No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Police conducted a warrantless search under the “automobile exception.”
The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.
Wilkins appealed a conviction stemming from the discovery of unregistered firearms in his car after police conducted a warrantless search under the “automobile exception.”
This legal principle allows law enforcement to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.
In the Wilkins’ case, the search was triggered by the odor of marijuana, which raised questions under Michigan’s marijuana laws.
While the odor of marijuana previously constituted probable cause, recent changes under Michigan’s recreational marijuana law, the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), complicate this.
The court debated whether the smell of marijuana alone still justifies a search, especially since possession of small amounts is now legal for adults.
The appellate court highlighted that for the search to be lawful, additional suspicious factors would need to accompany the marijuana smell to support probable cause for finding contraband.
If you have been accused or charged with a crime.
Say nothing to anyone. Talk to us first.
Our firm is experienced in both State and Federal courts defending clients.
CALL NOW
The case draws comparisons to similar rulings like People v. Armstrong, where Michigan courts have reconsidered the application of the automobile exception in light of the state’s evolving marijuana laws.
The central question in both instances revolves around whether the smell of cannabis, in conjunction with additional elements such as the driver’s deceptive behavior, provides sufficient grounds for conducting a search without a warrant.
The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.
Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.
However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.
The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.
Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.
However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.
A number of legal cases have scrutinized the legitimacy of performing warrantless vehicle searches based on the scent of marijuana, especially in light of the evolving status of marijuana laws:
People v. Armstrong (2023): In this instance, the courts in Michigan reassessed the applicability of the automobile exception, taking into consideration the provisions outlined in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).
The court ruled that while the smell of marijuana could still contribute to probable cause, it must be accompanied by other suspicious factors to justify a search. This case closely mirrors Wilkins, where the search was based on marijuana odor but also raised questions about unregistered firearms found during the search.
People v. Kazmierczak (2000): Previously, Michigan courts held that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.
However, this decision was later overruled in part due to changes in marijuana laws.
This case laid the groundwork for discussions like those in Wilkins, where courts must determine if the presence of marijuana (legal in small amounts) is enough to justify a search.
People v. Moorman (2020): During a traffic stop, a police officer detected the scent of marijuana, and when the defendant denied possessing any, this denial, along with the odor, provided the officer with probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle.
The court found that the defendant’s behavior, along with the odor, justified the search, similar to the arguments presented in Wilkins. The ruling was based on the idea that such behavior suggests illegal possession beyond the legal limits
Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
In Michigan, certain individuals are legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Being caught with a firearm if you fall under this category can lead to serious felony charges.
This article will explain who qualifies as a “prohibited person,” the penalties for possessing a firearm as a prohibited person, potential legal defenses, and how an experienced attorney can help.
Michigan law and federal law prohibit certain individuals from possessing or owning firearms. A “prohibited person” can include those who fall into one or more of the following categories:
The law that governs this offense is MCL 750.224f, which makes it a crime for prohibited individuals to possess a firearm. The law includes specific restrictions on felons and others who fall into the prohibited person category.
The penalties for a prohibited person possessing a firearm in Michigan are severe and can vary depending on the circumstances of the offense. Generally, if convicted, you may face:
For felons who are caught possessing a firearm, the length of the penalty may depend on the severity of the underlying felony conviction. Some convictions may lead to longer prison sentences, especially for violent felonies or crimes involving firearms.
In addition, being found with a firearm while committing another crime can result in additional charges, such as felony firearm possession, which carries mandatory prison time on top of any sentence for the underlying offense.
If you have been accused or charged with a crime.
Say nothing to anyone. Talk to us first.
Our firm is experienced in both State and Federal courts defending clients.
CALL NOW
Facing charges for possessing a firearm as a prohibited person can be overwhelming, but there are potential defenses that may help your case. Common legal defenses include:
If you’ve been charged with possessing a firearm as a prohibited person, it’s critical to have an experienced legal team that understands Michigan’s complex firearm laws. Komorn Law has over 30 years of experience defending clients in both state and federal courts, specializing in criminal defense and firearm-related cases.
Komorn Law can help by:
If you’re facing charges for any DUI or alleged crime in Michigan, call Komorn Law (248) 357-2550 for a case evaluation today.
Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization can lead to serious criminal charges.
Michigan law has strict regulations regarding firearms, and violating these laws can result in significant penalties.
This article explains what carrying a concealed weapon means, the potential punishments, legal defenses, and how an experienced attorney can help you if you’re facing charges.
As always – Don’t talk and you must invoke your 5th amendment right and ask for a lawyer. No matter what the police say or what they promise you!!
In Michigan, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon on your person or in a vehicle without a valid permit.
A concealed weapon typically means a handgun, but it can also include other dangerous weapons like knives or brass knuckles if they are hidden from view.
The law that governs carrying a concealed weapon is MCL 750.227. This law makes it a crime to carry a concealed pistol or other dangerous weapon without a Concealed Pistol License (CPL).
If you do not have a CPL, you are at risk of being charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a felony in Michigan. The potential penalties are severe and can affect your freedom and future. If convicted, you may face:
Additionally, a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon could lead to a permanent criminal record, which could impact your ability to find employment, own a firearm in the future, or even vote. It is important to take these charges seriously.
If you have been accused or charged with a crime.
Say nothing to anyone. Talk to us first.
Our firm is experienced in both State and Federal courts defending clients.
CALL NOW
If you’re facing charges for carrying a concealed weapon in Michigan, it’s important to work with an experienced legal team that understands Michigan’s gun laws.
Komorn Law has over 30 years of experience handling criminal defense cases in both state and federal courts. They specialize in defending clients charged with weapons-related crimes, including CCW.
Komorn Law can assist by:
If you’ve been charged with carrying a concealed weapon, don’t face the legal system alone. Contact Komorn Law (248) 357-2550 for a consultation or to hire the team to fight for your rights and protect your future.
Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Teachers Union and School District at Odds Over Data Access
The Michigan Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding whether public school teachers’ class materials are subject to the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
This case stems from a parent in Rochester, Carol Beth Litkouhi, who filed FOIA requests to access materials from a high school course on Ethnic and Gender Studies. The school district argued that the documents, since they were held by individual teachers and not the public body itself, were exempt from FOIA.
The Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the district, ruling that only records held directly by public bodies, not their employees, are subject to FOIA.
This decision raises concerns about transparency. Opponents of the ruling, including the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argue that it creates a loophole that allows local government employees to withhold information, even if it’s produced during their official duties.
They warn that this could severely limit the public’s ability to hold local governments accountable.
If you have been accused or charged with a crime.
Say nothing to anyone. Talk to us first.
Our firm is experienced in both State and Federal courts defending clients.
CALL NOW
The justices ruled in a one-sentence order Wednesday that they won’t disturb an appeals court decision that says teachers are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.
This case has sparked calls for legislative action to amend Michigan’s FOIA law to explicitly include records held by local government employees, ensuring public access to important information. You can read more about the legal documents and the court’s decision here.
Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
In Michigan, the laws surrounding firearms are strict, especially when it comes to felony firearm possession.
If you’re charged with a felony and found to be in possession of a firearm during the crime, the penalties can be severe.
This article explains what felony firearm possession is, what punishments you could face and possible legal defenses.
#1 Step to take – Invoke your 5th amendment right and ask for a lawyer. No matter what the police say or what they promise you!!
Felony firearm possession refers to the illegal possession of a gun while committing or attempting to commit a felony.
Michigan law makes it a separate crime to have a firearm while committing another felony, like drug possession, robbery, or assault.
Even if you don’t use the gun, simply having it in your possession during the felony is enough to be charged.
The law that governs felony firearm possession is MCL 750.227b
Michigan’s felony firearm law imposes mandatory prison sentences that are separate from any other punishment you might receive for the underlying felony.
It’s important to note that these sentences are not negotiable.
The judge has no discretion in reducing or suspending these sentences—they are mandatory.
Additionally, these sentences are served consecutively, meaning the time for the felony firearm charge is added on top of the sentence for the underlying felony.
This is a charge the prosecutors usually hold over you if you don’t submit, obey and confess.
If you have been accused or charged with a crime.
Say nothing to anyone. Talk to us first.
Our firm is experienced in both State and Federal courts defending clients.
CALL NOW
Being charged with felony firearm possession can dramatically impact your life. The mandatory prison sentences are harsh, but Komorn Law has over 30 years of experience defending clients in complex criminal cases. They have a deep understanding of Michigan’s firearm laws and will work tirelessly to defend your rights.
Komorn Law can assist by:
With their vast experience in both state and federal courts, Komorn Law is dedicated to providing the best possible defense for clients facing felony firearm charges.
If you’ve been charged with felony firearm possession, contact Komorn Law (248) 357-2550 for a consultation or to hire the team to fight for your rights and protect your future.
Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.