Jump to content

Is The Smell Of Murijuana Probable Cause In Vehicle Under Mmma

Recommended Posts

correct T


as far as smell alone.. it cannot be probable cause if you have your MMMA card and proper ID.


the officer has to have evidence that a crime is being committed.


smell alone cannot satisfy that condition. 




(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you are at the very least guilty of illegal transport its just a misdemeanor though .



hate to disagree with you KD...

but your statement just is not quite accurate.  the MI Supreme Court already said in very absolute terms that any law that conflicts or that is inconsistent with 333.264 (MMMA) shall not stand against a properly vetted patient.


our legislature decided to pass that transportation bill at 0420 on a cloudy morning thinking they were getting one over on us patients... however it is unlikely that a patient would be bound by the inconsistency spelled out in the transportation law if in fact they were compliant otherwise..


its a difficult battle to take on at best as a person would need time and resources to last throughout all of the entire argument phases... however the legitimate argument has been presented in accordance with the supreme courts rulings and will be difficult at best to circumvent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately you have to submit to the request to exit the vehicle.


he should have and then locked the car behind him.


then they would have done a field sobriety test and when he passed that he would have been allowed to leave.


do not argue with LEO it will usually end badly for you.


express your concerns then follow their commands.  LEO has the right of conservative self protection in any traffic stop and they have the right to be defensive when they approach your vehicle.


get out.  lock your vehicle.  BE QUIET.  follow the lawful commands of the law enforcement official and perform the required roadside tests.


anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you.


record everything... excellent job on the video whoever this person was.. :) however i probably would have edited out the spelling of my name when LEO ran my license before posting this to the web...


its an excellent learning opportunity for us all.


the officer is allowed to lie to him about the light being out to get him to exit the vehicle.... your not allowed to lie but they are once he didn't submit to his lawful command to exit the vehicle...sucks but its true..

Edited by mibrains
Link to post
Share on other sites

how come I didnt see the light either working or not? did they make him stop video taping? did they pull him thru the window?


If leo pulls you over for a legit traffic violation and they say they can smell mmj well  unfortunatly it is probable cause, if the guy had it where it was supposed to be he shouldnt have anything to worry about, (I would lol) but once leo pulls you over probable cause is gonna happen if they are profiling or just looking for more, as far as the smell, we dont need to be using it for it to smell, if I have it in my trunk leo will smell it before they get to my drivers door lol!


I wish the video wouldnt have shut off when it did, and Im not saying the driver did anything wrong, most likely he was the wrong color or from the wrong ethinic group,  profiling needs to stop, I can kinda understand it in mexican boarder towns, but not here, yea I know we live next to canada in the north and alot of terrorist came here via canada, but it dont give leo the right to profile, just look at the number of people in our prisons and what for, and you will see a very poor and high amount of blacks and foreignors in our prison system. it is not fair!


It is time to stop this madness with the mmj and leo, why is this so important?  $$$$$$



Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the police stopped me took my phone away


that was you?


man excellent attempt my friend.. i hope i did not come off to harsh..was not trying to be.. just explaining the rules as best as i can understand them


great job with the video..


i am certain you can overcome this adversity with the proper legal representation...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont cop to a plea unless they are not going to put it on your record, play it out, ask for a jury trial, and rep your self at first, do all the judge says you need to do before prelim and a trial, you can always bring in either a court apptd or hire your own when it gets down to the wire!


Best wishes!



Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually now days they need more definitive proof than ever before to show probable cause...


along with that they have more abusive powers than ever before..


it is super important to know when to shut your mouth and let them violate your constitutionally protected rights... a judge will overturn the information when you prove you are right,


thats how our system is set up to protect a system of checks and balances of power... the police arrest and the prosecutor tries to prove the crime and then the judge referees and makes sure its fair and honest :)


Probable cause means simply that the police suspect a crime is in progress and must take action to protect life or property. 

that simply does not exist any longer when it is smell vs a MMMA card.  period.  if a LEO violates you with smell alone you will have to be silent and reverse that particular decision on proper grounds in the proper venue.. IE courtroom in front of a judge.. because that is the way our legal system operates.


a law enforcement official has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime exists.  section 4D clearly states it is presumed medical use UNLESS THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

the trick is to know when to argue your position and know your rights...


if you decide to use cannabis as medicine at some point


-you will be tested.


-you will be challenged


-you will be required to explain and justify your cannabis use (even if it is just to your own self)


Keep wise out there folks.. do not fear or worry about interactions with ruthless LEO - stay calm - make sure you can pass the field sobriety test - be patient and respectful... you are perfectly capable of making your own medical decisions about when to utilize your approved medication and no one is going to be able to successfully challenge that in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I needed get get other things like a knife suppressed how would I go about doing so


you'd have to prove that the search was wrong.

probably they will offer you a deal to plead guilty to one charge and drop the other charges, dont do it! dont plead guilty!


talk to a lawyer about surpressing evidence though. thats complicated stuff... and if the lawyer says you should plead, get a new lawyer!!!

Link to post
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.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By trix
      Washington, D.C. -- If you're going to wage war on drugs, you need to be outfitted like a warrior.
      That seems to be the rationale behind hundreds of police department requests for armored trucks submitted to the Pentagon between 2012 and 2014. The requests, unearthed in a FOIA request by Mother Jones magazine, shed light on how the war on drugs has directly contributed to the militarization of local police forces in recent years.

    • By trix
      New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® said on Monday that the war on drugs has been a "failure" -- even though he has vowed to enact a federal crackdown on marijuana, a substance that has been a primary target of the drug war for decades.
      "This is a disease and the war on drugs has been a failure -- well-intentioned, but a failure," Christie said at a presidential forum in New Hampshire on Monday. He went on to say that the country should "embrace" people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, offering them a chance at rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

    • By trix
      USA -- The war on drugs is over, and weed won. D.A.R.E., the organization designed to plant a deep-seated fear of drugs in the minds of every late-20th-century middle schooler, published an op-ed calling for marijuana legalization.
      Written by former deputy sheriff Carlis McDerment in response to a letter in the Columbus Dispatch, the op-ed explains that it's impossible for law enforcement to control the sale of marijuana to minors. "People like me, and other advocates of marijuana legalization, are not totally blind to the harms that drugs pose to children," McDerment writes. "We just happen to know that legalizing and regulating marijuana will actually make everyone safer."

    • By trix
      Colorado -- Oklahoma and Nebraska have filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to deem Colorado's marijuana laws unconstitutional, The Denver Post reports. The states, which border Colorado, claim in the suit that their neighbor's recreational pot policy is "draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice system." Because recreational weed is not legal in Nebraska and Oklahoma – and those states must abide by federal law, which also prohibits it – the they want Colorado's policy overturned. They are not seeking financial damages.
      "The State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system," the lawsuit – which Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed Thursday – alleges. "Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining [our states'] own marijuana bans."

    • By trix
      In an announcement today, the White House has pledged $263 million in new federal funding for police training and body cameras, set aside by executive order. The money includes $75 million allocated specifically for the purchase 50,000 cameras for law enforcement officers across the country. The training portion of the funds would go toward instructing police in the responsible use of paramilitary equipment like assault rifles and armored personnel carriers, much of which has flooded local departments as a result of a Homeland Security preparedness program.
      Additional funds will go to fund police outreach programs designed to build trust between local departments and the communities they serve.
      $263 million in new federal funding
      The cameras are designed to provide a definitive record of police activities, and have become a frequent demand in the wake of the Ferguson protests. The protests began with the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager killed by the police in Ferguson. Community leaders pointed to video taken in the aftermath of Brown's death as evidence of police misconduct, and the subsequent outcry has triggered a Justice Department investigation. More recently, a widely shared video of Cleveland police shooting a 12-year-old named Tamir Rice has intensified the demand for video documentation of police activities. Last week, the parents of Michael Brown announced a campaign "to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera."
      The new funding push is substantial, but 50,000 cameras will cover only a fraction of the more than 750,000 police officers currently employed in America. Camera proposals have also run into trouble with public records laws in states like Washington, which require the release of all police records not actively tied up in an investigation. With hundreds of hours of video generated by police cameras every day, that would present serious problems for both privacy and simple logistics.
      Still, many police departments have already looked into body-mounted cameras. On October 1st, the Washington D.C. police began a six-month pilot program that put cameras on the shoulders of many local police, and officials expect the program to reduce the number of complaints filed against officers by as much as 80 percent. The program wasn't cheap: it cost $1 million to buy and store the necessary volume of cameras. But after today, other departments that decide to take the same leap will have federal matching funds to soften the blow.

  • Create New...