Koon Loses At Coa

[mizerman]

I certainly see the State SC not only hearing this case, but overturning it. Just the tone of the SC towards BS and the CoA tells me they do not like much of what either has had to speak about lately...

 

But, until we get the rulings from the 1st two cases they have heard on the Act this year already, we ll be at hurry up and wait to be pulled over and arrested for false owuid charges (Operating While Under the Influance of Drugs).

 

Are the members of the COA's elected officials?

[CaveatLector]

this also means that the new standard in probable cause for initiating a roadside stop by LEO, will now be "Safe and Responsible Driving".

Police never needed probable cause to pull you over. The standard is reasonable suspicion which is a lot lower than PC.

[CaveatLector]

Are the members of the COA's elected officials?

yes

[bobandtorey]

Bob, This is precisely mine and "the better half's" biggest fear. Our renewal date is on July 1st and if things aren't cleared up by then we will not renew

 

i understand but they already have are names and addresses and with no card were are we to get meds from

[CaveatLector]

Make the prosecuted prove that you were impaired by thc. i agree but they will take your blood and you can not use medical in court

But that doesn't matter. If you are impaired you should be prosecuted. That's my point. Make them prove you were impaired. Currently they don't need to prive impairment only presence of thc.

 

Being a mm patient doesn't give you the right to drive while impaired.

[garyfisher]

Sounds like koon might have had a so-so attorney. This was out of disctrict in oakland recently. suprisingly.

 

1) Our client was charged with Operating with the Presence of Drugs in his system;

2) The crime requires a Schedule 1 controlled substance;

3) The drug in question in our client’s case was THC or marijuana;

4) Marijuana was classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance;

5) A Schedule 1 controlled substance is one that has no medicinal benefit;

6) The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act was passed in 2008 and enacted in 2009;

5) The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act states that marijuana has a medicinal benefit;

6) A medical marijuana patient would necessarily have marijuana in his sytem;

7) A medical marijuana patient cannot be charged with Operating with the Presence of Drugs in his system but would instead need to be impaired or intoxicated in order to be convicted;

8 ) A medical marijuana patient could have marijuana in his system but not be guilty of a crime absence proof of impairment while a regular citizen using the same amount of marijuana could have the same amount of marijuana in his system but would be guilty of crime just for having that marijuana in his system;

9) Therefore, medical marijuana patients and regular citizens are being treated differently for no reason. Neither is less safe than the other, yet one could operate with marijuana in his system while the other could not not.

 

 

I find the Operating With the Presence of Drugs statute, MCL 257.625(8), unconstitutional and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The case is dismissed.

 

charges dropped.

[bobandtorey]

But that doesn't matter. If you are impaired you should be prosecuted. That's my point. Make them prove you were impaired. Currently they don't need to prive impairment only presence of thc.

 

Being a mm patient doesn't give you the right to drive while impaired.i agree but when are you able to drive after 30 days or 4 hours?

[Fat Freddy]

Ok, lets see. Thc stays in the body for 30 to 60 days. The question that comes to my mind is: Are there any tests for intoxication levels at different times of that period?

We all know that impaired driving tests have been done for those charged with alcohol related offences. Thc is stored in the fatty tissues of the body and I think the body manufactures it to some degree. So basically how long after the euphoric wears off ( normally 4-6 hrs ) would a driver be considered impaired or under the influence?

[CaveatLector]

Ok, lets see. Thc stays in the body for 30 to 60 days. The question that comes to my mind is: Are there any tests for intoxication levels at different times of that period?

We all know that impaired driving tests have been done for those charged with alcohol related offences. Thc is stored in the fatty tissues of the body and I think the body manufactures it to some degree. So basically how long after the euphoric wears off ( normally 4-6 hrs ) would a driver be considered impaired or under the influence?

There is no per se standard. The legislature needs to develop standards like they did with alcohol. That or leave it to a jury to decide if your thc level impaired your ability to drive.

[CaveatLector]

Sounds like koon might have had a so-so attorney. This was out of disctrict in oakland recently. suprisingly.

 

1) Our client was charged with Operating with the Presence of Drugs in his system;

2) The crime requires a Schedule 1 controlled substance;

3) The drug in question in our client’s case was THC or marijuana;

4) Marijuana was classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance;

5) A Schedule 1 controlled substance is one that has no medicinal benefit;

6) The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act was passed in 2008 and enacted in 2009;

5) The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act states that marijuana has a medicinal benefit;

6) A medical marijuana patient would necessarily have marijuana in his sytem;

7) A medical marijuana patient cannot be charged with Operating with the Presence of Drugs in his system but would instead need to be impaired or intoxicated in order to be convicted;

8 ) A medical marijuana patient could have marijuana in his system but not be guilty of a crime absence proof of impairment while a regular citizen using the same amount of marijuana could have the same amount of marijuana in his system but would be guilty of crime just for having that marijuana in his system;

9) Therefore, medical marijuana patients and regular citizens are being treated differently for no reason. Neither is less safe than the other, yet one could operate with marijuana in his system while the other could not not.

 

 

I find the Operating With the Presence of Drugs statute, MCL 257.625(8), unconstitutional and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The case is dismissed.

 

charges dropped.

What do you mean by so-so?

[mizerman]

yes

Are they republicans?

[purklize]

Being a mm patient doesn't give you the right to drive while impaired.

 

This brings up broader issues. What about other forms of impairment, many of which are far more significant than even the largest amounts of mj? I'm not just talking about prescription controlled substances like pain drugs. What about sleep deprivation? Eating while driving? Driving at night? (You are certainly very impaired at night compared to during the day.) How about people with low IQs, poor concentration, or high stress levels that distract them? What about people suffering from depression (they might swerve into oncoming traffic to commit suicide)?

 

In reality I think there are very few drivers on the road who are NOT impaired. We just get singled out.

[trix]

Whata terd thing to read this morning... I actually havent driven my car in over 6 months. Cause I have a crazy fear of getting stopped by police and they seize my car for whatever reason.

 

That's all I have left is my car after being arrested last year, now I for sure will continue not to drive my car, guess I will drive one that is registered to someone without a MM card from now on..

 

Sure does suck to be a sick person in MI today..

 

Trix

[CaveatLector]

Are they republicans?

There are probably 30 COA judges. I don't know the political leanings of all of them. Judges run on the non partisan ballot so the only way to get an insight on their leanings is research any past public offices they may have held and look at what groups are financing their campaigns.

[CaveatLector]

This brings up broader issues. What about other forms of impairment, many of which are far more significant than even the largest amounts of mj? I'm not just talking about prescription controlled substances like pain drugs. What about sleep deprivation? Eating while driving? Driving at night? (You are certainly very impaired at night compared to during the day.) How about people with low IQs, poor concentration, or high stress levels that distract them? What about people suffering from depression (they might swerve into oncoming traffic to commit suicide)?

 

In reality I think there are very few drivers on the road who are NOT impaired. We just get singled out.

Agreed. But there is no law against a lot of that stuff. Should there be? Sure. Is it fair? No. But that's neither here nor there.

 

I would bet that driving while very tired is just as dangerous as driving while very intoxicated. But, how do you measure "very" tired? Can't quantify that. So the catch-all would be reckless driving or if you cause injury or death then something worse. If you are very tired and swerve all over you'll get prosecuted for reckless driving if caught. So, it is illegal just not per se.

[purklize]

I think we just need a generic law that basically just says "drive like siht, you lose your license and win a cab coupon book." There's no sense in trying to measure impairment, only performance.

 

Those driving tired are actually far more dangerous than drunks. When you're delirious you actually take "micronaps" without realizing it - until you're at the wheel and wake up crossing the median after your 1-2 second blackout (when you go limp you jerk the wheel).

 

i forgot to mention the worst offenders of today - those texting at the wheel. At least drunks are looking at the road.

 

And there are people who just can't drive. I got in the car with someone once who couldn't stay in her lane no matter what. It was a real scary 30 miles on that 2 lane highway. I've gotten in the car with someone who had a *liter* of whiskey in his gut (I was young ) and he didn't have any problems. Hence my desire for performance as the metric... the point is to make the roads safer, right?

 

Probably preaching to the choir here...

[mpp]

Honestly this opinion is just another in a long string of rulings which clearly outline a civil rights CATASTROPHE which is modern drug, specifically cannabis, policy. Not arguing anyone else should see it my way, but when in the opinion they said something to the effect of "It is our job to determine what the people thought they meant when they voted for the MMMA" I smell BULL$HIT piled a mile high. That same argument could be used to reinterpret not only a ballot initiative but by extension any law on the books and to let it fly is to invite corruption in other rulings.

I bet you can find trace amounts (>0) of anything you want in anyone's bodies. Should the a cop be fired because he drives his squad car after touching a joint, thus potentially releasing insidious THC into his bloodstream sub-dermally? As the law seems to be interpreted in this case, hell yea. Who wants to bet more than 50% of the police force in any given city has ingested, knowingly or not, enough THC to show up on the State's instruments?

One last rant point:

Do the drug screening tests lower limits even compare to those used in these court cases, IE would the supposedly "drug screened" police, or any other taxpayer endorsed body for that matter, even be able to pass the 0 tolerance laws at any given time??????

Maybe this is why Snyder and various municipalities have been scraping budget money together to hire more police officers (more money in sure-fire prosecutions like this, yea sure we'd like to think they are responding to a visible increase in "crime rate" but maybe they were predicting an "invisible increase" by criminalizing all MM drivers)

Definitely not renewing if this stands when my time comes up, my lawyer warned me about this one.

[semicaregiver]

Ok, lets see. Thc stays in the body for 30 to 60 days. The question that comes to my mind is: Are there any tests for intoxication levels at different times of that period?

We all know that impaired driving tests have been done for those charged with alcohol related offences. Thc is stored in the fatty tissues of the body and I think the body manufactures it to some degree. So basically how long after the euphoric wears off ( normally 4-6 hrs ) would a driver be considered impaired or under the influence?

 

According to this ruling and your example, you would be "legally impaired" for 30-60 days after using mmj.

 

The fact that this is a COA ruling means that this is now the law until either the State Supreme Court accepts the case and puts the ruling on hold, or the legislature changes the law.

[Reaper]

the flood gates will open up for the courts and now that the Leo's have are names they will get behind your car and run your plate

it will be over for you

 

Thought they stil need a warrent to access the registry? Can they tell if you have a card by running your plate?

[Timmahh]

not at this time Jreaper.

[pic book]

Doesn't this directly contradict the former MI Supreme Court ruling that went 5-4 against zero tolerance policies on mj? Or did that only apply to metabolites?

It is likely if this is appealed to the SC, the brief will cite the SC's zero tolerance ruling.

[Dilligaf]

"A blood test showed that defendant had active THC in his system."

 

The previous ruling was THC metabolites do not constitute impaired. This ruling is referring to "active THC" which is not the same as metabolites. I don't know how long it takes for active THC to metabolize but it's not 60 days, I would guess less than 24 hours.

 

Mike

[CaveatLector]

It is likely if this is appealed to the SC, the brief will cite the SC's zero tolerance ruling.

The zero tolerance, or metabolite ruling, was handed down by a more liberal sup ct if I am not mistaken. Since that case the make-up of the Sup Ct has changed and it has a conservative majority now. Furthermore, the reasoning in the zero tolerance case was tenuous at best. Therefore, I would not bank on the Sup Ct overturning the COA in this case anytime soon.

 

I think the movement, as a whole, would be better off lobbying the legislature to make accomodations for med mj users and to develop reasonable standards. Any standard who be better than zero tolerance and I can't see why legislators wouldn't be willing to loosen this up a bit when it is clear and obvious that no one is under the influence 2 days subsequent to ingesting.

[bobandtorey]

We do not, as the partial dissent suggests, imply that the legalization of marihuana for a limited medical purpose is “equated with an intent to allow its lawful consumption in conjunction with driving” or that marihuana itself should no longer be on the list of Schedule I controlled substances. We merely note that, under the Derror holding, those qualified individuals who lawfully use marihuana in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act are prohibited from driving for an undetermined length of time given the potential of 11-carboxy-THC to remain in a person’s system long after the person has consumed marihuana and is no longer impaired.”

 

What this decision may mean in the future.

An operator can still be prosecuted for operating while intoxicated or impaired by the ingestion of marihuana. If the chemical test shows the presence of THC, as opposed to just the presence of 11-carboxy-THC, he or she can also still be prosecuted for operating with the presence of a Schedule I controlled substance. However, if the Michigan State Police Laboratory finds only 11-carboxy THC in the driver’s system, then the prosecutor will have to use other evidence to show that the defendant was under the influence of marihuana.

 

Similar to an OWI with alcoholic liquor where there is no chemical test result, this type of case will have to be proven by other means such as witness statements, calculation as to how long ago the THC might have been present, the manner of driving, and the physical and mental conditions of the defendant at the time of driving.

 

This is the very reason why the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning with the assistance of the Michigan State Police and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan will continue to offer Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training to law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

 

ARIDE is an impairment based approach training to drugged driving. Decisions such asFeezel will lead to an increased emphasis on these impairment-based approaches. Please note a number of future ARIDE courses are planned for FY 2011-2012.

 

http://www.michiganprosecutor.org/tstp/newsletters/10oct-G3.htm

[Highlander]

Some people say that the MMJ Act was well thought-out, rock-solid, and bullet-proof. This is a good example of where the author could have done a bit better, perhaps using the term "impaired by" rather than "under the influence of." We know that a lot of people can be under the influence of MJ but not impaird by it. This tweak would be good legislative move.