Jump to content

Eastpointe City Issues With Caregiver?


Recommended Posts

Hey all, not new to the forums, professional lurker.

 

To cut right to it, I'm renting a house in eastpointe, my rental company is or was cool with my grow as long as I was legal. I've got my 12 girls going no problems, but I got a very rude city inspector who said because I have 2 tents it looks like a big grow op, and that the city had some law that makes having more than 12 plants illegal. Essentially it would make me a business or something, and I need permits etc etc.

 

Been growing for years prior to moving no problem ever, now out of nowhere this. Anyone have anything similar happen, or possibly know how to approach this?

 

Thanks for any imput

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update to this. I spoke with the city for clarification. It's if you have more than 12 plants and have patients, they deem you a home business, which they city doesn't allow.

 

Still can't figure out why I'm being messed with, but I'm fully legal. Time to find another place to live I guess :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are immune from any and all city regulations if you are within your plant counts and weights as well as the other section 4 and 7 requirements.

 

just give the guy a copy of ter beek v wyoming supreme court case and have the city inspector call your lawyer.

Edited by bax
Link to post
Share on other sites

How did they know you were growing?I heard about Eastpointe messing with growing more than 12 plants recently.

 

Bax i am not sure about cities not being able to pass ordinances,Sterling Heights for example are cracking down on growers ,wanting to get inspectors to check your grow when you're legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bird, yeah , cities want to flower with patients and caregivers, but they cant.

 

read ter beek v wyoming. dont argue just read it fool!

The only fool here is you guy,where did i say the cities are denying growers???Regulating is totally different.They can let you grow ,but they'll want you to play their game by tearing it down ,pulling permits ,amount of grow space, etc. Edited by Bird79
Link to post
Share on other sites

there are protections built into the act to stop townships from these actions.  the COA affirmed this in the above mentioned decisions. 

my advice would be to print and present this section that specifically describes how they cannot inspect you and then tell them any further inquires should be handled by your attorney.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(aargpofaqjy1ysw322z5o1ne))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26426

 

(g) Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency.

 

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

 

(1) Subject to subdivisions (3) and (4), applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Except as provided in subdivisions (3) and (4), individual names and other identifying information on the list are confidential and are exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel and to the necessary database created in the marihuana tracking act as established by the medical marihuana facilities licensing act whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

(4) A person, including an employee, contractor, or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulating is totally different.They can let you grow ,but they'll want you to play their game by tearing it down ,pulling permits ,amount of grow space, etc.

yes, that was wyoming's position in the lawsuit. that wyoming was not banning growing. they were merely regulating growing.

 

except the michigan supreme court said no, you cannot penalize a patient or caregiver who has section 4 protection.

 

its in the opinion, and thats why i asked you to read it. because you are repeating the city's opinion (who lost!) from 3 years ago. a patient and caregiver are immune from permit penalties, fines, civil infractions, etc if they are within their limits in section 4 of the MMMA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow you guys are amazing, truly.

 

The city had an inspection due for my rental home for a furnace certification and the garage was paved.

 

When she saw my grow she got rude, told me if I had more than 12 plants I was considered a home based business and the city didn't allow that. She also said I was in code violation because of not having a locked door to my basement (fair enough) an extension cord coming from my kitchen downstairs. And that I needed an egress window in the basement.

 

Anyone recommend a good lawyer to use, I'm probably going to need it

Link to post
Share on other sites

make sure to put auto close latch on basement door with auto locking knob... easiest way to secure plants. never worry about not locking/closing door again.

 

 

Anyone recommend a good lawyer to use, I'm probably going to need it

komorn does a lot of mmma cases.

 

michael komorn

http://www.komornlaw.com

30903 Northwestern Hwy

Suite 240

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

CALL 800-656-3557

 

give a call, wont hurt, is free to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, that was wyoming's position in the lawsuit. that wyoming was not banning growing. they were merely regulating growing.

 

except the michigan supreme court said no, you cannot penalize a patient or caregiver who has section 4 protection.

 

its in the opinion, and thats why i asked you to read it. because you are repeating the city's opinion (who lost!) from 3 years ago. a patient and caregiver are immune from permit penalties, fines, civil infractions, etc if they are within their limits in section 4 of the MMMA.

Man this is like reading a book,can you like highlight the part where they try to regulate it?Because when i searched the case i found that they were trying to deny him to grow because it was federally illegal.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man this is like reading a book,can you like highlight the part where they try to regulate it?Because when i searched the case i found that they were trying to deny him to grow because it was federally illegal.

sure, its the bottom paragraph (not the footnote) of page 15, and page 16+.

 

Under the Michigan Constitution, the City’s “power to adopt resolutions and

ordinances relating to its municipal concerns” is “subject to the constitution and the law.”

Const 1963, art 7, § 22. As this Court has previously noted, “[w]hile prescribing broad

powers, this provision specifically provides that ordinances are subject to the laws of this

state, i.e., statutes.” AFSCME v Detroit, 468 Mich 388, 410; 662 NW2d 695 (2003).

The

City, therefore, “is precluded from enacting an ordinance if . . . the ordinance is in direct

conflict with the state statutory scheme, or . . . if the state statutory scheme preempts the

ordinance by occupying the field of regulation which the municipality seeks to enter, to

the exclusion of the ordinance, even where there is no direct conflict between the two

schemes of regulation.” People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 322; 257 NW2d 902 (1977)

(footnotes omitted). A direct conflict exists when “the ordinance permits what the statute

prohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits.” Id. at 322 n 4. Here, the

Ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA by permitting what the MMMA expressly

prohibits—the imposition of a “penalty in any manner” on a registered qualifying patient

whose medical use of marijuana falls within the scope of § 4(a)’s immunity.

The City disputes this characterization of the Ordinance, noting that while it

permits the imposition of civil sanctions, it does not require them; instead, a violation of

the Ordinance can be enforced through equitable relief such as a civil injunction. We

agree with the Court of Appeals, however, that enjoining a registered qualifying patient

from engaging in MMMA-compliant conduct unambiguously falls within the scope of

penalties prohibited by § 4(a). For § 4(a) makes clear that individuals who satisfy the

statutorily specified criteria “shall not be subject to . . . penalty in any manner,” a

prohibition which expressly includes “civil penalt[ies].” As the Court of Appeals noted,

 

the MMMA does not define “penalty,” but that term is commonly understood to mean a

“punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule . . . something forfeited.”

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2000). See, e.g., People v Morey, 461

Mich 325, 330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999) (“Where, as here, the Legislature has not

expressly defined terms used within a statute, we may turn to dictionary definitions to aid

our goal of construing those terms in accordance with their ordinary and generally

accepted meanings.”). Under the Ordinance, individuals are subject to civil punishment

for engaging in the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the MMMA; by the

plain terms of § 4(a), the manner of that punishment—be it requiring the payment of a

monetary sanction, or denying the ability to engage in MMMA-compliant conduct—is

not material to the MMMA’s immunity from it.

 

 

Nor do we agree with the City that our decision in Michigan v McQueen, 493

Mich 135; 828 NW2d 644 (2013), mandates a different outcome. In McQueen, this

Court held that, because the defendants’ business, a medical marijuana dispensary, was

not being operated in accordance with the MMMA, it was properly enjoined as a public

nuisance under MCL 600.3801. 7 McQueen, 493 Mich at 140. The City contends that,

because the growth and cultivation of marijuana is a violation of the Ordinance, and

violations of zoning ordinances constitute nuisances per se under the Michigan Zoning

Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3407, McQueen permits the City’s regulation through

injunction. McQueen, however, affirmed the injunction of the defendants’ business not

simply because it was a nuisance, but because it was a nuisance that fell outside the scope

of conduct permitted under the MMMA. McQueen does not, as the City contends,

authorize a municipality to enjoin a registered qualifying patient from engaging in

medical use of marijuana in compliance with the MMMA, simply by characterizing that

conduct as a zoning violation.

 

 

Furthermore, contrary to the City’s suggestion, the fact that the Ordinance is a

local zoning regulation enacted pursuant to the MZEA does not save it from preemption.

The City stresses that the MZEA affords local municipalities a broad grant of authority to

use their zoning powers to advance local interests, such as “public health, safety, and

welfare.” MCL 125.3201. The MMMA, however, provides in no uncertain terms that

“[t]he medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried

out in accordance with” the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(a), and that “[a]ll other acts and

parts of acts inconsistent with [the MMMA] do not apply to the medical use of

marihuana,” MCL 333.26427(e). The City contends that the MMMA does not express a

sufficiently clear intent to supersede the MZEA, but we see no ambiguity in the

MMMA’s plain language to this effect. See Bylsma, 493 Mich at 26 (explaining that the

MMMA’s plain language provides the most reliable evidence of intent and that if this

language is unambiguous, no further judicial construction is required or permitted

because we must conclude that the electors intended the meaning clearly expressed). It is

well accepted that when two legislative enactments seemingly conflict, the specific

provision prevails over the more general provision. See, e.g., Crane v Reeder, 22 Mich

322, 334 (1871). Accordingly, the City cannot look to the MZEA to authorize or excuse

the Ordinance’s contravention of the specific immunity for medical marijuana use

provided under § 4(a) of the MMMA. 8

The City also points to Riverside v Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Ctr,

Inc, 56 Cal 4th 729; 156 Cal Rptr 3d 409; 300 P3d 494 (2013), in support of its position.

In that case, the California Supreme Court found certain state medical marijuana laws did

not preempt a local zoning ordinance. Riverside, however, is beside the point. At issue

there was whether a local zoning ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries

within city limits was preempted by California’s Compassionate Use Act (CUA) and

Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP). The California Supreme Court concluded that

there was no preemption, as the CUA and MMP offered only a limited immunity from

sanction under certain specified state criminal and nuisance statutes, thereby “signal[ing]

that the state declines to regard the described acts as nuisances or criminal violations, and

 

that the state’s enforcement mechanisms will thus not be available against these acts.”

Id. at 762. As such, these “limited provisions” were found to “neither expressly or

impliedly restrict or preempt the authority of individual local jurisdictions to choose

otherwise for local reasons, and to prohibit collective or cooperative medical marijuana

activities within their own borders.” Id. The scope of § 4(a)’s immunity, however, is not

similarly circumscribed; in prohibiting certain individuals from being “subject to . . .

penalty in any manner,” § 4(a) draws no distinction between state and local laws or

penalties. We thus do not find Riverside’s reasoning instructive.

 

basically... the michigan supreme court shot down these ideas that the city of wyoming had:

1. that the csa preempted the mmma

2. that since it was a zoning ordinance, the mmma did not apply, since the mmma does not deal with zoning

3. even if the mmma dealt with zoning, the penalty was a civil infraction, which means it did not 100% prohibit marijuana use.

3a. the ordinance was consistent with the mmma because REASONS

4. that the cities could regulate mmma with an ordinance if they wanted, due to home rule law.

 

the mich supreme court said

1. yes, but this has no bearing on the case or courts

2. nope, the mmma takes precedence and supercedes ALL OTHER LAWS OR PARTS OF LAWS that are inconsistent. sec 7e aka MCL 333.26427e.

3. no penalty in any kind (e.g. fines, leins, etc) for a section 4 compliant caregiver/patient.

4. the cities are not allowed to make conflicting ordinances with state law and sec7e comes into play again.

 

later, in this opinion, footnote 9, at the very bottom of the opinion, says the MSC is not going to ban all local ordinances of MMMA conduct.

 

what this means is that conduct not within section4 of the MMMA could be regulated by localities. e.g. if you are growing 13 plants but only allowed 12, the city could impose a fine for that extra non protected plant. instead of having the state prosecute that and the fines going to the state, it would go to the city.

 

tl;dr whats really going on: the michigan municipal league writes up template laws and sends them to all cities that subscribe to the MML cabal. the MML is anti-mmma and they write up all kinds of bad ordinances and laws that have been overturned in all kinds of courts all over michigan. including the 750.474 improper transport ordinances.

Edited by bax
Link to post
Share on other sites

further the topic of regulation is brought up in people v latz

 

http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2016/122016/64220.pdf

The illegal transportation of

marijuana statute expressly refers to this provision and unambiguously seeks to place additional

requirements on the transportation of medical marijuana beyond those imposed by the MMMA.

Thus, MCL 750.474 clearly subjects persons in compliance with the MMMA to prosecution

despite that compliance, and it is therefore impermissible. Koon, 494 Mich at, 7; Braska, 307

Mich App at 357-358. Because MCL 750.474 is not part of the MMMA, defendant, as a

compliant medical marijuana patient, cannot be prosecuted for violating it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
1 hour ago, Nittdawgg said:

I have twelve plants growing in flowering now but no card or license 

how do I get legal really fast 

it’s behind a locked door in basement with Lara sign on door already. 

You already are legal  according to Michigan's recreational law  .

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.

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...