The federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning,” according to a federal judge, who ruled that the ban on marijuana users owning firearms is unconstitutional.
A man was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police found marijuana and a handgun in his car while he was driving, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the indictment on Friday.
Judge Patrick Wyrick concurred with the attorneys that the Second Amendment of the Constitution is violated by the law that forbids “unlawful” cannabis users from owning firearms.
This ruling comes as the ban is still being contested in a separate federal court by several medical cannabis patients and former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D).
The Trump-appointed judge in this case heavily relied on an interpretation of a recent Supreme Court decision in which the justices generally set higher standards for policies that seek to restrict gun rights.
According to the ruling, any such limitations must be in line with the Second Amendment’s original ratification in 1791.
The judge said in his decision on Friday that the historical analogies the Justice Department relied on to support the ban, including allusions to outdated case law prohibiting Catholics, allies, slaves and Indians from owning weapons, “misses the mark” and “cannot provide the basis for a historical analogue.”
The government’s position that marijuana users who use it illegally are “both unvirtuous and dangerous” was also addressed. A user of marijuana does not automatically fall into that category, according to Wyrick, “because the mere act of using marijuana do not involve violent, forceful, or threatening conduct.”
Similar arguments have been made by the government in the Florida-based case, in which medical cannabis patients are actively contesting a federal district court’s decision that dismissed their DOJ lawsuit in November.
Because the state’s cannabis laws had made it possible for “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified people to obtain firearms illegally, the ATF issued an advisory in 2020 that specifically targeted Michigan and mandated that gun sellers conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers.
The Department of Justice will likely appeal Wyrick’s ruling to a higher federal court.
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law and turn your defense into an offense. Call Now 248-357-2550
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.
Michael Komorn was featured as one of the Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys in Michigan. The award-winning Attorney has clients throughout the state.
MICHIGAN, USA, November 21, 2022 /EINPresswire.com/ — Award winning Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law was featured as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Michigan. Being known as one of the most tenacious and persistent opponents when it comes to the defense of his clients in the court room doesn’t come without hard work and experience.
Komorn has uncovered and exposed several alleged misrepresentations in lab procedures and results that have exonerated his clients or changed the practice in which lab work is done.
This was uncovered with the help of Komorn’s tenacity and determination along with the assistance of several other sources. Through the MSP Crime Lab’s own admission, their faulty testing methods have been used for the past twenty years, possibly effecting thousands of people arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana in a negative manner. So, if you were consuming CBD products it could show up as THC in a blood sample taken if you were accused of a DUI.
Michael Komorn is no stranger to controversy concerning the MSP Crime Lab in that he discovered that the crime lab was adversely reporting cannabis oil as ‘synthetic THC’ at the urging of Prosecutors so they could charge a person with a felony. Komorn received the ‘Right to Counsel Award’ from the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan for pursuing the evidence that brought this information into the light.
Others include the determination of synthetic marijuana, whether the evidence seized is hemp or cannabis and use of medical marijuana while on probation.
He has also done extensive work on forfeiture cases, getting thousands of dollars in property and money returned to his clients. Even monetary recovery for destroyed marijuana plants.
Michael is a seasoned trial attorney in both state and federal casework. He has won and obtained favorable results for numerous clients in state cases and also at the federal level for federal marijuana possession charges.
Komorn has been featured in the media on many occasions and is one of the go to sources for news interviews for DUI and Cannabis Law. He also has been hosting a podcast called Planet Green Trees TV since 2008 discussing the laws and future of the cannabis industry. Komorn was also featured on an episode of Vice – Weediquette regarding Michigan’s abusive search and seizure activities.
You can read more about awards, cases and the work Michael and his firm have done on KomornLaw.com
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law and turn your defense into an offense. Call Now 248-357-2550
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
For the last 13 years of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (“MMMA”), patients on probation have asked that simple question. Relying on the simple plain language in the act that protects a medical marijuana patient from denial of any right or privilege (probation), as well as protection from penalty in ANY MANNER, as long as they followed the medical marijuana laws and rules.
Until now, it was up to each individual courtroom to decide the patients fate. The judges, prosecutors, probation officers and drug testing labs decided which medicines a probationer could use. In some cities and townships medical marijuana was allowed, but in others, patients had to fight. Some were successful, most were banned from using their doctor recommended medicine, and would likely face serious penalties and jail time if they broke those probation rules. Thousands of patients were sent back to jail because of testing “dirty.”
As president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association, Michael Komorn has fought for every patient on this issue in courtrooms across the state, by trying to secure their rights under the law to not be penalized for the legal use of medical marijuana. Komorn has fought for patients on bond to be able to use medical marijuana as a bond condition. With over 300,000 registered medical marijuana patients in Michigan, thousands of patients had their bond revoked due to choosing their medicine, as recommended by a doctor.
The justice system has crushed medical marijuana caregivers and patients for more than a decade on many issues. Usually with the excuse that “marijuana is illegal” or “a trial court has considerable discretion to set conditions of probation.”
Four years ago, this was the excuse in People v Magyari that the Michigan Court of Appeals used to deny a registered medical marijuana patient from administering medical marijuana for his condition. The Court stated in its opinion:
“Defendant has failed to offer any persuasive argument for the proposition that the MMMA prohibits a trial court from ever imposing a probationary condition barring the use of medical marijuana. The challenged probationary condition is reasonably related to the goal of defendant’s rehabilitation, including preventing future criminality, as well as protecting the public. Affirmed.”
Until February 2021, when People v Thue was published, that was the law of the land.
Today, attorneys Michael Komorn and Alyssa McCormick, of Komorn Law, provided the “persuasive argument” for medical marijuana on probation. That persuasive argument boiled down to the plain language of the law that so many courts have ignored and disparaged for the last 13 years. The plain language of the law in section 4, for the right to use medical marijuana, has not changed, so why did it take this long to have a correct ruling? No one knows.
The Court ruled:
“The Michigan Probation Act permits a court to impose multiple conditions of probation on a defendant under MCL 771.3. However, provisions of the probation act that are inconsistent with the MMMA do not apply to the medical use of marijuana.”
The Court went on to state:
“We also conclude that the revocation of probation upon the MMMA-compliant use of marijuana constitutes a “penalty” under MCL 333.26424(a) of the MMMA.”
Most times, courts will not rule on both of these issues. Due to the “first out” rule, the appeals courts usually decline to rule on further issues such as penalties.
One of the more incredible rulings in this opinion was on the issue of mootness. Because of the details of the case, Komorns client’s probation ended before the appeal could be heard. The court in its wisdom understood that this issue was of such public importance and issued an opinion even though the client no longer had standing.
The only other medical marijuana case Komorn can remember that issued a ruling where the defendant did not have standing was when the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion against a patient for taking his plants out of his enclosed locked facility for spraying with pesticide. He lacked standing because he died before the court could issue its opinion. The court issued its opinion anyway, post-mortem. Issues of standing and mootness are the FIRST requirements of having a court review an issue.
Having a court rule favorably while overlooking standing and mootness is quite extraordinary. One can only chalk it up to experience and strategy, or as some call it, “lawyer magic.”
Some judges have called the MMMA the worst law they’ve ever seen.
Courts have ruled against patients in all kinds of cases because they personally feel that marijuana is bad.
The Michigan Court of Appeals in Magyari even claimed that marijuana was addictive! “Further, the trial court found that defendant would simply be replacing one addictive drug—alcohol, for another—marijuana.”
The courts have been wildly inconsistent with opinions, rulings, reversals and remands on the medical marijuana law.
Some predictions are that this ruling will also apply to patients on bond or parolees. While this might be true, we have seen most recently that the Michigan Supreme Court has upended even the simplest of understandings of the plain language of the MMMA, specifically in the case of Deruiter v Byron Township. In Deruiter, the Court unanimously said that a township could craft an ordinance that added requirements to the MMMA. This flies in the face of earlier rulings from the MSC where the justices said in oral arguments that you cannot add surplusage or make any words nugatory within the act.
Said another way, because of the ruling in Deruiter, what would stop a locality from drafting an ordinance with additional requirements to administer medical marijuana while on probation?
“As in Qualls and Miller, the local ordinance goes further in its regulation but not in a way that is counter to the MMMA’s conditional allowance on the medical use of marijuana. We therefore hold that the MMMA does not nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq.,13 so long as the municipality does not prohibit or penalize all medical marijuana cultivation, like the city of Wyoming’s zoning ordinance did in Ter Beek II, and so long as the municipality does not impose regulations that are “unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law.” Qualls, 434 Mich at 363.”
It is also suggested that because the MMMA and the 2018 Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana (MRTMA) use similar language that this ruling could be used to have the same protective effects of all adults 21 and over to use marijuana while on probation.
Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient … is not subject to … penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege… for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act
1. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act … the following acts by a person 21 years of age or older are … not grounds for … penalty in any manner … and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege …
Both laws have sections stating that all other laws do not apply to them. The intent of both laws is the same– to give people the right to have medical marijuana and legal marijuana. Under no other circumstances can an individual be denied access to marijuana, as long as they follow the MMMA and or MRTMA.
HANDS OFF OUR MARIJUANA ALREADY. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.
Strangely, there is an unattributed quote, possibly from one of the judges in the case which addresses this in the opinion:
“We note, however, that the MMMA is inapplicable to the recreational use of marijuana, and thus, a trial court may still impose probation conditions related to the recreational use of marijuana and revoke probation for such recreational use, as well as for marijuana use in violation of the MMMA.”
While the opinion did not directly address the MRTMA (notwithstanding the weird uncited and dicta quotation at the bottom of page 6-7 of the slip opinion), it seems that the statutory language in MCL 333.27955(1) and MCL 333.27954(5) would compel a similar outcome with respect to adult-use marijuana.
The Thue opinion relies on the preemption language in MCL 333.26427(e) and finds that revocation of probation is a “penalty” in violation of Section 4 of the MMMA.
Similarly, Section 5(1) of the MRTMA provides, “Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, the following acts by a person 21 years of age or older are not unlawful, are not an offense, are not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, are not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, are not grounds for search or inspection, and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege . . .”
While Section 4(5) of the MRTMA provides, “All other laws inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.”
It would seem that the takeaway of Thue opinion is that revocation of probation is a “penalty” and the MRTMA prohibits the imposition of a penalty for conduct that is permitted by the MRTMA, it would stand to logically follow that the MRTMA similarly protects those who are age 21+ from having their probation revoked for engaging in conduct that is protected by the MRTMA.
An issue to be fought in court in the future.
Don’t face the system alone– Hire The Best If you want your right to use marijuana while on bond or probation Call Komorn Law PLLC248-357-2550
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
As it goes, my clients were overcharged with crimes involving drugs, guns, bombs and money. We litigated this case for over three years including 5 days of preliminary exam testimony, and several motions litigated at the District Court and the Circuit Court.
We had made several appearances in circuit court in our continued effort to challenge the governments search and seizure of evidence because of the illegal “Knock and Talk”
Knock and Talk
When the police don’t have enough evidence to get a search warrant, they sometimes employ a procedure they have nicknamed “knock and talk” to investigate further.
Courts have ruled that a police officer has the same right as an everyday citizen (for example, a Girl Scout selling cookies) to visit your house, knock on your front door, and ask to speak with you.
Unfortunately, abuses of the “knock and talk” technique are now rampant.
Two Cases
Two somewhat recent cases in Michigan have helped clarify the law in this area.
In one case, from 2015, when no one answered the front door, the police started walking around the property knocking on back doors and side doors until they spotted some marijuana through a window in the back of the house.
The instinctual fourth amendment argument is that the police need a warrant before they roam around your back-yard peering into your windows.
In July 2016, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue.
People v. Radandt
That same month a similar case before the Michigan Supreme Court, was heard, arguing that a so-called “knock and talk” violates the Fourth Amendment when it is conducted in the middle of the night.
In June 2017 the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with this argument and held that the police were trespassing, and therefore violating the Fourth Amendment, when they woke up suspects and their families in the middle of the night to interrogate them in their homes. People v. Frederick; People v. Van Doorne;
In People v Frederick, 500 Mich 228, 895 NW2d 541 (2017), the supreme court considered the scope of the implied license a homeowner extends to the general public in People v Frederick, 500 Mich 228, 895 NW2d 541 (2017).
The police had visited defendants’ homes during the early morning hours (4:00 and 5:30 a.m.) and knocked on the door. After conversations during which both defendants consented to searches of their homes, the police searched the homes and recovered marijuana products.
The court concluded that the procedure was not a permissible “knock and talk,” which is permitted because the public, and the police, have an implied license to approach the door, knock and wait briefly to be received, and then, if not invited to stay longer, leave.
The court reasoned that the scope of the implied license is time sensitive and that generally there is no implied license to knock at someone’s door in the middle of the night.
In exceeding the scope of the implied license, the police were trespassing. The trespass, coupled with information gathering (the police were seeking to find something or gain information), constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, and because the police did not have warrants and no exception to the warrant requirement existed, the approaches violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court further held that defendants’ consent, even if voluntary, was invalid unless it was sufficiently attenuated from the warrantless search. A court considers the following factors in making that determination: (1) the temporal proximity of the illegal act and the alleged consent, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. The court remanded the case for a weighing of those factors by the trial court.
Back to the Case at Hand
The facts of this case were very similar to the Fredericks case.
Here several officers ( some in uniform, some in raid gear and none of them in girl scout uniforms), in several different vehicles, (some marked some unmarked), encroached and trespassed upon my clients property, came into the back yard and insisted that FANG had the authority to do a compliance check of their medical marihuana grow.
We took issue with the coming into the back yard, because it was a trespass. We also took issue with the concept that a multi-jurisdictional task force has the authority to do a compliance check for MMMA behavior, or would be able to determine compliance if they did have the authority and by asserting the authority ( that they did not have), directly impacted the volition of the alleged consent to search.
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.
The evidentiary hearings had been very contentious, and it may be fair to say that the investigators and officers in this matter did not like my suggestions that they had trampled all over my clients 4th amendment rights.
Status Quo: Overcharged
The original overcharging of by the prosecutor’s office is a common practice.
Anytime allegations involve the combination of narcotics and firearms (even if licensed, registered, CCW or CPL) Prosecutors love to charge felony firearm. Felony firearm mandates a 2 years term of imprisonment in the Michigan Department of Corrections to run consecutive to any other sentence.
The jury instruction is complicated, and sometimes a compromised jury will think it is doing a favor for the accused and find him or her not guilty of the underlying felony and guilty of the felony firearm only. This is illogical in any legal analysis but does not matter and will still result in a mandatory 2 years in prison.
Bomb Making Charge – Because It Exploded
One of the more outrageous and memorable examples of prosecutors overcharging, and incidentally was one of the counts dismissed at the exam, was for the crime of bomb making.
This count was literally created by the police after seizing legal fireworks, ( what are commonly known as M80’s- flash powder) then testing the fireworks (they blew off some fireworks) and then created a report that concluded that the fireworks were bombs because they created an explosion.
As I said this count was dismissed at the exam, but this bomb making count is just another example of the awesome power that the prosecutors have. They are literally the “Kings of the Court Room.”
Kings of the Courtroom
The Kings of the Courtroom (and Queens) run their kingdom like a well-oiled machine. They have the awesome power to charge any crime they want.
It is only the Prosecutors who can add to the charges, amend the charges, increase or decrease the charges or dismiss the charges. And of course, they have absolute immunity from civil liability while doing it.
This is the reason that 95-97 percent of people charged with crimes plead guilty.
“A study by Northwestern University Law School’s Centre on Wrongful Convictions found that 46% of documented wrongful capital convictions between 1973 and 2004 could be traced to false testimony by snitches—making them the leading cause of wrongful convictions in death-penalty cases.
The Innocence Project keeps a database of Americans convicted of serious crimes but then exonerated by DNA evidence. Of the 318 it lists, 57 involved informants—and 30 of the convicted had entered a guilty plea.”
“The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America,” said Robert Jackson, the attorney-general, in 1940. American prosecutors are more powerful than ever before.
The Pressure to Plead Guilty
Several legal changes have empowered them. The first is the explosion of plea bargaining, where a suspect agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge if the more serious charges against them are dropped.
Plea bargains were unobtainable in the early years of American justice. But today more than 95% of cases end in such deals and thus are never brought to trial.”
“Jed Rakoff, a district judge in New York, thinks it unlikely that 95% of defendants are guilty. Of the 2.4m Americans behind bars, he thinks it possible that “thousands, perhaps tens of thousands” confessed despite being innocent. One reason they might do so is because harsh, mandatory-minimum sentencing rules can make such a choice rational. Rather than risk a trial and a 30-year sentence, some cop a plea and accept a much shorter one.”
Battle Weary: Back to the Case at Hand
As it goes, and only because of our hard work, my client’s will, desire and commitment to this battle, today we were finally rewarded.
Clients were beyond joyful for the results today, but even with that said, it is hard to really understand, unless you live through it, just how overwhelming the State can be when they want.
All charges were dismissed as to one of the accused, and a plea to a few benign misdemeanors, with immediate sentencing to fines for the other. Case over.
It was a long hard battle and one that we were prepared to continue. The motivation to resolve as we did today, was primarily because the allegations in this case had a lot of potential liability. which was one of the motivations to resolve the case as we did.
Audio from the Planet Green Trees Radio Show discusses the creation of a John Sinclair Day in Ann Arbor. During an interview with reporter Larry Gabriel, host and attorney Michael Komorn reveals how the US Supreme Court case against Sinclair made wiretapping without a warrant illegal, and how that led to the Watergate conspiracy… and Richard Nixon’s downfall.
Do You Need Legal Defense?
Komorn Law is a unique legal defense team and rights advocate focused on fighting the justice system. When you're ready to hire a lawyer, do your research - then call our office.
Do you want to keep that criminal record? The time to get it expunged is now. The laws and the requirements have changed making it easier to remove that debacle from your life that you may or may not have done (but plead to it anyway). Get your future back in order and feel confident about filling out job applications, social activities and so much more.
Explanation of Recent Changes to the Expungement Statute, MCL 780.621 et seq., amended by 2014 PA 463(eff. Jan 12, 2015)
1.16 The Former Criminal Expungement Rule.
The eligibility rules before 2011 were (1) that the offender had to have only one conviction on his or her record, (2) that the conviction was for an eligible offense, and (3) that the petition could not be filed until five years after the imposition of sentence or completion of incarceration, whichever was later. Ineligible offenses were those with a maximum penalty of life and attempts to commit those crimes, certain sex crimes and attempts to commit those crimes, and traffic offenses.
2011 Criminal Expungement Rule Change.
In June 2011, the legislature expanded the list of eligible offenders but narrowed the list of eligible offenses. An eligible offender included an individual with a single conviction on his or her record and also an individual who had one felony conviction and not more than two “minor offense” convictions. “Minor offense” was defined as an offense committed before the offender’s 21st birthday and for which the maximum penalty was not more than 90 days and a fine of not more than $1,000. The list of ineligible offenses was expanded to include child sexually abusive activity, using the Internet or computer to commit a crime, and attempts to commit those crimes. 2011 PA 64 (eff. June 23, 2011).
2015 Criminal Expungement Rule Change.
Once again, the legislature expanded the list of eligible offenders but narrowed the list of eligible offenses. The legislature also changed the timing rules and expanded the definition of “misdemeanor” and “felony” conviction to include deferred and diverted matters.
Practical Implications
1.17 Eligible Offender. As of January 12, 2015, an eligible offender includes (1) an individual with a single conviction, (2) an individual with one felony conviction and two misdemeanor convictions, or (3) an individual with no felony convictions and two misdemeanor convictions. In the second scenario, the offender may petition to expunge the felony conviction alone. In the third scenario, the individual may petition to expunge one or both misdemeanor convictions. MCL 780.621(1)(a)–(b), .624.
Eligible Offenses. An individual may not petition for the expungement of a felony conviction for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment or attempts to commit those crimes, certain sex crimes and attempts to commit those crimes (including child sexually abusive activity; second degree child abuse; CSC first, second, third, and fourth degree; and assault with intent to commit CSC), and traffic offenses including drunk driving. The list also includes human trafficking convictions and a felony domestic violence conviction if the offender has a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. MCL 780.621(3).
CSC Fourth Degree. If the offender was convicted of CSC fourth degree before January 12, 2015, the individual may petition to expunge this conviction if the individual has no more than two “minor offenses” on his or her record (see the definition of “minor offense” above). There is no relief for a CSC fourth degree conviction entered after January 12, 2015. The statute is unclear about what happens for a CSC fourth degree conviction entered on January 12, 2015. MCL 780.621(1)(c).
Misdemeanor Conviction. This term is now defined to include misdemeanor offenses under a penal law of this state, another state, an Indian tribe, the law of the United States, a local ordinance, etc. It also includes misdemeanor and felony matters deferred or dismissed under certain liquor code provisions, drug court diversions, veterans court diversions, HYTA, MCL 333.7411, domestic violence diversion, parental kidnapping diversion, and certain health care violations. MCL 780.621(2), (16)(f).
Felony Conviction. For purposes of the offense to be set aside, this term applies to Michigan crimes for which the maximum penalty is more than one year or crimes that are designated by law to be a felony. For purposes of determining the offender’s prior record, this term includes convictions from this state, another state, or the United States if the offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or is designated by law to be a felony. MCL 780.621(16)(c).
Five-Year Wait. Previously, the individual was not allowed to file a petition until five years from the date of sentencing or five years from the completion of incarceration, whichever was later. Now, the five-year period runs from the completion of probation; the completion of parole; the completion of a prison sentence if no parole is granted (or is revoked); the completion of a jail sentence if no probation is imposed; or the date of sentencing if there is no incarceration, probation, or parole. MCL 780.621(5).
Renewed Petitions. If the application is denied, it may not be refiled for at least three years unless the court specifies an earlier date in the order denying the application. MCL 780.621(6).
Prostitution Convictions.Effective January 14, 2015, an individual may petition to expunge one or more prostitution convictions under MCL 750.448, .449, and .450, if the individual can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime was committed as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking (i.e, forced prostitution). There appears to be no limit on the number of prostitution convictions that may be expunged, and there is no time limitation for the filing of the petition (i.e., it may be filed without a five-year wait). MCL 780.621(4), (7), (13), amended by 2014 PA 335 (eff. Jan 14, 2015).
Minor Offense.This term is now relevant only for CSC fourth degree convictions entered before January 12, 2015. “Minor offense” means a misdemeanor or ordinance violation committed before the age of 21 with a maximum penalty not to exceed 90 days and a maximum fine not to exceed $1,000. MCL 780.621(1)(c).
Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry, the criminal justice system and criminal record expungement.
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.
