On Medical Marihuana

[bobandtorey]

People v Brown

 

 

Published Opinion of the Court of Appeals, __ Mich App __ (2012)

This case addressed the probable cause analysis in light of the MMMA. Here, the defendant’s former roommate contacted and informed police that he saw grow lights, ventilation fans, and small marihuana plants growing their residence. The officers conducted trash pulls from the house and found marihuana.

The officer included those facts in a search warrant affidavit. The affidavit did not contain any statement as to whether the defendant was a medical marijuana patient. The search warrant was approved and the search was executed. Officers found 8 marijuana plants and 2 grams of marijuana.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and for a evidentiary hearing. Defendant argued the facts included in the affidavit failed to establish probable cause that a crime was committed because the MMMA made it legal to possess and grow certain amounts of marijuana.

The trial court agreed and found the affidavit did not contain sufficient facts to establish probable cause. Specifically, the trial court found that due to the MMMA’s passage, the search warrant affidavit had to provide specific facts that the possession of the marijuana alleged in the affidavit was not legal under the MMMA.

However, despite that ruling, the court found that the evidence should not be suppressed based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, but for a different reason. Specifically, the appellate court found the facts in the affidavit established the necessary probable cause, despite the passage of the MMMA. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the appellate court found the MMMA did not make the possession or cultivation of marijuana “legal.” Instead, the found that any possession of marijuana continues to violate the Public Health Code and is indicative of a criminal act sufficient for a probable cause finding. The court held:

 

 Thus, we conclude that to establish probable cause, a search-warrant affidavit need not provide facts from which a magistrate could conclude that a suspect’s marijuana-related activities are specifically not legal under the MMMA.

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/people-v-brown/

[bobandtorey]

This one has it so that they can still get a warrant for any marihuana if they want as it was before 2008

[MedicatedJester]

Do you get the feeling the CoA rules against the MMMA every single time just on principle?  Have they had even a single ruling that has gone in favor of the MMMA?

[bobandtorey]

Here is one

 

 

People v Redden

Published decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals: 290 Mich App 65 (2010)

Defendants were charged with manufacturing 20 or more but less than 200 marijuana plants after Madison Heights police executed a search warrant on Defendants’ residence. During the search, both Defendants showed police written recommendations for the medical use of marijuana executed by a licensed physician. The recommendations were dated after the effective date of the MMMA but before the Department of Community Health began distributing registry identification cards.

Defendants asserted the Section 8 affirmative defense at the district court preliminary examination.  At this hearing, Defendants presented testimony from the recommending physician, who stated he performed a physical examination, reviewed the medical records and interviewed each Defendant. Although, the physician also admitted his clinic did not require complete medical records. The physician concluded one Defendant had a debilitating condition that caused pain and the other suffered from nausea; however, he did not indicate what condition caused those aliments.

At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution argued the Defendants were barred from asserting the affirmative defense because they did not possess registry identification cards, did not prove a bona fide physician-patient relationship and failed to establish  they possessed an amount of marijuana not more than reasonably necessary to ensure uninterrupted availability for the purpose of treating their medical conditions.

The district court disagreed with the prosecution and dismissed the charges pursuant to the affirmative defense. The prosecution appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the district court and reinstated the charges. Defendants appealed the circuit court decision to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals found that the MMMA contains two levels of protection and a registry identification card is NOT required to assert the Section 8 affirmative defense. This ruling was based on the MMMA’s use of the terms “qualify patient” as distinct from “patient:”

[MedicatedJester]

There is one!  And an important one at that.

[bobandtorey]

i agree but things have not gotten any better for them and i here they took a plea deal of some kind because they where stressed the F out

 

of over 4+ years and now they will be getting their life"s back and maybe moving the F out of that County they could use your help inn coming to the Court house on June 27th @ 10 AM