Jump to content

Supremes Reverse Coa On King & Kolonek


Recommended Posts

Great decision, that should make a difference in local law enforcement, such as going after grandmas with two 6 inch plants as is their custom here. Hopefully these stupid warrants will be more thought out too. Personally i think checking for cards should always go before warrants being issued. If you see a card, go away........shredder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Topic Merged

The Michigan Supreme Court, in its first major ruling on a case arising from the use of medical marijuana, said today that the state's voter-approved law on medicinal pot provides relatively broad legal protection from prosecution, even for patients who do not register for a state medical marijuana card.

 

In a pair of cases out of Oakland and Shiawassee counties, the court ruled unanimously that lower-court interpretations of the marijuana statute had been too restrictive.

 

In the Oakland County case, the court said the law allows a person arrested on a marijuana-related offense to assert a medical marijuana defense, as long as the use of marijuana was recommended by a doctor after the law was enacted in 2008 and before the arrest.

 

Unfortunately for the defendant in the case, Alexander Kolanek, the court said he could not avail himself of the defense because his doctor’s recommendation was post-arrest.

 

In the Shiawassee case, the Supreme Court said defendant Larry King was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether his medical marijuana was kept in what the law would define as a secure facility.

 

Detroit-area medical marijuana advocate Tim Beck, who had not yet reviewed the decision this afternoon, said it sounded like the Supreme Court had overturned what he called some of the more onerous and misguided interpretations of the law by lower courts.

 

The state Court of Appeals, Beck said, had taken “way too narrow a view … not something that could be construed as the plain meaning of the law.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this does seem to be a good thing.... but they will find other ways to mess with us,espesially when you have people thinking they dont need to register and u can have as many plants as u need. i just think it will cut both ways in the end. mabey they are tring to embolden us to push the law......sorry im just babbling here lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the links to PDFs of the Supreme Court decisions overturning the Court of Appeals in People v King and People v Kolanek: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-12-Term-Opinions/142695.pdf

 

The court held, in part, that:

 

We granted leave in these cases to consider substantive and procedural aspects of

the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8, MCL 333.26428, of the

Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).1 Given the plain language of the statute,

we hold that a defendant asserting the § 8 affirmative defense is not required to establish

the requirements of § 4, MCL 333.26424, which pertains to broader immunity granted by

the act. The Court of Appeals erred by reaching the opposite conclusion in People v

King,2 and we therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment in King.

Further, to establish the affirmative defense under § 8, we hold that a defendant

must show under § 8(a)(1) that the physician’s statement was made after enactment of the

MMMA but before commission of the offense. The Court of Appeals reached this

conclusion in People v Kolanek,3 and we affirm the Court of Appeals in this regard.

However, the Court of Appeals also held that defendant could reassert the affirmative

defense at trial, despite his failure at the evidentiary hearing to establish the existence of a

timely physician’s statement under § 8(a)(1). This was error, and we reverse that portion

of the Court of Appeals’ holding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 8 can be used without or with the card.

 

The act is very clear and I'm very proud of our Michigan Supreme Court.

 

As I have said many times in the past, "the strongest and most powerful part of the act is in section 8".

 

The doctors recommendation is key though, you have to have the recommendation prior to arrest........shredder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very pleased with this UNANIMOUS decision from our Supreme Ct. This may boost appeals from recent very bad appellate decisions, like the Mt Pleasant case and the other one about zero tolerance driving without any showing of impairment. And also to set aside cases where defendants were denied Sec 4 or 8 defenses based on limited interpretation. I think it's important the Supremes took these prosecutors to task quite well, almost to the woodshed, not to mention some of the Appellate panels. This will make them think less about politics & election and more of their malicious prosecution. .Finally, they recognize the WILL OF THE VOTERS BY PLAIN AND REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, NOT by convoluted and conflicting standards of determining Legislative Intent. A GREAT WIN KUDOS TO ALL INVOLVED. BIG FATTY TONIGHT, JA MAN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the police can see registered patients by running their license plate but could not see unregistered patients, right?

 

If that is the case, the doctor recommended but unregistered patient setup might not be such a bad idea....assuming you would drop off the LEIN report (big assumption).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the police can see registered patients by running their license plate but could not see unregistered patients, right?

 

If that is the case, the doctor recommended but unregistered patient setup might not be such a bad idea....assuming you would drop off the LEIN report (big assumption).

 

Yep

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Topic Merged...

In a pair of cases out of Oakland and Shiawassee counties, the court ruled unanimously that lower-court interpretations of the marijuana statute had been too restrictive.

 

In the Oakland County case, the court said the law allows a person arrested on a marijuana-related offense to assert a medical marijuana defense, as long as the use of marijuana was recommended by a doctor after the law was enacted in 2008 and before the arrest.

 

...

 

Nothing about it having to be current? For example, would a patients recommendation from 2009 allow use of section 4 defense for a 2012 arrest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thrilled with this ruling, I needed something like that and the timing couldn't of been better.

 

The question is, if I write LARA and request to be dropped from the program, will my information still be available to lein or any other leo types? As far as my doctors recommendation goes, well, I think the first one is all that I will need, it is dated after the law took effect and before any encounters with leo.

 

Congratulations to the SC, they have read the MMMA through the eyes of the electorate not the legislature as the our constitution requires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, if I write LARA and request to be dropped from the program, will my information still be available to lein or any other leo types?

 

IMO, once you are in the system, you stay in the system. you can burn a harddrive but infomation still stays in there.

 

Trix

:bong2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LANSING -- In what advocates for Michigan's medical marijuana law characterized as a clear-cut victory for patient rights, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday the state's voter-approved statute protects patients from prosecution even if they have not sought a marijuana registry card.

In its first major ruling on the medical marijuana law, the unanimous court said the law expressed the voters' "intent to permit both registered and unregistered patients to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana."

The ruling came in two cases out of Oakland and Shiawassee counties in which defendants arrested on marijuana charges argued they were immune from prosecution under the statute.

Karen O'Keefe, an attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which sponsored the 2008 medical marijuana initiative, called the court's ruling "great."

"That's the way we wrote it," she said.

In the Oakland County case, the court said the law allows a person arrested on a marijuana-related offense to assert a medical marijuana defense as long the use of marijuana was recommended by a doctor after the law was enacted and before the arrest occurred. But for the defendant in that case, Alexander Kolanek, the court said he could not avail himself of the so-called affirmative defense because his doctor's recommendation came after his arrest.

The affirmative defense allows a person who has been certified to use medical marijuana to use that certification as a defense against prosecution.

In the Shiawassee case, the Supreme Court said defendant Larry King was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether he met the requirements of a section of the law providing protection to unregistered patients.

King's attorney John Minock said the decision was a clear-cut victory for King and other medical marijuana patients, and a rebuke to overly zealous police and prosecutors who have attempted to enforce the marijuana law in the most restrictive way possible.

But Joy Yearout, spokeswoman for state Attorney General Bill Schuette, disagreed.

Thursday's ruling "does not legalize marijuana broadly," she said. Registered patients remain subject to limits on the amount of marijuana they can grow or possess. And all medical marijuana users are required to obtain a doctor's certification before using marijuana, she said.

But the ruling clearly upholds the rights of patients to possess and use marijuana, whether registered with the state Department of Community Health or not.

O'Keefe said state certification "still makes sense" for most patients because it allows medical marijuana users to avoid the stress and expense of arrest and prosecution. But the Supreme Court properly determined that the law provides "a safety net" for all legitimate patients, she said.

The case decided Thursday was one of several medical marijuana cases pending in Michigan's appellate courts. Still unresolved are the issues of dispensaries and whether patient-to-patient sales are permitted under the law.

Almost all dispensaries closed last year after Schuette issued an opinion that they were not permitted.

But Matthew Abel, a leading medical marijuana defense attorney, said that he believes Thursday's ruling will "disappoint a lot of prosecutors who want to shut it down altogether."

Abel said the Supreme Court has sent a clear signal that medical marijuana is legal in Michigan. :yahoo-wave:

http://www.freep.com...0482/1001/rss01

Edited by Beans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MMMA shields patients from prosecution, Supreme Court rules - Detroit Free Press - June 1, 2012

 

By Dawson Bell Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau - http://www.freep.com/article/20120601/NEWS06/206010482/Michigan-s-medical-marijuana-law-shields-patients-from-prosecution-Supreme-Court-rules?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

LANSING -- In what advocates for Michigan's medical marijuana law characterized as a clear-cut victory for patient rights, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday the state's voter-approved statute protects patients from prosecution even if they have not sought a marijuana registry card.

 

In its first major ruling on the medical marijuana law, the unanimous court said the law expressed the voters' "intent to permit both registered and unregistered patients to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana."

 

The ruling came in two cases out of Oakland and Shiawassee counties in which defendants arrested on marijuana charges argued they were immune from prosecution under the statute.

 

Karen O'Keefe, an attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which sponsored the 2008 medical marijuana initiative, called the court's ruling "great."

 

"That's the way we wrote it," she said.

 

In the Oakland County case, the court said the law allows a person arrested on a marijuana-related offense to assert a medical marijuana defense as long the use of marijuana was recommended by a doctor after the law was enacted and before the arrest occurred. But for the defendant in that case, Alexander Kolanek, the court said he could not avail himself of the so-called affirmative defense because his doctor's recommendation came after his arrest.

 

The affirmative defense allows a person who has been certified to use medical marijuana to use that certification as a defense against prosecution.

 

In the Shiawassee case, the Supreme Court said defendant Larry King was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether he met the requirements of a section of the law providing protection to unregistered patients.

 

King's attorney John Minock said the decision was a clear-cut victory for King and other medical marijuana patients, and a rebuke to overly zealous police and prosecutors who have attempted to enforce the marijuana law in the most restrictive way possible.

 

But Joy Yearout, spokeswoman for state Attorney General Bill Schuette, disagreed.

 

Thursday's ruling "does not legalize marijuana broadly," she said. Registered patients remain subject to limits on the amount of marijuana they can grow or possess. And all medical marijuana users are required to obtain a doctor's certification before using marijuana, she said.

 

But the ruling clearly upholds the rights of patients to possess and use marijuana, whether registered with the state Department of Community Health or not.

 

O'Keefe said state certification "still makes sense" for most patients because it allows medical marijuana users to avoid the stress and expense of arrest and prosecution. But the Supreme Court properly determined that the law provides "a safety net" for all legitimate patients, she said.

 

The case decided Thursday was one of several medical marijuana cases pending in Michigan's appellate courts. Still unresolved are the issues of dispensaries and whether patient-to-patient sales are permitted under the law.

 

Almost all dispensaries closed last year after Schuette issued an opinion that they were not permitted.

 

But Matthew Abel, a leading medical marijuana defense attorney, said that he believes Thursday's ruling will "disappoint a lot of prosecutors who want to shut it down altogether."

 

Abel said the Supreme Court has sent a clear signal that medical marijuana is legal in Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mich. Supreme Court makes 1st medical pot rulings - Associated Press - May 31, 2012

 

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/mich-supreme-court-makes-1st-medical-pot-rulings/ac45957f55e44124abc76b14cc3543b0

 

DETROIT (AP) — In its first medical marijuana ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court said Thursday that a man arrested for drug manufacturing deserves another day in court to defend his outdoor, locked chain-link dog kennel as a legally proper facility in which to grow his pot.

 

The state's highest court unanimously ruled that the law approved by voters in 2008 contains plainer language and broader protections than the way in which it was interpreted by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said that Larry King's kennel didn't qualify has a place to keep marijuana. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and said the Shiawassee County resident who had a valid medical marijuana card was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

 

In another case within the same ruling, the court said that Alexander Kolanek of Oakland County needed a doctor's statement confirming a medical need for marijuana after the state law was enacted and before his 2009 arrest. That affirmed an appeals court ruling but the high court said a person accused of a marijuana-related crime has a right to assert a medical marijuana defense if the doctor's recommendation was already in hand.

 

Kolanek, 25, has said he smoked marijuana to deal with problems related to Lyme disease. He talked to a doctor about the medical benefits of pot before voters approved its legal use but didn't get the doctor's authorization until after an arrest for possessing marijuana.

 

Thursday's decisions clarify a state law that allows medical marijuana under some circumstances but has caused much confusion. Marijuana can be used to alleviate the symptoms of certain illnesses if someone sees a doctor and gets a state-issued card. People can possess up to 2 ½ ounces of ready-to-use marijuana and have up to 12 plants in a locked area.

 

King, 55, who has chronic back pain, was charged with drug crimes after Owosso police discovered marijuana growing in a dog kennel, which had a locked, 6-foot-high fence and was partly covered with black plastic.

 

Attorney Dan Korobkin of the Michigan chapter of American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that it's the first major decision in favor of a medical marijuana patient in the state.

 

"This decision makes it very clear: A patient who uses marijuana to treat their medical conditions with the approval by their doctor should not be punished for mere technical errors regarding the number of plants or how they were secured," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...