Jump to content

Msc Takes Up Pot Co-Op Case


Recommended Posts

MSC Takes Up Pot Co-op Case

 

The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) this week released an order indicating they would take up People v. Ryan Michael BYLSMA, the case in which the Court of Appeals ruled a marijuana grower couldn't let others grow pot in the same locked facility.

 

Bylsma was growing 24 plants in a downtown Grand Rapids apartment while 64 other caregivers' plants occupied the same space (See "Charges Stick Against Community Indoor Pot Garden Grower," 9/28/2011).

 

The Court of Appeals and Kent County Circuit Court agreed that Bylsma has access to all of the plants, not just the 12 per patient he was allowed to cultivate.

 

The MSC has directed an oral argument on the matter, where the parties will be required to address whether the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) permits collective marijuana cultivation. It also wants to know whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled under the MMMA to immunity from prosecution for manufacturing marijuana.

 

The court also invited the Attorney General, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan to file amicus briefs in the case.

 

It's case number 302762.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any guesses as to when we might expect a decision?

 

Just the fact that they agreed to hear the case is encouraging. It really makes me scratch my head and say "Huh?" when the courts tell someone that it is legal for them to grow 24 plants but that they cannot grow their plants with someone else who is also legal. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, what would be the purpose of such a law other than to make it harder for each person to grow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes perfect sense if you can only posses x amount and you are in possession of y amount.

 

 

Any guesses as to when we might expect a decision?

 

Just the fact that they agreed to hear the case is encouraging. It really makes me scratch my head and say "Huh?" when the courts tell someone that it is legal for them to grow 24 plants but that they cannot grow their plants with someone else who is also legal. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, what would be the purpose of such a law other than to make it harder for each person to grow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we STILL need an outdoor grow case

 

 

might as well get it all out there so we can finely get on within the original intent of the law

 

using clear decisions from the high court, instead of your zip code because of facious local prosecutors,

 

to guide how/where you acquire and how/where you grow is the way it SHOULD have been for awhile now....

 

 

what..... 4 years to get here??? disgraceful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes perfect sense if you can only posses x amount and you are in possession of y amount.

 

Well, that begs the question: What is the definition of possession?

 

From Wests Encyclopedia of Law:

 

"possession n. any article, object, asset or property which one owns, occupies, holds or has under control. "Constructive possession" involves property which is not immediately held, but which one has the right to hold and the means to get (such as a key to a storeroom or safe deposit box). "Criminal possession" is the holding of property which it is illegal to possess such as controlled narcotics, stolen goods or liquor by a juvenile. The old adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law" is a rule of force and not of law, since ownership requires the right to possess as well as actual or constructive possession. (See: possess)"

 

From Lectlaw.com:

 

POSSESSION

 

"A person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it. [More than one person can be in possession of something if each knows of its presence and has the power and intention to control it.]

The law recognizes several kinds of possession. A person may have actual possession or constructive possession. A person may also have sole possession or joint possession.

A person who has direct physical control of something on or around his person is then in actual possession of it.

A person who is not in actual possession, but who has both the power and the intention to later take control over something either alone or together with someone else, is in constructive possession of it.

If one person alone has possession of something, possession is sole.

If two or more persons share possession, possession is joint."

 

So it appears that intention has a role in the definition of possession. If the people involved in this case did not have the intention to control the other person's plants, then said person does not technically "possess" the plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law could care less, they are not likely to allow coop grows or shared grows. Use common sense.

 

 

Well, that begs the question: What is the definition of possession?

 

From Wests Encyclopedia of Law:

 

"possession n. any article, object, asset or property which one owns, occupies, holds or has under control. "Constructive possession" involves property which is not immediately held, but which one has the right to hold and the means to get (such as a key to a storeroom or safe deposit box). "Criminal possession" is the holding of property which it is illegal to possess such as controlled narcotics, stolen goods or liquor by a juvenile. The old adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law" is a rule of force and not of law, since ownership requires the right to possess as well as actual or constructive possession. (See: possess)"

 

From Lectlaw.com:

 

POSSESSION

 

"A person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it. [More than one person can be in possession of something if each knows of its presence and has the power and intention to control it.]

The law recognizes several kinds of possession. A person may have actual possession or constructive possession. A person may also have sole possession or joint possession.

A person who has direct physical control of something on or around his person is then in actual possession of it.

A person who is not in actual possession, but who has both the power and the intention to later take control over something either alone or together with someone else, is in constructive possession of it.

If one person alone has possession of something, possession is sole.

If two or more persons share possession, possession is joint."

 

So it appears that intention has a role in the definition of possession. If the people involved in this case did not have the intention to control the other person's plants, then said person does not technically "possess" the plants.

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...