregiver would not hurt the situation. Being able to determine if a particular residence was registered before a warrant was asked for would be a problem. They could use this capability to find patients and caregivers to search.

[Timmahh]

i hear ya. I wasnt sure how exactly HIPPA dealt with this situation, but as BB has shown, its a simple matter. they pick up the phone, or call, once a warrent has been issued, and before they load up the troops for a WWIII confrontation.

 

These are Patients, Caregivers, and in most cases Mi and US Naturalized Citizens. We are not an Al-Qaeda cell looking for the next pair of underware that goes boom to put on.... We are mostly Sick, Ill, and in some cases Dying American Citizens.

[Cannalytics]

Thanks Barb Byrum

 

background check for possession of medical marihuana card prior to issuance or execution of search warrant

 

House Bill 5286

 

This is SO much better than automatically handing over registry data to the police. I knew there was a reason I've always liked Barb Byrum!

[Mememe]

does card mean actual physical card or does it mean paperwork after 21 days as well?

[Timmahh]

it would include paperwork that is qualified. That is worded directly on the MMMP government website.... in lieu of the state being nearly 7 months behind in issuing cards right now.

[Cap'N Kush]

I think this was put into place because of the raids conducted on outside grows. My neighbor had a 72 plant outside grow going on at his other house this summer. State cops county cops every one showed up to his house. He showed them his cards they inspected the cage area that he was growing in and they left. The summer before a friend told me about some guys he new that had a outside grow going the cops showed up same thing happened.

 

So I think the point of this is if you have a med card and SOME ONE TOLD ON YOU ( 98% percent of arrest are because someone TOLD / TALKED ) then all they have to do is type in your name and see you have a card. I for one think its good, there wouldn't be a mistaken raids. Not that I think the cops really care but a judge isnt going to issue a warrant on a house that has a med card.

 

So this really is a + for CG's and Patients. = Cops got a tattle tale to say the is pot growing in a house, the cops investigate and find out who and were, the cops ask for a warrant to search, the judge checks for a Med card the investigation is over.

[peanutbutter]

No they Can't. In the scenario that is being presented a Search Warrant has been issued. So therefore a encounter with law enforcement and possibly arrest in imminent. Just like they're fixing to search your car on the side of the road. If the law was challenged, in State or Federal Court, there would not be a higher standard applied than HIPPA. HIPPA has standards in place for law enforcement. The way the legal system normally determines if this is the case is by looking at the possible penalties and the intent of the voters. The intent of the voters would never be to shield criminals from prosecution but to protect patients from arbitrary invasions of privacy. No judge would rule otherwise. If we attempt to block lawful access by police things could get a lot worse. Thanks, Bb

 

Federal law to protect marijuana consumers? How would that be enforced? Call the DEA for help?

[peanutbutter]

The state has REFUSED to obey the law.

 

They will refuse to obey this one also.

 

We need to un plug the laws that give them power over us. Then there would be no law at all they can use against us.

 

While they would LIKE to, they just can't convict some one based on "I don't like you."

[Iceman081]

Mike, here is the wording of the Act that describes what LEO can do to query the registry.

 

 

 

they can VERIFY, which means they can Query the Registry, but they DO need to do it Manually currently, they can not use LEIN i believe at the moment. and they can not do that because they will not fully implement the Act as it is. Doing so will take away 99% of their ammunition in their premise the Act is Grey and Confusing.

 

Timmah they can query through LEIN but only with a card # this is the reason why LEO doesn't want or like to accept paperwork. You cannot call LARA after business hours and this is were a lot of the problem lies, without a card # LEO cannot verify you in the middle of the night or anytime other than Monday-Friday 9-5pm and who knows if they will even pick up the phone, so they can't verify paperwork Majority of the time! This is why they detest paperwork it is just a hassle to them. Punching a number is far easy and faster than a phone call, this problem needs to be addressed!!! The State of Michigan is setting Patients up for arrest!!

[Iceman081]

The state has REFUSED to obey the law.

 

They will refuse to obey this one also.

 

We need to un plug the laws that give them power over us. Then there would be no law at all they can use against us.

 

While they would LIKE to, they just can't convict some one based on "I don't like you."

 

They will Implement this LAW!!! This a civil rights issue, you cannot stand in the way of THE WILL OF THE VOTERS we will Force their hand!!! The people of the Great State of Michigan will be heard!!!!

[LITLJON]

One bold-ed word of change is one to many. The law shouldn't be touched. What should being done by our law makers is setting up fair treatment of card holders (I'm not talking the dispensary issue) who clearly violate the law. By level of severity and not by current drug mandated punishments. "We the people" voted, "We the people" agreed, "We the people" stand, "We the people" demand to be represented as such.

[Timmahh]

Timmah they can query through LEIN but only with a card # this is the reason why LEO doesn't want or like to accept paperwork. You cannot call LARA after business hours and this is were a lot of the problem lies, without a card # LEO cannot verify you in the middle of the night or anytime other than Monday-Friday 9-5pm and who knows if they will even pick up the phone, so they can't verify paperwork Majority of the time! This is why they detest paperwork it is just a hassle to them. Punching a number is far easy and faster than a phone call, this problem needs to be addressed!!! The State of Michigan is setting Patients up for arrest!!

 

 

Correct, and if the State would Fully Implement the act, it (the State MMMP Office) could then create an posistion within the MMMP, therefore protecting HIPPA rights,, that has 24/7 manned phone personal, to answer such calls from LEO.

 

 

the program has a surplus of over 3 million, that easily provides for a 24/7 manned call in center where a Single person on an 8 hr shift can field calls from Law Enforcment for the Sole purpose of registry verification.

 

 

again its not rocket science, but for the State, common sence is apparently way to much to expect.

 

yet another SIMPLE non Legislative SOLUTION to their Perceived Grey areas.

 

This again proves the States Refusal to implement the Act, is the direct cause of the grey areas being complained about. It is not the Act.