Allegations: Msp Falsely Reporting Marijuana, Targeting Card-Carrying Patients

[Restorium2]

 Our prosecutors are willing to argue that one speck of marijuana does not turn the larger quantity of oil/wax into marijuana.” - Andrew Fias

 

 

Make them simply test for THCV and BINGO, game over prosecutors, it's a preparation of the marijuana plant. 

 

The precedent has already been set with testing for THCV to prove the use of a marijuana preparation to bust us in the past. 

 

When they WANTED to prove it's plant based THEY used this test. 

 

They can't come out now and say We can't do that.

[Restorium2]

From 2008;

 

Special testing techniques have been developed that make it possible to distinguish the two by testing for non-standard cannabinoids that appear in marijuana but not Marinol. Until recently, these tests were expensive and rarely used except in high-profile criminal cases. However, it appears that they are now being routinely used by certain laboratories in cases where Marinol use is claimed. In particular, we have heard reports of such testing being used to disqualify Marinol-using Prop 215 patients by the transportation industry and by Walmart. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2008/12/24/labs-testing-for-marijuana-use-by-marinol-patients/#sthash.3EcpKCMc.dpuf

[Wild Bill]

Just days before Bernhardt’s suicide, a Kent County prosecutor named Tim McMorrow told a state court that Michigan voters, despite their overwhelming approval of medical marijuana, do not have the final say. “The voters do not have a right to adopt anything they want,” McMorrrow said. “Something doesn’t become valid because the voters voted for it.”

He must have skipped social studies in grade school.

[Restorium2]

He must have skipped social studies in grade school.

Sorry there Bill but he is right. Sad but true. The more people who know that the better. 

[GregS]

Generally speaking, what are the moves that can be expected as it passes through the courts? I think it can only end badly for law enforcement. Is there reason to believe that they will even file a motion to dismiss? If they do, it will be worth framing in tribute to assholeness.

 

Y'all keep up the good work at the firm zap. You picked a winner.

[Alphabob]

From 2008;

 

Special testing techniques have been developed that make it possible to distinguish the two by testing for non-standard cannabinoids that appear in marijuana but not Marinol. Until recently, these tests were expensive and rarely used except in high-profile criminal cases. However, it appears that they are now being routinely used by certain laboratories in cases where Marinol use is claimed. In particular, we have heard reports of such testing being used to disqualify Marinol-using Prop 215 patients by the transportation industry and by Walmart. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2008/12/24/labs-testing-for-marijuana-use-by-marinol-patients/#sthash.3EcpKCMc.dpuf

 

THCV testing of urine samples is still uncommon unless there is prior evidence. I’ve read studies that say it fails to detect the majority of cases due to THCV concentration being too low. There are several problems with testing for multiple cannabinoids (see techs discussion). The most significant of these is that many edible samples are only returning a THC peak. This can be happening for several reasons:

 

(1) Most strains have substantially more THC than other cannabinoids. For example, a few strains from a testing site had THC:other ratios of 20.2x, 36.8x and 11.7x. This is approximately the difference in GC-MS peak sizes between THC, CBD and CBN. So if THC has a GC-MS peak at 20, it is possible that CBD and CDN are around 0.1 - 1.0. Even worse, most strains have THCV below 0.1% compared to 0.1% - 1.0% for CBD/CBN.

 

(2) Edibles versus resins varies how concentrated the cannabinoids are in the mixture. If you put something like a dense resin into a GC-MS, it will have high peaks of all cannabinoids within it. However, if >90% of the weight is instead from brownie material, then the cannabinoid peaks will be very small and contaminated by the mixture.

 

(3) If the peaks of various cannabinoids go below a certain level, they won’t be detected by the analyst. This doesn’t mean the product doesn’t contain other cannabinoids, but that they did not produce any noticeable GC-MS peaks.

[t-pain]

Dana Chicklas is nailing it. really, amazing relentless investigative work and presenting the story in an easy to understand form.

 

http://fox17online.com/2015/11/17/state-police-respond-to-fox-17s-investigation-msp-defends-marijuana-crime-lab-reporting/

[Restorium2]

 

THCV testing of urine samples is still uncommon unless there is prior evidence. I’ve read studies that say it fails to detect the majority of cases due to THCV concentration being too low. There are several problems with testing for multiple cannabinoids (see techs discussion). The most significant of these is that many edible samples are only returning a THC peak. This can be happening for several reasons:

 

(1) Most strains have substantially more THC than other cannabinoids. For example, a few strains from a testing site had THC:other ratios of 20.2x, 36.8x and 11.7x. This is approximately the difference in GC-MS peak sizes between THC, CBD and CBN. So if THC has a GC-MS peak at 20, it is possible that CBD and CDN are around 0.1 - 1.0. Even worse, most strains have THCV below 0.1% compared to 0.1% - 1.0% for CBD/CBN.

 

(2) Edibles versus resins varies how concentrated the cannabinoids are in the mixture. If you put something like a dense resin into a GC-MS, it will have high peaks of all cannabinoids within it. However, if >90% of the weight is instead from brownie material, then the cannabinoid peaks will be very small and contaminated by the mixture.

 

(3) If the peaks of various cannabinoids go below a certain level, they won’t be detected by the analyst. This doesn’t mean the product doesn’t contain other cannabinoids, but that they did not produce any noticeable GC-MS peaks.

 

Are these problems only in testing edibles or does pure cannabis oil also have the same thing going on with their testing?

[Willy]

tardy to party ,, beat to post. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Willy

[GregS]

Any chance this is an impeachable offense, and Schuethead can be booted?

[t-pain]

pfft , no. not with any of the emails shown thus far anyway.

[Alphabob]

Are these problems only in testing edibles or does pure cannabis oil also have the same thing going on with their testing?

 

I’m guessing just edibles like zapatosunidos said. What is concerning is 333.7212 of the Public Health Code seems to be referring to synthetic cannabinoids in the form HU-210, JWH-073, JWH-018, ect. (e.g. “spice”, “K2”), although synthetic THC in various forms is also included as the base form. When is the last time a synthetic THC lab was shut down or raided? I’m assuming never based upon the average dronabinol script costing $600+ for a monthly supply (300mg THC). Dispensary price for flower (12% THC @ $35) gives 420mg THC. Thus you don’t even need to look beyond the feasibility of putting synthetic THC in edibles or oils, $2.00+ versus $0.08 per mg THC (2400% difference). As many of their emails said, it’s simply not going to happen; it’s infeasible.

 

I’m sure this story goes a lot deeper and there are some important emails out there still to be obtained. Probably the same people who misrepresented and pushed for the transportation law behind this scam.

[t-pain]

i cant remember a single news story about synthetic thc illegal lab. the only synthetic thc i know of to ever exist has been marinol prescription.

[bobandtorey]

 

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- At least three attorneys filed federal complaints Tuesday against the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division for allegations of serious negligence or misconduct, and to contest grant money the crime labs received this year. However, officials with both the MSP and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office told FOX 17 their agencies are not conducting investigations into these allegations.

Each complaint filed Tuesday was issued to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences' Director. Attorney Mike Nichols and attorneys Michael Komorn and Neil Rockind together wrote to inform the NIJ of the accusations that the MSP crime labs have been misreporting marijuana test results and elevating misdemeanors to a felony for the possession or manufacture of synthetic marijuana.

Read Nichols' full NIJ complaint here.

Read Rockind and Komorn's NIJ complaint here.

In late October, FOX 17 broke these allegations when Komorn uncovered internal MSP e-mails where some crime lab analysts and directors themselves protested a new THC reporting protocol change. Namely, MSP-FSD Controlled Substance Unit Supervisor Bradley Choate wrote in part, “For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the division and the department.”

Komorn accuses the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of working inappropriately with and influencing policy of the MSP crime labs to misreport marijuana extracts, such as oils and edibles, as synthetic THC, a felony. The change seen on lab reports stems from a recent MSP-FSD policy change in the way THC is reported. Analysts are now required to write phrases such as “origin unknown” on crime lab reports when THC is tested when they believe they cannot determine the substance’s origin. Extracts have not been reported in this way for decades before, as one analyst testified back in April.

MSP is a 2015 recipient of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program.  This year the National Institute of Justice data shows it awarded MSP-FSD $236,488 in funding. One of the stipulations as a grant recipient is to name an independent external government entity to conduct investigations when allegations of serious negligence or misconduct occur. In addition to investigating these allegations, grant recipients are also required to report the allegations to NIJ.

However, records show that MSP-FSD has named its independent external investigating entity as MSP-Internal Affairs. In the filed federal complaints, Nichols, Komorn and Rockind state their concerns that MSP-Internal Affairs is not independent or external from MSP, and also asked for a thorough investigation to be done into these allegations.

“It’s an avenue to bring to light some very real and important concerns,” said Nichols.

“The Michigan State Police Internal Affairs unit is the entity that is set up through the grant that they applied for to investigate complaints,” he said. “Well, that’s the fox guarding the hen house obviously, but it’s the mechanism that’s in place, so I’ve asked for them to utilize it.”

The complaints filed Tuesday to NIJ follow Komorn Law’s complaints regarding MSP crime lab marijuana testing allegations filed Dec. 11 with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the FBI and the Civil Rights Division for the Eastern District of Michigan, which has referred it to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids.

Read Komorn Law's filed DOJ complaint here.

Despite the allegations and filed complaints, MSP Public Affairs Manager Shanon Banner told FOX 17 on Tuesday that the MSP-IA is not investigating. In e-mails Banner said:

“I have confirmed that for at least the last three years, our Coverdell grant application, which was approved by the National Institute of Justice, has included the MSP Professional Standards Section (aka Internal Affairs) as the “government entity” responsible for investigating any allegations of serious negligence or misconduct.  The Professional Standards Section maintains responsibility for investigating all allegations of misconduct involving MSP employees. These investigators are housed within the Office of the Director and are not members of the Forensic Science Division.

An internal policy change does not constitute misconduct or negligence.  Therefore, no investigation is underway.”

When FOX 17 pressed Banner further she wrote:

“As stated in the earlier response, our designation of the MSP Professional Standards Section as the entity to conduct investigations has been approved by the NIJ for at least three grant cycles.  Our review of the guidance provided by the NIJ for this grant did not uncover any federal guidelines as to what constitutes an “independent external entity.”  Since the Professional Standards Section is independent, and external to the Forensic Science Division, it appears sufficient.  However, your question may best be posed to the NIJ.

As to your second follow-up, the MSP does not consider your reports on a debate among colleagues prior to an internal policy decision to rise to the level of an allegation of misconduct.”

FOX 17 has reached out to the NIJ, and has yet to hear back.

Despite Banner stating the MSP does not consider these concerns allegations of misconduct, a recent chain of MSP emails show the agency appears to be keeping a close eye on FOX 17 reports. In a recent 159-page email chain between MSP personnel and supervisors that Nichols obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, in an email dated Nov. 12 Banner emailed MSP supervisors and agency leaders a link to FOX 17’s Nov. 10 report and stated:

“FYI – Here is Dana Chicklas’ most recent story from Tuesday night on medical marijuana.”

Nichols, like Komorn, Rockind, and many others, continue to push for reform in MSP crime lab procedures, beginning with a timely investigation into these allegations.

“There has been some very gray discussion about doing something to fix what happened in Ottawa County, but that’s not good enough,” said Nichols. “We need to make a change, it’s got to happen.”

"When the forensic analyst comes to court, regardless of who calls them, take off the Michigan State Police pin, put it on the stand, take off the Michigan State Police hat, and tell it like it is, and work with the accused the same way, with the same vigor, to seek justice that you would with the prosecutor."

FOX 17 has reached out to Governor Rick Snyder's office for comment regarding MSP crime lab allegations and filed complaints. As of Tuesday evening we have no response.

As for Ottawa County defendant Max Lorincz, his criminal case is pending.

 

http://fox17online.com/2015/12/22/federal-complaints-allege-marijuana-misreporting-by-state-police-crime-lab-%E2%80%8B/

[bobandtorey]

A group of criminal defense attorneys says the Michigan State Police (MSP) should no longer oversee the state crime lab.

“We in Michigan accept the idea we’ve got a Michigan State Police crime lab. That is inherently problematic. But we accept it, because that’s how it is,” said attorney Michael Komorn, who specializes in defending medical marijuana patients.

Komorn and attorney Neil Rockind recently filed a federal complaint against the lab in hopes that it will spark an independent investigation into a new crime lab policy dealing with synthetic THC.

The policy instructs crime lab technicians to treat extracts that contain THC as being synthetic. That’s in any case where it is not absolutely clear they came from a cannabis plant. The attorneys claim the policy change is leading to unfair felony charges for patients who would otherwise face misdemeanors.

Komorn uncovered the policy through a public information request and provided the documents to the Michigan Public Radio Network in October.

The attorneys say it’s the result of political pressures on the crime lab as a result of being overseen by MSP.

“The idea that the police and the lab and the prosecutors are all intertwined and they are one side of the team versus the defendant is inherently a conflict,” said Komorn.

He’d like the crime lab to be overseen by another government agency or a private entity.

Komorn is defending a patient who was charged under the policy. He says the state removed the Ottawa County man’s six-year-old son and placed him in a foster home due to the charges. The man faces two years behind bars, twice as long as a misdemeanor charge.

 

http://michiganradio.org/post/medical-marijuana-lawyers-want-state-crime-lab-moved-out-michigan-state-police#stream/0

Edited December 28, 2015 by bobandtorey

[solabeirtan]

Perhaps it does take a chemical scientist to formulate synthetic organic chemicals, it doesn't take one to tell their is a significant difference from the pure organic  substance as shown clearly in these molecular models:

 

imho any credible lab should be able to tell there is a difference.

[bobandtorey]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/in-some-states-crime-labs_n_3837471.html

Edited January 4, 2016 by bobandtorey

[+Malamute]

pre.s. Story to Bobs link above

 

 

I've previously written about the cognitive bias problem in state crime labs. This is the bias that can creep into the work of crime lab analysts when they report to, say, a state police agency, or the state attorney general. If they're considered part of the state's "team" -- if performance reviews and job assessments are done by police or prosecutors -- even the most honest and conscientious of analysts are at risk of cognitive bias. Hence, the countless and continuing crime lab scandals we've seen over the last couple decades. And this of course doesn't even touch on the more blatant examples of outright corruption.

In a new paper for the journal Criminal Justice Ethics, Roger Koppl and Meghan Sacks look at how the criminal justice system actually incentivizes wrongful convictions. In their section on state crime labs, they discover some astonishing new information about how many of these labs are funded.

Funding crime labs through court-assessed fees creates another channel for bias to enter crime lab analyses. In jurisdictions with this practice the crime lab receives a sum of money for each conviction of a given type. Ray Wickenheiser says, ‘‘Collection of court costs is the only stable source of funding for the Acadiana Crime Lab. $10 is received for each guilty plea or verdict from each speeding ticket, and $50 from each DWI (Driving While Impaired) and drug offense.’’

In Broward County, Florida, ‘‘Monies deposited in the Trust Fund are principally court costs assessed upon conviction of driving or boating under the influence ($50) or selling, manufacturing, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance ($100).’’

Several state statutory schemes require defendants to pay crime laboratory fees upon conviction. North Carolina General Statutes require, ‘‘[f]or the services of’’ the state or local crime lab, that judges in criminal cases assess a $600 fee to be charged ‘‘upon conviction’’ and remitted to the law enforcement agency containing the lab whenever that lab ‘‘performed DNA analysis of the crime, tests of bodily fluids of the defendant for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances, or analysis of any controlled substance possessed by the defendant or the defendant’s agent.’’

Illinois crime labs receive fees upon convictions for sex offenses, controlled substance offenses, and those involving driving under the influence. Mississippi crime labs require crime laboratory fees for various conviction types, including arson, aiding suicide, and driving while intoxicated.

Similar provisions exist in Alabama, New Mexico, Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia, and, until recently, Michigan. Other states have broadened the scope even further. Washington statutes require a $100 crime lab fee for any conviction that involves lab analysis. Kansas statutes require offenders ‘‘to pay a separate court cost of $400 for every individual offense if forensic science or laboratory services or forensic computer examination services are provided in connection with the investigation.’’

In addition to those already listed, the following states also require crime lab fees in connection with various conviction types: Arizona, California, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

 

 

 

Think about how these fee structures play out in the day-to-day work in these labs. Every analyst knows that a test result implicating a suspect will result in a fee paid to the lab. Every result that clears a suspect means no fee. They're literally being paid to provide the analysis to win convictions. Their findings are then presented to juries as the careful, meticulous work of an objective scientist.

No wonder there have been so many scandals. I'm sure we'll continue to see more.

[trichcycler]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/in-some-states-crime-labs_n_3837471.html

 

 

nice find B&T

[bobandtorey]

 

nice find B&T

 

 

Thank you

[t-pain]

sounds like frantz wants to appeal...

[trichcycler]

Update on Max Lorincz after this morning's motion hearing in the Ottawa County Circuit Court before Judge Edward Post. Case dismissed.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2016/01/felony_synthetic_thc_charged_t.html#incart_river_home

and when will they get their child back?

 

thanks for all you and yours have done to help this family

Edited January 23, 2016 by grassmatch

[trichcycler]

[bobandtorey]

when will they get their child back? i believe that is next and hope it's soon i've talked to Max a few times he does need his Kid back to make his family hole again 

[bobandtorey]

and when will they get their child back?

 

thanks for all you and yours have done to help this family

 

 

A permanency planning hearing for Lorincz to regain custody of his son was heard in Ottawa County Probate Court Friday afternoon. Judge Mark Feyen said he was “90 percent” ready to reunite the family going into the hearing, but continued supervised visits until the next hearing which will be set within the next two months.