Link To The Fence Over Top Bill

[SFC]

Bottom line: If you are crazy enough to grow outdoors for pete's sake put a top on it! NONE of us want to see anyone else go thru what Larry has.

[Herb Cannabis]

I think Larry King would disagree. as his Dog Kennel was enclosed on all SIDES, but open on the Top. When defining Structures, Sides, Floor and ROOF ALL have different Meanings and Positions. The Side always means the lateral part of the structure. One will never see ROOF, TOP, or COVER used to define a side, nor will one ever see SIDE or WALL or UP Standing used to depict Roof, Top or Cover.

 

They are as distinctly Different in the world of construction as Brief and Warrant are in a legal Sence.

 

 

A prison is a locked, enclosed facility. Even without armed guards, the prison yard is also a Locked Enclosed facility. Yet the Prison Yards have ZERO for a TOP, COVER, or ROOF.

 

The MMMA does NOT mandate the GROW AREA be in a Domicile, Home, Building, or even a NON OUT OF DOORS enclosure. It Simply states "Enclosed Locked Facility". Black's Law Dictionary give pretty much no definition of facility that is suitable to this discussion, other than

Note the LACK of the Terms Roof, Top or Cover, and that is the LEGAL Definition. now for the Common Man meaning of Miriam Webster, which states

 

 

 

Now the Commen Man definition of Enclosed by Miriam Webster

 

 

 

Now how about that ALL IN AGREEMENT about this meaning EACH of the 6 sides of an "ENCLUSURE", because you WILL NOT FIND a legal definition that mandates ENCLOSURE To include a Top, Roof, or COVER....

 

 

Wow! You have done a great job, now send this to the CoA and all of the County level courts as well. It is very simple to understand, hopefully they will get it. Oh, wait, it makes to much sense, that would mean that they do have the basic comprehension as to how a people's initiative works here in Michigan.

[Herb Cannabis]

Look at it this way;

If they had to add those 8 words to make it so we need a top, then were you wrong when you didn't have one before those 8 words? I would think this could be encouraging for someone in your position. Get on that, it's another foot in the door for your defense. But once those words get implemented, there will be no more confusion defense. Even if you are confused, the judge will not be.

 

Look at it this way;

If they had to add those 8 words to make it so we need a top, then were you wrong when you didn't have one before those 8 words? I would think this could be encouraging for someone in your position. Get on that, it's another foot in the door for your defense. But once those words get implemented, there will be no more confusion defense. Even if you are confused, the judge will not be.

 

Are you saying that because those 8 words weren't there at the time of kp's horrible problems that he may be better off legally?

[CaveatLector]

I think Larry King would disagree. as his Dog Kennel was enclosed on all SIDES, but open on the Top. When defining Structures, Sides, Floor and ROOF ALL have different Meanings and Positions. The Side always means the lateral part of the structure. One will never see ROOF, TOP, or COVER used to define a side, nor will one ever see SIDE or WALL or UP Standing used to depict Roof, Top or Cover.

 

They are as distinctly Different in the world of construction as Brief and Warrant are in a legal Sence.

 

 

A prison is a locked, enclosed facility. Even without armed guards, the prison yard is also a Locked Enclosed facility. Yet the Prison Yards have ZERO for a TOP, COVER, or ROOF.

 

The MMMA does NOT mandate the GROW AREA be in a Domicile, Home, Building, or even a NON OUT OF DOORS enclosure. It Simply states "Enclosed Locked Facility". Black's Law Dictionary give pretty much no definition of facility that is suitable to this discussion, other than

Note the LACK of the Terms Roof, Top or Cover, and that is the LEGAL Definition. now for the Common Man meaning of Miriam Webster, which states

 

 

 

Now the Commen Man definition of Enclosed by Miriam Webster

 

 

 

Now how about that ALL IN AGREEMENT about this meaning EACH of the 6 sides of an "ENCLUSURE", because you WILL NOT FIND a legal definition that mandates ENCLOSURE To include a Top, Roof, or COVER....

One major flaw in your reasoning is that it isn't relevant. That reasoning would all be good if we needed a definition of enclosed, locked facility. But we don't. The MMA already defines that. Here is what it tells us:

 

"Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

Therefore, you cannot tear apart the term "enclosed, locked facility" and parse each word. It is defined in the statute. Now, you are free to interpret what the definition in the statute means but you can't simply redefine the term or parse it and define each part of the term. They could have called it a "cave" instead of an enclosed, locked facility and that would have changed nothing. If they said you must keep your plants in a cave and then they define cave in the statute then cave means what they say it means. Cave would then mean: a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient. You couldn't then go to Webster's and use their deifnition of cave to then tell us we need to keep plants in:

 

1

: a natural chamber or series of chambers in the earth or in the side of a hill or cliff

 

2

: a usually underground chamber for storage <a wine cave>; also: the articles stored there

 

 

Why? Because the law constructed an operational definition of the term cave. Rules of statutory construction tell us that when a word is defined in a statute then that defnition is to be used in the statute.

Edited October 11, 2012 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

So we agree - secure and enclosed means all sides, and that includes the top and the cage itself cannot be lifted off.

 

No we are not in agreement that is the current situation.

 

It may become that way if the new bill becomes law. Until then a facility must prevent most people from gaining casual admission.

 

A reasonable security effort.

 

Tops, visible etc. are all not in code at this time.

[The Digital Nomad]

PB's experience and the COA ruling should be enough to convince people to secure their grows.

[Timmahh]

that is the Key DN< Security. Enclosed, in any common definition will always mean a variety of buildings, out buildings, fenced in areas, areas that are inside a domicile, or outside say on a farm. That is why the term Enclosed was used, and not Domicile or ONLY A CLOSET, but rather it states, LIKE a Closet, or OTHER Enclosed AREA. Area can mean ANYTHING OPEN or an Open area in an Locked, Enclosed Facility.

 

so your argument here is not relevant as it only slides from one word to another. From Enclosed to Area, Neither of which mandates All Side, Tops, Covers, Lid, Roofs, Or ceilings..... only Locked, and Enclosed Areas, Like a Closet or other secured area.

 

Permissible Access is the qualifying factors to ANY variety of "Locked, Enclosed, Facility"

Again this is the Law, UNTIL something else may be passed that more rigidly defines it.

 

A safe is meant to stop a Thief, but do we not have Thiefs that Crack Safes and still commit a crime?

 

Lets look at a reality. Many are growing outside. With the exception for Medical Use as recommended by a Mi Licensed D.O. or Medical Dr, and Being Cannabis is illegal, and the money market on the street and allies are quick money makers for the criminal minded, especially when the cost of product is so cheap. is it any wonder crops are ripped? furthermore, should the victims of the criminals, that illegally stole products or items, be punished by being told their experience is not important to the matter at hand?

Edited October 12, 2012 by Timmahh

[Celliach]

Most safes aren't to stop thieves. Good thieves can open safes. They're meant to keep honest people honest.

[nthlghts]

The fact that people are debating this issue shows the medical community is as ignorant as the government. Ask yourself, would you lock up prescription drugs in this way, would you even store, beer, booze, jewelry, or anything of value out in the open. Why this is so complicated is beyond me, lock the sh.t up, get that through your heads. This is why our country is in its current state, the bullsh.t is incredible. If you want to try your time in court with this go for it, but you will lose.

[SFC]

Excellent post Nthlghts.

[peanutbutter]

Most safes aren't to stop thieves. Good thieves can open safes. They're meant to keep honest people honest.

 

The purpose of a lock on the enclosed facility. Same reasoning.

[Timmahh]

That is EXACTLY MY Point Celliac. Laws, Rules ect, do ZERO, ZIP, NOTHING to keep honest people honest. They only exist to punish those that are NOT Honest, Fair, Law Abiding Citizens.

 

Except in this situation, the LAW We the People Passed, because Bad Laws were putting allot of good honest people in jail and prison, is being subjugated to keep putting good honest, fair people in prison. Is everyone Honest and Good People? Of course not. But when we as a society start grading everyone by the lowest common denominator, have we raised ourselves on a level as a species, or did we just lower ourselves to expect less from our species?

[Celliach]

Timma, who's grading everyone by the lowest common denominator? Who judges what the lowest common denominator is? Is there even a lowest common denominator or are we all equal according to the constitution? If we are all equal,as the constitution says we are, should some people get preferential treatment because they are following the law "better" than others? Personally I don't feel that I was lowered by those beneath me. Rather I feel that by comparison they are being raised up.

 

Maybe that's the problem, you feel there are people below you and you also feel that you are being judged by those lower standards, but the US constitution and American philosophy itself is based on the idea that we are all equal. To say that you are being lowered to the least common denominator is to say that you don't believe in the core principles that our country was founded on in a way. You're saying that we aren't all equal. We have anti-discrimination laws in this country to protect the "lowest common denominator" people in this country from being pushed into that lower position.

[t-pain]

you're not seriously arguing that our justice system treats everyone as equals are you?

[Celliach]

You know what, this could easily be solved with one sentence:

 

If you currently want to avoid arrest for an outdoor grow, one way is to make sure it has a roof and is fully enclosed.

 

Simple.

[Celliach]

you're not seriously arguing that our justice system treats everyone as equals are you?

 

No, I'm saying that our constitution does, and those rights of equality are guaranteed through the court system. Are people with money treated differently in practice, yes. Can you gain equality through the courts, yes. Both sides of the sword are sharp in this instance and no blanket statement can be held as true.

[Fat Freddy]

You know what, this could easily be solved with one sentence:

 

 

 

Simple.

 

To err on the side of caution is the best approach I have seen so far, if leo wants to nitpick after you have gone the extra mile to avoid issues. How would a neutral judge view such?? I would tend to believe the court would be less inclined to entertain any argument that would tend to be negative toward a defendant.

[t-pain]

Can you gain equality through the courts, yes.

 

unless you are black, brown, latino or muslim...

just search for 'skin color harsher penalties' if you want to see the stats.

 

you better have a mesh metal fence for a roof.

its just a couple extra pieces of metal, not that cost prohibitive to make a 10ft tall chainlink+mesh enclosure.

 

i've read reports of people who get raided even having barbed wire and other security measures.

all this case law doesnt mean doodles in front of the wrong prosecutor + judge.

[Celliach]

You have to make sure that nobody can see it from adjacent property too. I'm not saying that's illegal, I'm just saying that's been the justification for many arrests.

[Fat Freddy]

A prosecutor and Judge are both subject to the will of the jury!!!

Never, Never, Ever give up your right to a jury trial no matter what assurances you may get from your attorney.

Remember there is 12 people that will hear the case and that is 12 differing opinions, whereas there is but one judge and prosecutor who seldom rule in a defendant's favor.

[Herb Cannabis]

A prosecutor and Judge are both subject to the will of the jury!!!

Never, Never, Ever give up your right to a jury trial no matter what assurances you may get from your attorney.

Remember there is 12 people that will hear the case and that is 12 differing opinions, whereas there is but one judge and prosecutor who seldom rule in a defendant's favor.

 

Great post, thanks.

[SFC]

And in a perfect world Freddy you are right. But in the real world it is not that simple. Taking your chances with a jury can sting really bad if you do lose. If you know you are 100% compliant go for it, when you start dropping to 90%, 80% etc you better choose wisely.

[Fat Freddy]

If I remember the statement correctly it says I am entitled to a trial by a jury of 12 of my peers.

Seeing that there is a jury selection process I would think I could select jury members that have used marijuana at one time or another in their lives. Or are facing debilitating conditions.

Of course the prosecutor will object to about half of the people selected. The object is to get a balanced jury pool.

[Timmahh]

no you cant have a balanced jury, hell someone beside the State may actually get a fair trial. How would the system survive.