Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. This decision overturns a previous precedent where the odor of marijuana was considered enough justification for a search.

The Court reasoned that because the use and possession of marijuana is now legal for adults in Michigan under certain circumstances (following the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act – MRTMA), the smell of marijuana no longer automatically indicates illegal activity. The odor could just as likely be associated with the legal possession or recent legal use of marijuana.

Therefore, the Court concluded that while the smell of marijuana can still be a factor in determining probable cause, it must be accompanied by other specific and articulable facts indicating illegal activity to justify a search.

This ruling stems from a case where a firearm was found in a vehicle after a search was conducted based solely on the smell of marijuana. The Supreme Court sided with the lower courts in suppressing the evidence, stating that the initial search was unlawful because the smell of marijuana alone did not provide probable cause in light of the state’s legalization of cannabis.

This decision is a significant shift in Michigan law and will likely impact how law enforcement conducts vehicle searches. It emphasizes the need for additional evidence beyond the smell of marijuana to establish probable cause for a search.

They can’t say because we smell weed we are going to search your car. Because the whole town may reek.  Alas… there are a hundred other words to choose from to make the arrest.

They have to say something else now. If you’re sitting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle all a police officer has to say is “I believe you’re impaired”. And operating a motor vehicle impaired is a crime.

So don’t think this is a win. Maybe a little one.

Read the ruling linked below.

Michigan Supreme Court Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

More Articles

More

2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

In Michigan last year, 956 people who were never charged with or convicted of a crime nevertheless lost property to law enforcement and other agencies, based on suspicions that the property may have been connected to an alleged crime. Those 956 individuals represent...

read more
Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

One of the most troubling recent scenes from Sacramento came as the California state legislature reached the end of its session. A simple bill that would rein in abuses of the civil-asset forfeiture process—i.e., when police agencies take property from people, even if...

read more
ERAD – Is it real?

ERAD – Is it real?

I don't know...But here is a story about it.  Your on your own to find the truth.  After the article there will be some links to other sites that will present the device in a different light. Police Use Device to Strip Money from Drivers' Debit Cards Police officers...

read more
Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Orchard Lake and Sylvan Lake have two of the smallest police forces in Michigan, but voters there will be asked to curb their powers to confiscate property associated with crime.   Ballot measures in both communities would require a criminal conviction before...

read more

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement agencies in Michigan to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity, even if the owner hasn’t been charged with a crime. This practice has been controversial, leading to significant reforms in recent years.

Key Points:

News Article links

  • Definition: Civil asset forfeiture permits authorities to confiscate assets believed to be involved in or resulting from criminal conduct without necessarily charging the owner.Mackinac Center
  • Reforms: Michigan has implemented several reforms to address concerns about civil asset forfeiture:Mackinac Center
  • 2015: Increased the standard of evidence required for forfeiture from “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”Mackinac Center
  • 2016: Eliminated the requirement for property owners to post a bond before challenging a seizure.Mackinac Center
  • 2019: Mandated a criminal conviction or plea agreement before forfeiting property valued under $50,000 in drug-related cases.AP News
  • 2022: Amended laws to allow forfeiture of assets over $20,000 at airports without a criminal conviction.Mackinac Center
  • Recent Developments: In 2023, a federal court ruled that Wayne County’s vehicle seizure program violated constitutional due process rights, highlighting ongoing concerns about forfeiture practices.Mackinac Center
  • Statistics: In 2022, Michigan law enforcement agencies seized over $10.2 million in cash and conducted nearly 4,000 forfeitures. Notably, more than 150 individuals lost property without being charged, and another 100 without a conviction.Mackinac Center
  • Criticism: Critics argue that civil asset forfeiture can lead to abuses, disproportionately affecting innocent individuals and marginalized communities. 
  • Advocacy for Change: Organizations like the Mackinac Center for Public Policy advocate for ending civil asset forfeiture, suggesting that property should only be forfeited following a criminal conviction to better protect citizens’ rights.Mackinac Center

Understanding Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws is crucial, as they directly impact property rights and law enforcement practices. While reforms have been made, ongoing debates suggest that further changes may be necessary to ensure fairness and protect citizens’ rights

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

More Articles

More

2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

In Michigan last year, 956 people who were never charged with or convicted of a crime nevertheless lost property to law enforcement and other agencies, based on suspicions that the property may have been connected to an alleged crime. Those 956 individuals represent...

read more
Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

One of the most troubling recent scenes from Sacramento came as the California state legislature reached the end of its session. A simple bill that would rein in abuses of the civil-asset forfeiture process—i.e., when police agencies take property from people, even if...

read more
ERAD – Is it real?

ERAD – Is it real?

I don't know...But here is a story about it.  Your on your own to find the truth.  After the article there will be some links to other sites that will present the device in a different light. Police Use Device to Strip Money from Drivers' Debit Cards Police officers...

read more
Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Orchard Lake and Sylvan Lake have two of the smallest police forces in Michigan, but voters there will be asked to curb their powers to confiscate property associated with crime.   Ballot measures in both communities would require a criminal conviction before...

read more
What Happens When the Government Takes Your Property?

What Happens When the Government Takes Your Property?

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?

Forfeiture laws in Michigan allow the government to seize property – like cash, cars, or even houses – if they believe it was involved in a crime.  This can happen even if the owner hasn’t been convicted of a crime. It’s a complex area of law with some important things to understand. 

What is Forfeiture?

Forfeiture is a legal process where the government takes ownership of private property because it’s believed to be connected to illegal activity. There are two main types:  

Criminal Forfeiture: This happens after someone has been convicted of a crime. The property seized is usually related to that specific crime. 

Civil Forfeiture: This can occur without a criminal conviction. The government argues that the property itself was involved in a crime, regardless of whether the owner is found guilty.  

Important Points to Know:

What Property Can Be Forfeited?

Under Michigan law (specifically related to drug crimes, (MCL 333.7521), a wide range of property can be seized, including:

  • Money, negotiable instruments, and securities.
  • Real estate (MCL 600.3815)
  • Vehicles, boats, and aircraft (S.B. 2 & H.B 4001-4002)
  • Equipment and materials used in illegal activities (like drug manufacturing).
  • Anything of value exchanged for illegal substances.

How Does it Work?

Seizure: Law enforcement can seize property if they have probable cause to believe it’s connected to a crime. In some cases, they need a warrant, but not always (MCL 333.7522). 

Notice: If your property is seized, the government is supposed to notify you (MCL 600.4707 & 333.7523). If they can’t find you, they may publish a notice online or in a newspaper.  

Claim: If you want your property back, you usually have a limited time (e.g., 20-28 days after notice) to file a claim with the government, stating your interest in the property and why it shouldn’t be forfeited. This claim often needs to be written, signed, and verified (notarized).  

Civil Action: If you file a claim, the government (usually the Attorney General or local prosecutor) may then file a civil lawsuit in court to try and get a forfeiture order.

Burden of Proof: In a forfeiture hearing, the government generally has to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” (meaning it’s more likely than not) that the property was connected to a crime (MCL 600.4707). However, for property valued over $50,000 in drug cases, the burden might shift to the owner to prove they didn’t know about the illegal activity (according to some interpretations of MCL 333.7523a).  

Conviction Requirement (Limited): A significant reform in 2019 (Senate Bill 2 and House Bills 4001 & 4002) requires a criminal conviction or plea agreement for forfeitures of property valued under $50,000 in drug-related cases, unless the owner abandons the property (news from May 2019).  

Rights of Property Owners

You have the right to:

  • Be notified about the forfeiture proceedings.
  • File a claim to contest the forfeiture.
  • Have a hearing in court (if you file a claim).
  • Present evidence to show your property wasn’t involved in a crime or that you were an innocent owner.

What Happens to Forfeited Property?

Generally, the law enforcement agency that seized the property can keep it for their use or sell it.

The proceeds from the sale are often used for law enforcement purposes (MCL 333.7524).

Kelsey’s Law Connection: It’s important not to confuse forfeiture laws with traffic laws like Kelsey’s Law (related to teen drivers and cell phone use). They are completely different areas of law.

Links to Laws:

  • MCL 333.7521 (Controlled Substances – Forfeiture): You can find these sections within the Michigan Public Health Code on the Michigan Legislature website.
  • MCL 600.4701 (Revised Judicature Act – Forfeiture): This act also contains provisions related to forfeiture.

Recent News:

  • Michigan Supreme Court Ruling (July 2024): The Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Detroit’s practice of seizing cars in drug-related cases unless there’s evidence the car was used to transport drugs for trafficking purposes. This decision is seen as a curb on aggressive forfeiture practices.  
  • Report on Forfeiture (October 2023): A report highlighted that even with recent reforms, Michigan still sees cases where people lose property without being charged with a crime, and most forfeiture cases happen without much court oversight (Mackinac Center, October 2023). 
  • Limitations on Forfeiture Without Conviction (2019): As mentioned earlier, laws were passed in 2019 requiring a conviction in many drug-related forfeiture cases involving property under $50,000 (Michigan.gov press release, May 2019).

It’s crucial to understand that forfeiture laws can have a significant impact on individuals, even those who haven’t been found guilty of a crime. If your property has been seized, it’s highly recommended to seek legal advice immediately to understand your rights and options.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

More Articles

More

2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

In Michigan last year, 956 people who were never charged with or convicted of a crime nevertheless lost property to law enforcement and other agencies, based on suspicions that the property may have been connected to an alleged crime. Those 956 individuals represent...

read more
Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

One of the most troubling recent scenes from Sacramento came as the California state legislature reached the end of its session. A simple bill that would rein in abuses of the civil-asset forfeiture process—i.e., when police agencies take property from people, even if...

read more
ERAD – Is it real?

ERAD – Is it real?

I don't know...But here is a story about it.  Your on your own to find the truth.  After the article there will be some links to other sites that will present the device in a different light. Police Use Device to Strip Money from Drivers' Debit Cards Police officers...

read more
Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Orchard Lake and Sylvan Lake have two of the smallest police forces in Michigan, but voters there will be asked to curb their powers to confiscate property associated with crime.   Ballot measures in both communities would require a criminal conviction before...

read more
2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture Report

In Michigan last year, 956 people who were never charged with or convicted of a crime nevertheless lost property to law enforcement and other agencies, based on suspicions that the property may have been connected to an alleged crime.

Those 956 individuals represent roughly 14 percent of the 6,666 people in Michigan whose property was taken from them by the government under a process called civil asset forfeiture.

Of those 956 individuals, 736 were never charged with a violation for which asset forfeitures are authorized, and 220 were charged but not convicted. A further 228 individuals who cooperated with or assisted law enforcement to avoid criminal charges still had assets forfeited to the government.

The law enforcement agencies involved in forfeiture proceedings collected more than $13.1 million worth of property in 2017, of which $11.8 million was cash. In 2016, a total of $15.2 million in cash and property was forfeited to agencies.

These figures come from a report compiled by the Michigan State Police. Under a 2015 law, local agencies must send data on forfeiture to the department, which, in turn, must produce a report that it then publishes on the internet. Advocates of reforming the practice of civil asset forfeiture considered it a preliminary step.

Jarrett Skorup, a policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, co-authored a report with the ACLU on civil asset forfeiture in Michigan.

“Michigan has been making progress over the past few years to do a better job protecting innocent people from forfeiture, by raising the standard of evidence and increasing transparency. But as this report shows, there’s a lot of work to do. More than 3,500 people in Michigan had the government take ownership of their property in 2017 without being convicted of a crime, and nearly 1,000 of them weren’t charged with a crime or were charged and found innocent. This should not happen.”

Skorup’s reference to 3,500 people who had their assets forfeited without being convicted of a crime in 2017 includes 2,368 people who were charged with a violation with charges still pending.

 


“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. Say I would like to speak to my lawyer and Contact Komorn Law Immediately 800-656-3557.

 

Nearly 1,000 People Not Charged or Found Not Guilty Lost Their Property Through Forfeiture

Even if you aren’t convicted of a crime, you may lose your home

 

Michigan law enforcement agencies took ownership of $11.8 million in cash and $1.3 million in property seized from individuals in 2017, through a legal process called civil asset forfeiture. The figures were obtained from an annual forfeiture report and responses to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The typical forfeiture involved assets – typically cars and cash – worth less than $500.

The forfeited property included eight homes, 711 weapons and 7,999 vehicles, according to the information obtained from Michigan law enforcement.

Forfeiture is the process of transferring assets to the government. The assets are first seized by police because they think the items may be connected to illegal activity. An important distinction in the process is that seizure is done by police while forfeiture is processed by prosecutors. In Michigan, no conviction, prosecution or even a formal arrest is required for officials to pursue forfeiture.

Out of the 6,666 forfeiture actions in 2017, 736 were never charged with a violation and 220 were charged but not convicted. There were 2,876 people who were charged and convicted, meaning that 57 percent of the people were not convicted before losing their assets.

“Before locking someone up permanently, our laws and Constitution require they be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Jarrett Skorup, who co-authored a 2015 report on civil forfeiture with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “In the same way, nobody should permanently lose their assets unless they are first convicted in criminal court and it is determined that the assets were gained through illegal activity.”

Nearly 75 percent of the forfeiture petitions that prosecutors filed in 2017 to retain seized property never went to trial because the property owner did not contest the claim. Eighty percent of assets taken were valued at $1,000 or less.

“This comprehensive report from law enforcement agencies across Michigan shows why Michigan needs to require a criminal conviction prior to taking ownership of anyone’s property,” Skorup said. “While most police and prosecutor offices are acting properly, because of poor state laws, nearly 1,000 people lost their assets despite never being charged with criminal activity or being found not guilty in court.”

Skorup said that the law encourages police officers to seize assets and pursue forfeiture whenever possible because doing so gives their agencies money they can use to pay for equipment, personnel and supplies.

Dave Hiller, executive director of the Michigan Fraternal Order of Police, takes a different stand on civil forfeiture. He said that it is a vital tool for law enforcement.

“It must be done properly, first of all, to assure due process is followed and additionally to eliminate any questions of impropriety,” Hiller said. “A law enforcement agency should work with the local prosecutor to ensure things are done the way the law is intended.”

Hiller said that in certain cases, civil forfeiture has a greater impact on criminals than criminal charges do. The Michigan FOP is, he said, open to improving the law to address due process concerns.

Michigan requires that police demonstrate “clear and convincing” evidence that an asset is linked to a crime for a police officer to be justified in taking it. But criminal convictions require a higher standard of proof, which is that prosecutors must prove someone committed a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means that an individual may lose the assets that police seize even if there is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction.

The Michigan House has passed a bill that would require a criminal conviction for most cases of civil asset forfeiture. But House Bill 4158 has not been taken up in the state Senate.

See 2018 Michigan Asset Forfeiture report here

Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

One of the most troubling recent scenes from Sacramento came as the California state legislature reached the end of its session. A simple bill that would rein in abuses of the civil-asset forfeiture processi.e., when police agencies take property from people, even if they’ve never been accused of a crimecame far short of passage after the law-enforcement lobby pulled out all the stops.

 

The final vote was about money, not justice.

 

Police organizations argued they would lose a significant amount of funding if a law passed requiring that they secure a conviction before taking property. They often take homes, cars and cash from people after claiming the property was used in the commission of a crime.

They need only prove the low standard of “probable cause.” (For instance, one Anaheim couple almost lost a $1.5 million commercial building after an undercover cop bought $37 in marijuana from a tenant, but the feds dropped that case after bad publicity.)

Created in the early days of the nation’s war on drugs, asset forfeiture was designed to grab the proceeds from drug kingpins. But most of the money now is grabbed from ordinary citizens. According to a study last year, about 80 percent of the time, seized property is taken from people who have never been charged with anything. That same study, by the Drug Policy Alliance, found wanton abuses in California cities. Police are not supposed to budget forfeiture proceeds, but they increasingly depend on the revenues to fund their operations.

The study also found “multiple instances of cash grabs by law enforcement being incentivized over deterring drug sales, wherein police wait until a drug sale concludes and then seize the cash proceeds of the sale rather than the drugs, as drugs must be destroyed and are of no monetary value to law enforcement.” It also found that some Los Angeles County cities “were found to be prioritizing asset forfeiture over general public safety concerns … .” In other words, police skew their policing strategies around these lucrative takings.

California’s law actually requires, in property seizures of more than $25,000, that the police agency gain a conviction and the legal standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

California law-enforcement agencies don’t like that higher standard, so they circumvent the state law. They participate in something called “equitable sharing”—i.e., they invite the feds into their operation, take the property using the lower federal standard, and then split the loot.

A new national study by the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based civil-liberties group, gave California a “C+” in its civil-forfeiture laws. That leads to an obvious question: Given the terrible problems documented in California, how bad must things be in other states? Only seven states had better protections than California and the preponderance of states received “D” grades.

 


Have you been charged with a drug crime or violation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act? Remain Silent and Contact Komorn Law Immediately to protect your rights and freedom 800-656-3557.

 


An economic consulting firm reported on data last week showing that the approximately $4.5 billion in annual forfeitures now exceeds the $3.9 billion Americans lose in robberies each year. The clear point: Your local police or sheriff’s department is more likely to take your stuff than a robber. The Institute for Justice report found the problem getting worse. “It’s exploding, despite the fact that the issue is getting a lot of attention,” said Dick Carpenter, one of the study’s authors. According to the report, forfeiture revenues have more than doubled between 2002 to 2013. California agencies collected approximately $280 million over the 11-year study periodand an additional $696 million by partnering with federal agencies.

These are big dollars to local police departments, which explains the arm-twisting and lobbying as that reform bill made it to the Assembly floor. Critics of asset forfeiture agree that agencies will lose money, but argue that the government is supposed to promote justice. Their agencies should be funded through general tax proceeds, not by grabbing the homes and cars of people who may not have done anything wrong.

The problem is the incentive. The agencies that do the taking get to keep lots of the money. How can we expect just results when agencies have such a strong financial incentive to take more and more property? In New Mexico, a video of a city attorney bragging that “this is a gold mine” helped build public support for wider-ranging reforms there. As a result, the Land of Enchantment received the highest grade on the Institute for Justice study.

Last year in California, SB 443 would have, among other things, prohibited “state or local law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency seeking adoption by the federal agency of the seized property.” Expect something like it to return next year. As abuses mount, maybe legislators will be more likely to think about justice and not just money.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

C.J. Ciaramella|9.18.18

C.J. Ciaramella|8.17.18

Scott Shackford|8.06.18

MORE ARTICLES BY Steven Greenhut

9.21.18 12:00 am

9.14.18 12:00 am

9.07.18 12:30 am

About Komorn Law

Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.

Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation
800-656-3557.

Follow Komorn Law

 

Michigan 2017 House Bill 4158 – Require conviction for property forfeiture

Michigan 2017 House Bill 4158 – Require conviction for property forfeiture

Michigan 2017 House Bill 4158 – Require conviction for property forfeiture

 

To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a suspected drug crime is not subject to forfeiture unless the individual is actually convicted. The bill would also prohibit officials from requiring a person to negotiate for return of their property.

 

However, the conviction requirement would only apply to forfeitures of less than $50,000 (meaning police and prosecutors could still take and keep those assets using a lower burden of proof).

 

Introduced by Rep. Peter Lucido (R) on February 2, 2017

Passed 83 to 26 in the House on May 8, 2018. 

 

See Who Voted – Yes / No – below to establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a suspected drug crime is not subject to forfeiture unless an individual is actually convicted. 

 

IN FAVOR

 

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Brinks (D) Byrd (D) Camilleri (D) Chang (D) Clemente (D)
Durhal (D) Ellison (D) Garrett (D) Gay-Dagnogo (D) Geiss (D)
Greig (D) Hammoud (D) Hertel (D) Hoadley (D) Jones (D)
LaGrand (D) Lasinski (D) Liberati (D) Moss (D) Pagan (D)
Peterson (D) Phelps (D) Rabhi (D) Robinson (D) Scott (D)
Singh (D) Sneller (D) Sowerby (D) Wittenberg (D) Zemke (D)

 

 HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Afendoulis (R) Albert (R) Alexander (R) Allor (R) Barrett (R)
Bellino (R) Bizon (R) Brann (R) Calley (R) Canfield (R)
Chatfield (R) Cole (R) Farrington (R) Frederick (R) Glenn (R)
Griffin (R) Hauck (R) Hernandez (R) Hoitenga (R) Hornberger (R)
Howell (R) Howrylak (R) Hughes (R) Iden (R) Inman (R)
Johnson (R) Kahle (R) Kelly (R) LaFave (R) Lauwers (R)
Leonard (R) Leutheuser (R) Lilly (R) Lower (R) Lucido (R)
Marino (R) McCready (R) Noble (R) Pagel (R) Reilly (R)
Rendon (R) Roberts (R) Runestad (R) Sheppard (R) Tedder (R)
Theis (R) VanderWall (R) VanSingel (R) Vaupel (R) Verheulen (R)
Wentworth (R) Whiteford (R) Yaroch (R)

 

AGAINST

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Cambensy (D) Chirkun (D) Cochran (D) Dianda (D) Elder (D)
Faris (D) Green (D) Greimel (D) Guerra (D) Kosowski (D)
Love (D) Neeley (D) Sabo (D) Santana (D) Yancey (D)
Yanez (D)

 

 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Cox (R) Crawford (R) Garcia (R) Graves (R) Kesto (R)
LaSata (R) Maturen (R) Miller (R) Victory (R) Webber (R)

 

Official Government Site


Michael Komorn is an advocate for Forfeiture Reform

 

 

 

See the Michigan House Judiciary Committee hearing on Asset Forfeiture legislation on HOUSE TELEVISION


About Komorn Law

Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.

Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation
800-656-3557.

Follow Komorn Law