Michigan Medical Marijuana Review Panel Hears New Autism Petition

WHEN: Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 1:00 PM

WHERE: Williams Building, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI

WHAT: Public testimony in favor of adding autism to the list of conditions which may be treated with medical marijuana.

After a protracted legal battle lasting nearly a year, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has been compelled to submit a new petition for autism to the Medical Marihuana Review Panel. This petition was submitted to the department with 75 peer-reviewed studies attached, outlining in detailed scientific and medical terms marijuana’s efficacy in treating autism.

Public testimony will be held Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 1:00 PM in the 1st Floor Auditorium of the Williams Building, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48933. Parents of autistic children will offer testimony in favor of allowing treatment with medical marijuana, as well as physicians who specialize in treatment with cannabis and treatment of autism. Legal experts will testify on the need to protect parents treating their debilitated children from arrest and prosecution by adding autism to the list.

Written comments may be submitted after the hearing, between May 27 and June 1, by email at bhcsinfo@michigan.gov, or by mail at: Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Health Care Services, Post Office Box 30670, Lansing, MI 48909. Please send written testimony to the attention of Cheryl Pezon.

“Though the process of getting this new petition to the Panel has proved difficult, the People of the State of Michigan are now watching the outcome. The scientific literature attached to this petition is overwhelming: medical marihuana can effectively treat autism, and is much safer than other drugs routinely prescribed for treating autism.” said Michael Komorn, president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association and co-counsel for the petitioner.

LARA initially incorrectly denied the petition, submitted nearly a year ago, because two previous incomplete petitions were heard by the panel which failed to gain department approval.

Attorneys Tim Knowlton and Michael Komorn represented the petitioner, the parent of an autistic child who has seen substantial improvements in autism symptoms during successful treatment with medical marijuana for severe epileptic seizures. After briefing the Ingham County Circuit Court on both the mishandling of the new petition and the substantial irregularities in the process followed by LARA on the original Panel vote, LARA agreed that all new petitions must be heard by the Panel, despite any previous failed petition for the same condition.

After the public testimony, LARA must schedule a meeting of the Medical Marihuana Review Panel to discuss the petition and testimony, and take a vote. If a majority of the panel votes in favor of adding autism, the LARA director will issue a final determination allowing the use of medical marijuana in autism treatment by Michigan physicians.

CONTACT: Michael Komorn <michael@komornlaw.com>

KOMORN LAW NEWSLETTER ISSUE #1 May 2015

KOMORN LAW NEWSLETTER ISSUE #1 May 2015

The Michigan Legal Advisor News Letters.

Read the current newsletter from Michigan’s #1 Medical Marijuana Defense Attorney Michael Komorn. 


KOMORN LAW NEWSLETTER ISSUE #1 May 2015

 

 


Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of theMichigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 26,000 members, which advocates for medical marijuana patients, and caregiver rights. Michael is also the host of Planet Green Trees Radio, a marijuana reform based show, which is broadcast every Thursday night 8-10 pm EST. Follow Komorn on Twitter.

mike_K_banner_728x90_blue_mma_1 - Copy

 

Lapeer County prosecutor pulled off marijuana case

Lapeer County prosecutor pulled off marijuana case

June 18, 2014 – An article in the County Press newspaper in Lapeer County Michigan written by Phil Foley asserted that a local medical marijuana activist identified as Jamie Fricke, 34 was headed for trial on one of the three felony drug charges.

Fricke’s attorneys persuaded Chief Circuit Court Judge Nick O. Holowka to recuse the Lapeer County Prosecutor’s Office from her prosecution in a case stemming from a February 2012 raid on her home by the Lapeer County Sheriff’s Dept.

Some Excerpts from the article…

“Fricke’s new defense attorney, Michael Komorn of Southfield, maintained that since Lapeer County Prosecutor Tim Turkelson once defended Randy Crowell, who opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Dryden, and that Fricke had been an employee of Crowell, she had shared “secrets” with Turkelson that tainted any prosecution against her.”

“I didn’t sign up for this,” Komorn told Holowka Friday afternoon. He told the judge that both as a defense attorney and as prosecutor Turkelson had questioned the truthfulness of the lead investigator in the case against Fricke, Lapeer County Sheriff’s Dept. Det./Lt. Gary Parks.”

Lt. Gary Parks was involved on the raid on Fricke’s Lapeer home Feb. 21, 2012, and reportedly found 18 pounds of marijuana.

While Komorn asked for the Lapeer County Prosecutor’s Office to be recused from the trial set for Tuesday (June 17), Turkelson stated Fricke is facing two other related felony charges.

“He said following the Feb. 21 search of her home, police stopped Fricke March 27, 2012, to serve the arrest warrant issued after that search. Turkelson said police found “medibles,” food stuffs with marijuana in them, in her car. That resulted in another felony charge for manufacture and delivery of marijuana.”

“Fricke’s car was stopped a second time May 10, 2012. This time, Turkelson said police found nine red Solo cups with marijuana plants in them, containers of marijuana butter and oil and two large and one small mason jars filled with marijuana buds. Fricke was charged for a third time with felony manufacture and delivery of marijuana.”

“Last month police reportedly stopped Fricke for doing 10 miles an hour over the speed limit on I-69 and in addition to citing her for speeding, police issued a misdemeanor citation for improper transport of medical marijuana.

“Turkelson said that while Holowka only recused his office from the Feb. 21 case, he decided to put all four cases together and turn them over to the state Attorney General’s Office for reassignment to a prosecutor in a neighboring county.  He said that should take two or three weeks to complete and then a month after that before the new prosecutor sets another pre-trial conference.”

Komorn claimed Turkelson  engaged in “prosecutorial misconduct,” and said he planned to file a Bar Association complaint.

Komorn said “three people saw (Turkelson) in the sanctity of the defense war room.”

“Turkelson said later that Fricke was not charged in either of those incidents and was only an employee at Crowel’s dispensary.”

One the affidavits Komorn supplied the court was from former assistant prosecutor Matt Funke.  Funke wrote in the document that Turkelson had told the prosecutor’s staff that Lt Gary Parks has “a propensity not to be honest.”

While Komorn wanted Holowka to dismiss the charge against Fricke because the “system is so corrupt,” the judge only agreed to reassign the case.

See original article here…Lapeer County prosecutor pulled off marijuana case


Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 26,000 members, which advocates for medical marijuana patients, and caregiver rights. Michael is also the host of Planet Green Trees Radio, a marijuana reform based show, which is broadcast every Thursday night 8-10 pm EST. Follow Komorn on Twitter.

 

When is a Search Warrant Required?

When is a Search Warrant Required?

When is a Search Warrant Required?

Fourth Amendent

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches by the government. That means that absent an emergency situation or other legal exception, a police officer must have a search warrant before conducting a search of your person or property.

How a Search Warrant is Obtained

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be specific and reasonable. That means that a judge will only approve a search warrant if law enforcement is specific as to the items and location it wishes to search. Law enforcement must also prove that probable cause exists that a specific item is located in a specific place.

Whether the warrant gets issued or not is up to the judge’s review. If a judge finds that law enforcement has met its burden of probable cause and has included enough specificity in the request for the warrant, then the judge will issue the search warrant.
The suspect is not present during this proceeding and is not given an opportunity to present his or her argument against the issuance of a warrant. However, in later proceedings the suspect may argue that a search warrant was improperly granted.

When a Search Warrant is Not Necessary

There are a few situations when law enforcement is exempt from obtaining a search warrant. Those situations include:

Consent: Law enforcement can request to enter a person’s home or search a person’s belongings. If the person consents to the search and gives law enforcement permission to conduct the search then a warrant is unnecessary.

Plain View Doctrine: Law enforcement does not need a search warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight. For example, if an officer is walking down the street and sees a person with drugs in the park then the officer may arrest that person and keep the drugs as evidence even though a search warrant was not obtained. This exception exists because individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in plain view.

Emergency Situation: If the police are in pursuit of a felon and follow that alleged felon into a home or other private area – then they do not need a warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight when they enter the building.

For example, a police officer may witness a robbery or a crime and begin to pursue the criminal to make an arrest. If the criminal flees and takes refuge in a private residence then the police may follow him and they do not need a search warrant to enter the home nor to collect evidence that is in plain sight or within the reach of the alleged criminal.

Police may also enter a residence without a warrant if they hear a person screaming for help or have reason to believe that a person or property is in imminent danger and that harm would result in the time it would take to obtain a search warrant.

Search Incident to Arrest: Police officers may search the body and immediate surroundings of a person whom they take into custody. The courts have allowed this exception to the search warrant rule in order to protect police officers from people who may have concealed weapons.

Search warrants are the government’s way of balancing an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights with the societal interest in limiting crime and protecting the public. Therefore, the general rule is that a search warrant must be obtained before the police conduct a search but exceptions to that rule exist to protect police officers and society from harm.

USSC Holds during Traffic Stops Police can’t detain suspects to wait for drug sniffing dog

USSC Holds during Traffic Stops Police can’t detain suspects to wait for K-9 drug sniffing dog.

Search and Seizure, K-9, Dog sniffing, unreasonable searches and seizures. 4th amendment rubber meets the road

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday April 21, 2015 that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.”

The Rodriguez case is important in the ongoing line being drawn between citizens living in a democracy based upon freedom and the governments interest of protecting the safety and well being of the public. All too often we get calls involving police encounters during a traffic stop. Traffic stops in certain situations can and will lead to searches of vehicles,

depending on many factors. Prior to the Rodriguez case, the bright line rule had been that the traffic stop may extend only as long as it was necessary for the reason for the traffic stop to be completed ( writing a ticket, giving a warning etc..). The purpose of a traffic stop  is not and should never be to investigate a person unless there is some suspicion of a crime afoot. Sometime in traffic situation, and because drivers are unaware of their legal obligation during a traffic stop, often times the police can and will take advantage of these
situations, detain the driver longer than they need to be detain, and utilize that time to try to find probable cause of some crime.

Rodriguez v the United States puts an end to that type of police work. After the traffic stop had been complete with Rodriguez, the Nebraska Trooper asked if he could walk his drug sniffing, k-9 around the vehicle. To his credit, Rodriguez stated no, the trooper nonetheless searched the exterior of the vehicle for 7-8 minutes while awaiting back up to arrive.  Adter the k-9 allegedly hit on the vehicle, a search of the vehicle revealed large quantities of  methamphetamine, and Rodriguez was arrested and charged.

It is important to note that the entirety of the traffic stop lasted less than 30 minutes.

In suppressing all the evidence (the methamphetamine) that was a result of the traffic stop and search of the vehicle, the United States Supreme Court found that search of Rodriguez’s car was illegal, and the evidence gathered in it should not be used at trial.

While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out.

“[T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop,” Ginsburg ruled. “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”

In its dissenting opinion Justices Clarence Thomas (writing for the dissent), Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling, taunting the majority opinion by stating “Had Officer Struble arrested, handcuffed, and taken Rodriguez to the police station for his traffic violation, he would have complied with the Fourth Amendment. “But because he made Rodriguez wait for seven or eight extra minutes until a dog arrived, he evidently committed a constitutional violation. Such a view of the Fourth Amendment makes little sense.” Justice Thomas argued the majorities ruling makes meaningless the legal difference between “reasonable suspicion”- which does not authorize a search of someone’s property and “probable cause” which does and arguing that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law. 13-9972_p8k0