Jump to content

Mmj Advocate Jailed, Charged With Major Drug Felonies In Muskegon


Recommended Posts

Yes, but it is the courts and law that is wrong, not the people.  If you need meds before the cards come in, someone has to break the law for you.  You are free from prosecution with a drs. note.  Why should it be and how can a law state that someone is to break the law to help you, esp. if no caregiver will take you because you don't use enough?  There should be coverage on both ends to allay entrapment. 

Always remember there is a difference between right and wrong and law.  Using sick status to get a card and entrap someone is wrong.  Serving more than 5 patients is outside the interpretation of the law.  That's why I try not to enter these conversations as it blurrs my thinking as I have to go into "law" mode.  After a while it can make you think that the law is right(at least for me it muddies my thinking talking about things meant to distract you from right and wrong).

Edited by Norby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willy the carded visiting patient has the same rights as a carded MMMP patient.  If a Michigan patient can buy from a non-connected caregiver then so can a visiting patient.  How is that "getting someone?"  Whether a non-connected caregiver can sell it to a non-connected patient is the issue.  You are making the assumption that a visiting patient should get special treatment by virtue of their visitation.  I would guess that the drafters envisioned the visiting patient bringing his own into the state and the law protecting him for ingesting it, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no i am not assuming that the visiting patient should get special treatment... but a Michigan caregiver  can not sell to  a non connected patient, cg's are routinely being arrested for just such cases... and if you think they figure you can bring your own, your incorrect..crossing state lines is a violation that so far has met with unfortunate results for anyone caught doing it... I do know what our law says, i follow it.. I have my quirks over it.. and i see its flawed.. but till SC changes there flawed logic,  we will continue to be arrested.. I agree that P2P "should" be legal... let us care for each other.. but as of now.. help a  non connected patient.. go to jail/ and pay thru the nose to avoid it longer term... 

 

Because one of those non connected patients, is gonna be a low life sneaking cop with a card ready to screw you over.some even have legal cards i might add.. issued by a cert mill... gained from lying... and used to entrap ....But your welcome to service any patient, continue with P2P with gusto.. good luck .

Edited by Willy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willy the carded visiting patient has the same rights as a carded MMMP patient.  If a Michigan patient can buy from a non-connected caregiver then so can a visiting patient.  How is that "getting someone?"  Whether a non-connected caregiver can sell it to a non-connected patient is the issue.  You are making the assumption that a visiting patient should get special treatment by virtue of their visitation.  I would guess that the drafters envisioned the visiting patient bringing his own into the state and the law protecting him for ingesting it, etc.

Thanks

Even in CO cannabis maybe legal as we see it but if you fly inn and out on CO the Airport has  a drop boxes  and signs everywhere telling you don't take Cannabis home with you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am staying out of this one, but this is a very interesting twist.  Much as I dislike these two, credit goes where credit is due.  This should be interesting....

 

MUSKEGON, MI – Muskegon medical-marijuana advocatesDerek Antol and Samantha Conklin have filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit, alleging drug-enforcement officers conducted unlawful searches and seizures July 9 of their homes and businesses and a "false arrest" of Antol's 12-year-old son before one of the searches.

Antol, 36, and Conklin, 24, were arrested Thursday, July 24, and charged with felonies for allegedly violating Michigan's medical marijuana law. Both remained in the Muskegon County Jail Monday, July 28, with cash or surety bond set at $100,000 for Antol and $50,000 for Conklin. Prosecutors said seven other people associated with Antol and Conklin also were being charged with felonies.

Antol's and Conklin's criminal attorney, Kevin Wistrom, on Friday said Antol and Conklin broke no laws. The Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office alleges that they and the other defendants did. According to the arrest warrants, the investigation by the West Michigan Enforcement Team, a multi-agency task force led by the Michigan State Police, dated back to 2010.

Samantha ConklinMuskegon County Jail

Antol runs Deuces Wild Smoke Shop at 885 E. Apple Ave. in Muskegon and is a medical-marijuana cardholder. Conklin is a licensed caregiver authorized to dispense medical marijuana to patients.

Their civil-rights lawsuit filed Monday, July 28, alleges that eight drug-enforcement officers violated Antol's and Conklin's Fourth Amendment constitutional rights against unreasonable and unlawful searches and seizures, as well as Antol's son's right not to be falsely arrested.

The lawsuit contends that:

  • Drug-enforcement officers, accompanied by a Michigan Treasury agent claiming to be with a tobacco tax team, on July 9 entered Deuces Wild Smoke Smoke Shop. The officers allegedly demanded entry to a locked, separate business entity in the same building in which Conklin dispensed medical marijuana to patients, then unlawfully entered those premises without a search warrant after she refused to consent. There they "observed medical marijuana which was lawfully possessed under state law," according to the lawsuit.
  • After Antol showed up at 885 E. Apple, he told officers his Deuces Wild business was separate from the medical-marijuana entity in the same building. He also told them of two homes he was purchasing on land contract, one of them with Conklin.
  • Based on the marijuana observed at 885 E. Apple, officers prepared an affidavit for a search warrant at all three locations, failing to disclose in the affidavit that there were two separate business entities at 885 E. Apple. A court magistrate authorized a search warrant for all three addresses based on this affidavit.
  • The allegedly unlawful entry into the medical-marijuana business entity was unreasonable, violated Conklin's right to privacy and caused her "significant emotional distress due to being unable to provide her patients with relief from the pain, suffering, and debilitating medical conditions." Antol, the lawsuit says, suffered emotional distress and "interruption to his normal business operations."
  • Police at the Apple Avenue address seized surveillance equipment, cash register receipts, $124 cash, a computer and two cell phones from Antol as well as $1,160 cash, a cell phone and a 9-mm pistol from Conklin.
  • Police then, based on the allegedly invalid search warrants, searched Antol's home on North Green Creek Road in Laketon Township allegedly without probable cause, violating the constitutional privacy rights of Antol and two children present, damaging a closet door and seizing $19,209 cash from Antol and $1,409 from his 12-year-old son.
  • Police also searched the other residence on Farr Road allegedly without a valid cause, seizing scales, W-2 forms, a revolver, a heating pad and miscellaneous containers belonging to Conklin.
  • During the search of the Green Creek Road home, Antol's 12-year-old son was allegedly ordered from his bedroom at gunpoint and detained while officers waited for the search warrant to arrive, all allegedly without probable cause. That, the lawsuit alleges, was a violation of the boy's Fourth Amendment rights and of state law and caused him "humiliation, anxiety and loss of liberty."

The lawsuit seeks at least $25,000 in damages from each of the eight defendants.

WEMET officials could not immediately be reached for comment Monday morning.

John S. Hausman covers courts, prisons, the environment and local government for MLive/Muskegon Chronicle. Email him at jhausman@mlive.com  and follow him on Twitter.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reserving my opinion also, reads like the whole case hangs on that Dueces Wild Smoke Shop and The Medical Marijuana Dispensary(name?) were separate businesses with the same owner and address;


Based on the marijuana observed at 885 E. Apple, officers prepared an affidavit for a search warrant at all three locations, failing to disclose in the affidavit that there were two separate business entities at 885 E. Apple.

Edited by Restorium2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will reserve comment until I am educated. Is it clear in the law that you can only sell to your registered and connected patients? 

Under sec. 4 requirements yes. Sec. 8 provisions, otoh, do not limit the number of persons who can participate, either patients or caregivers. They are intended to prevent conviction. They do not require registration or connection through it and are intended to be used by any patient and the patient's caregiver in any prosecution involving the medical use of mj. Where both parties have agreed to a cg/pt relationship, a physician has certified the patient as a likely beneficiary of the use of the drug in a bona fide patient/physician relationship, and possession amounts are no more than reasonably necessary to provide an uninterrupted supply, the patient and his/her caregiver are by the law to be afforded the defense in court. If those three elements are proved the case must be dismissed. There are no other requirements. Sec. 8 is in addition to and entirely separate from sec. 4. Both are equally valid law.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28usq0mc55yuftze55yfxjsqrr%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26428

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they win!  Something has to send a message to police who step outside the law for a conviction.  Jon Oliver said it well.  Do you really have to break up someone's house with m-16's and shoot their dog for selling pot?  Couldn't you just play the song from the ice cream truck and arrest him when he runs out the door?

Someone has to make these folks realize that you should tread very lightly when dealing with people who are sick or supply relief to the sick when they are doing nothing WRONG.  Some of us take it very seriously. A prerequisite to any search or arrest is what HARM is actually being done and how much does it cost to delete this real or imagined threat to society.  2010, seriously?  I'd love to see the log book on hours for this case. 

 

Anyone want to bet which was more, how much they made selling mj and how much it cost to follow them.

Edited by Norby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the amount of harm being done needs to outweigh cost to society.  I could be wrong but I've never heard of that as a search warrant prerequisite.  If it were then police could never get a search warrant for minor crimes.  I also don't think that how much they made selling marijuana versus how much it cost to follow them is an issue.  If cost came into play then it would never be worth it for police to investigate, say, a shoplifting where someone steals a $10 CD.  Imagine how much it costs to take a police report and prosecute that crime.  I would hazard a guess that it is over $10.

 

But cops are able to wield way too much power legally and illegally.  I'll buy a Miller Lite for anyone here who hasn't seen a cop speed over 10mph or pull a U-turn unnecessarily, or commit some other traffic violation on a whim.  Do we need cops in society?  Yeah but they should be subjected to 10 times the penalty that a normal person gets for breaking the law.  I am so sick of seeing cops fly by me on the highway when I am already doing maybe 5 over the speed limit.  And it's not like they're on a call or anything it's just them doing it because they can.  Just like every other illegal search, traffic stop, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chief Justice Young has been clear that he is sick of medical marijuana cases.  That was the crusher when they refused to hear the Carruthers case (the case involving oil in a tray of brownies being called illegal.... despite specific language in the act allowing mixtures and preparations).  It is highly doubtful they will entertain another p2p case in any near term situation.

Justice Young has a job to do whether he likes it or not. He signed on fair and square and has a duty toward the law in its entirety. P2P was properly ruled in McQueen. More to the point he should be miffed with the amateurish and obviously reactionary ideologues in the lower courts that make a mockery of jurisprudence, and especially the jurists on the Court of Appeals. That King/Kolanek included unanimous consent and a very infrequently seen appendix to explain things to them like children was a clear backhanded slap.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under sec. 4 requirements yes. Sec. 8 provisions, otoh, do not limit the number of persons who can participate, either patients or caregivers. They are intended to prevent conviction. They do not require registration or connection through it and are intended to be used by any patient and the patient's caregiver in any prosecution involving the medical use of mj. Where both parties have agreed to a cg/pt relationship, a physician has certified the patient as a likely beneficiary of the use of the drug in a bona fide patient/physician relationship, and possession amounts are no more than reasonably necessary to provide an uninterrupted supply, the patient and his/her caregiver are by the law to be afforded the defense in court. If those three elements are proved the case must be dismissed. There are no other requirements. Sec. 8 is in addition to and entirely separate from sec. 4. Both are equally valid law.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28usq0mc55yuftze55yfxjsqrr%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26428

 

1. you are not a lawyer.  I am not a lawyer.  But GregS you are not being straight when you present "your" opinion as having a basis in law as interpreted today in Michigan at a COA or Sp Ct level.  You took your lil disclaimer comment off your posts, so you actually need to remind us that your theories are unproven, and even you have advised us previously that, you, would not try them because you did not want to be arrested...

 

2. I do not believe anyone has won a section 8 case using your theory, have they?  If so please advise.  This seems a pretty risky strategy to use.  I really want to hear how many cases have been victorious using your legal theory?  Educate me...

 

3.  Justice Young does not take work orders from citizens...lol...

 

4.  We are in agreement about the COA

 

Specifically, my question to you based upon you presenting me with a victory for someone who claimed "no limit to the number of persons who can particate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. you are not a lawyer.  I am not a lawyer.  But GregS you are not being straight when you present "your" opinion as having a basis in law as interpreted today in Michigan at a COA or Sp Ct level.  You took your lil disclaimer comment off your posts, so you actually need to remind us that your theories are unproven, and even you have advised us previously that, you, would not try them because you did not want to be arrested...

 

2. I do not believe anyone has won a section 8 case using your theory, have they?  If so please advise.  This seems a pretty risky strategy to use.  I really want to hear how many cases have been victorious using your legal theory?  Educate me...

 

3.  Justice Young does not take work orders from citizens...lol...

 

4.  We are in agreement about the COA

 

Specifically, my question to you based upon you presenting me with a victory for someone who claimed "no limit to the number of persons who can particate".

The subsequent post to the one you quote is unequivocally and entirely my personal take and I am glad we agree. Is something I said inaccurate in the post you quote? Is there a prohibition against or requirement for any number of persons who can or cannot participate? I am unaware of any instance where that has been specific to any case. You? Is it not as or even more simple to estimate that it does work in the way the law provides in light of the fact that no one has been convicted with those facts intact since it became law? Am I somehow uninformed? What cases, please, indicate differently? 

 

What are posted are the facts of the law. No more and no less. No proof is necessary beyond that they are the facts of the law.

 

I am aware of many people who act as caregiver to many more than five patients and patients who buy their mj from more than one caregiver, not in all cases connected through the registry, none who have been convicted, or for that matter tried. It has gone on every day without exception since the inception of the law. We have damm near five splendid victorious years under our belts. 

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the amount of harm being done needs to outweigh cost to society.  I could be wrong but I've never heard of that as a search warrant prerequisite.  If it were then police could never get a search warrant for minor crimes.  I also don't think that how much they made selling marijuana versus how much it cost to follow them is an issue.  If cost came into play then it would never be worth it for police to investigate, say, a shoplifting where someone steals a $10 CD.  Imagine how much it costs to take a police report and prosecute that crime.  I would hazard a guess that it is over $10.

 

But cops are able to wield way too much power legally and illegally.  I'll buy a Miller Lite for anyone here who hasn't seen a cop speed over 10mph or pull a U-turn unnecessarily, or commit some other traffic violation on a whim.  Do we need cops in society?  Yeah but they should be subjected to 10 times the penalty that a normal person gets for breaking the law.  I am so sick of seeing cops fly by me on the highway when I am already doing maybe 5 over the speed limit.  And it's not like they're on a call or anything it's just them doing it because they can.  Just like every other illegal search, traffic stop, etc.

That's why I said it should be. Isn't it great that we can think what we want. Personally I don't think it's worth it to spend time prosecuting a $10 cd stealing case.  Get the cd back and put a picture up of people not allowed in the store anymore because of shoplifting and get on with life.  Simple economics dictates that it matters how much it costs to take care of a case as things need to be prioritized as we've seen that we can overburden society with our jails and have a less safe society if we reduce our whole budget on shoplifting cases and have nothing to pay to prosecute actual criminals who pose an actual threat to society that shouldn't necessarily be handled by society rather than courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't prosecute on the stolen CD then you invite constant thievery.  Do you think some teenager cares that he isn't allowed in Meijer anymore?  There are 1000s more stores to hit.  Not prosecuting petty theft means a raft of petty criminals.  Just like negotiating with terrorists.  We don't do it (or didn't used to anyway) because if the terrorist knows that hijacking a plane or kidnapping someone won't force us to yield to his demands then he gains nothing.  Start negotiating and it becomes an endless cycle. 

 

Like those pirates around African waters.  Corporations give in and pay ransoms so they keep hijacking ships.  If they had a policy of no negotiating then yes they could lose a ship or a few people may die but in the end it means 100s of people aren't put at risk anymore.  I read somewhere a while back that at any given time there are several hijacked ships in and around certain African countries and some sit there for weeks before their release is negotiated.

 

So should we prosecute CD thieves?  Yes.  It shouldn't be about short term economics but rather about the long term consequences if it is ignored.  Heck if there was no real consequence I bet a lot of people would be tempted to do it that wouldn't normally do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I and thousands didn't get prosecuted when young or even go to court and never did it again.  You want to stop thievery, lock everything and hire security cause I sure don't want to pay for stores being lazy and letting stuff get stolen.  After a while it wouldn't be lucrative because you couldn't go in any stores and would have to drive further and further for a $10CD.  Making it not lucrative.  If they catch them and get the stuff back and stop allowing theives in the store society doesn't have to pay for it.  If I don't shop at that store why should I pay for their lax security?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look.  Most recent NY times article

The strategy is also largely futile. After three decades, criminalization has not affected general usage; about 30 million Americans use marijuana every year. Meanwhile, police forces across the country are strapped for cash, and the more resources they devote to enforcing marijuana laws, the less they have to go after serious, violent crime. According to F.B.I. data, more than half of all violent crimes nationwide, and four in five property crimes, went unsolved in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see, it's the store's fault.  They allowed the thievery.  Maybe they should be prosecuted.

 

After awhile it wouldn't be lucrative to the thieves?  How is that?  You are operating under the assumption that they got caught the first time they attempted to steal.  I would bet that for every time someone is caught they probably already got away with it many many many times.

 

And that's where I want to shop.  Somewhere where everything is under lock and key or where big brother is constantly watching you.  What a wonderful shopping experience.

 

You may not want to pay for prosecution of thieves but I doubt there are many like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see, it's the store's fault.  They allowed the thievery.  Maybe they should be prosecuted.

 

After awhile it wouldn't be lucrative to the thieves?  How is that?  You are operating under the assumption that they got caught the first time they attempted to steal.  I would bet that for every time someone is caught they probably already got away with it many many many times.

 

And that's where I want to shop.  Somewhere where everything is under lock and key or where big brother is constantly watching you.  What a wonderful shopping experience.

 

You may not want to pay for prosecution of thieves but I doubt there are many like you.

Why would you want to prosecute someone for letting things get stolen?  Now your just being silly.  And of course i wouldn't want to prosecute them, I don't even want to prosecute the ones stealing from them.

Of course you wouldn't want to shop there because then you'd have to pay outright to protect what YOU want.  It's much easier if everything is paid for by everyone, whether they use it or not.

And what are the cops supposed to do about that?  Should we station them in every store so that we can start catching these thieves? It's the stores fault by design.  It's not the gov'ts (our) responsibility to make sure your store doesn't get shoplifted from.  If they aren't getting caught by the store, it's the stores fault.  Cops, paid by us, shouldn't be wasting time on petty thievery, just like they shouldn't waste time for MJ.  When my stereo got stolen from my car 25 years ago I found out who it was and confronted them and got my money back. No cops and i'm sure most people caught wouldn't want the cops involved and would be embarassed and comply with a resolution.

 

Do you own a store?  If so I could see why you would want society to take care of your problems for you.  Then you wouldn't have to spend the money on those CD locks.

 

I never said i didn't want to pay for the prosecution of thieves, I said petty thievery from shoplifting.  Stealing is different than shoplifting.  Other than stores most people don't keep new stuff around and let people thru their house by the thousands.  If you play in a high risk activity it's up to you to protect yourself.  It is not the responsibility of society to protect you from shoplifting.

 

Did you read the NY times article?  The stats are there for all the real crimes that are not solved because of the red tape tying in to petty crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pay for my goods and do not steal because it is the right thing to do. Period. I know not everyone agrees, and we know it's a crime. That is about all I need to know about it. Having been in business in food service, retail sales, marketing, and warehousing, shrink is an expected problem in those businesses, and keeping it in check is a thorny issue for management. Employee theft plays a part too.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... You took your lil disclaimer comment off your posts, so you actually need to remind us that your theories are unproven, and even you have advised us previously..."

 

I will no longer post any disclaimer, but let the text of the law stand on its own where the simple facts of the law and direct observation are concerned when I choose not to speak an opinion. Like you said, I am no lawyer. Subsequently I will stay with facts and stay out of speculation as the moment moves me. There are plenty of people here to point out the pitfalls, and they are indeed a busy bunch. The issues have been laid out ad nauseam, and will be published in the coming site wiki.

Edited by GregS
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...