On March 14, 2018 The Dept. of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has posted a revised technical bulletin for clarification on testing and accreditation standards.
The bulletin refers to Safety Compliance FacilitiesTesting, The purpose of the bulletin is intended to address requests for clarification on Rule31(6) and (7) of the Emergency Rules filed on December 4, 2017.
This bulletin can be viewed at the following links
Two families — including one mom who alleges Child Protective Services took her suckling baby from her breast — are suing the state, alleging discrimination because they are medical marijuana users and poor.
In the lawsuit, attorney Michael KOMORN alleges the faith-based foster care and adoption agencies used by the State of Michigan were “grossly negligent” in opposing and delaying reunification of his clients’ children on the grounds of “poverty and illness” and in violation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.
The suit also alleges Michigan laws allowing faith-based agencies “to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs are unconstitutional.”
“The mental image of CPS entering a hospital room accompanied by armed men and taking a newborn from a nursing mother’s breast and from the grandmother, shattering three generations of lives because CPS and Holy Cross (Children Services) found this family to be unfit because they were poor, diseased, medical marijuana card holders is excruciating,” Komorn said in the lawsuit filed Dec. 15 in the Court of Claims. “They treated this family the way the poor and leprous were treated until Jesus taught otherwise.”
Plaintiffs in the case are two families — Jennifer BARTLETT, her three children and parents, and Spring Lake residents Max LORINCZ and his wife, Erica CHITTENDON, and their son.
In addition to Clinton-based Holy Cross, defendants are the State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Nick LYON, Executive Director Herman McCALL of Children Services Agency, Holy Cross worker Andrea HAGEN, Bethany Christian Services and its social worker, Kerry JIPPING, and CPS social worker Cody MAYHEM.
Kassie KRETZSCHMAR, a spokeswoman with Holy Cross, was not able to comment on Thursday because the agency had not seen the lawsuit.
A spokeswoman with Bethany Christian Services was working to get a comment from officials late Thursday.
The suit alleges gross negligence and wanton misconduct, and violation of the Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act.
According to the lawsuit, Bartlett’s children were removed from the family after a houseguest was killed in January 2016 when his gun accidentally discharged while her children were present.
Bartlett took her children to her parents’ home for safety while police investigated the case as a murder prior to blaming her boyfriend, who had spent time in jail.
Mayhew went to the children’s grandparents’ home and told Bartlett that the children were going to be removed because Bartlett “was not showing proper emotions and was making poor life choices,” the lawsuit alleges. Mayhew then drug-tested Bartlett, who tested negative, and she questioned the grandparents,’ who she said “were medical marijuana cardholders.”
Bartlett’s children were removed after a hearing in January 2016 and placed with Holy Cross.
Hagen, who was the Bartlett family’s caseworker, told the court the children shouldn’t be placed with her parents’ because her father had a 27-year-old conviction for use of half of a marijuana joint.
Drug officers later interviewed Bartlett to try to tie her and her boyfriend to drug trafficking in Detroit, which she denied. She was later charged with maintaining a drug house. She was eventually released on bond, but rearrested and charged with possession of drugs found in her dead guest’s pockets as well as conducting a criminal enterprise.
The lawsuit alleges that Hagen maintained Bartlett’s parents would not be good placement for her children because they “had a bad attitude” and were “uncooperative.” She also publicly revealed medical information about the grandmother in violation of federal privacy rules, the suit alleges.
Bartlett, who was pregnant, was released from jail in November 2016. A few hours after giving birth, a CPS worker saw her breastfeeding the baby and returned later with a court order and the police.
CPS “took (the) baby . . . from her mother’s breast and took her away, placing her with Holy Cross,” Komorn alleged.
After more than a year in foster care, Bartlett’s children were returned to her and the case closed in June 2017.
Komorn noted in the lawsuit that Hagen was “recently disciplined” by the Department of Health and Human Services for “misrepresenting health issues” of Bartlett’s parents “to justify placing the children with Holy Cross,” according to the lawsuit.
The allegations are similar in Lorencz’s case.
According to the lawsuit, Lorencz’s doctor recommended medical marijuana to alleviate chronic pain and he opted to use an oil extract from the plant. He was charged in September 2014 with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, which was bumped up to a felony possession after Lorencz refused to plead guilty to the misdemeanor.
The felony charge was later dismissed, but not until after the state “took away” Lorencz’s 5-year-old son, who was placed with Bethany Christian Services.
The lawsuit alleges Lorencz and Chittendon were not told that they could opt-out of a faith-based agency. When they learned they could, they sought a court order dismissing Bethany.
The lawsuit further alleges that Jipping testified at a hearing that “marijuana, even legally used for medical conditions, makes a parent unfit.” The caseworker acknowledged, however, that there was no evidence to prove drug abuse or that Lorencz was not in clear mind around his son when using medical cannabis.
Komorn further alleges that once Bethany Christian Services no longer had the pending criminal charges to use against his client, they “made other ridiculous claims” to keep his client’s son in foster care, including that he “plays lots of video games, his family is poor and his mother is ill.”
“Court hearings revealed that the behavior shown by Bethany Christian Services, including asking the child himself to choose between his parents and other living options, was contradictory to state procedures regarding foster care,” Komorn wrote in court documents. “The caseworker explicitly testified that she had not read or followed the (CPS’) policy. Instead . . . she follows Bethany Christian Services’ policy.”
The state’s Medical Marijuana Act notes that a “person shall not be denied custody or visitation” or a minor under the act unless the “person’s behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.”
Crime labs ‘bend science’ to strip medical marijuana rights, lawsuit says
Federal class action lawsuit filed against MSP crime labs over marijuana reporting policy
Judge dismisses felony charges against Michigan man in medical pot case
Medical marijuana patients reunited with son after lengthy court battles, unfounded drug charges
Felony synthetic THC charge tossed in Michigan man’s battle with crime lab
Judge dismissed felony charge against medical marijuana patient Max Lorincz
Southfield attorneys accuse MSP Crime Lab of negligence and incompetence
Forensic scientists blast State Police crime lab THC policy as man fights to get son back
Medical Marijuana Lawyers Want Crime Lab Removed From Michigan State Police
Medical marijuana lawyers want state crime lab moved out of Michigan State Police
Federal complaints allege marijuana misreporting by State Police crime lab
MSP defends marijuana crime lab reporting after FOX 17 investigation
Michigan Prosecutors Pressured Lab on Medical Marijuana Results
Attorney Alleges Authorities `Bend The Science’ To Elevate Marijuana Cases
Drug felonies without credible proof? — Allegations of politicking in state police crime labs
Hearing in alleged false crime lab marijuana reporting dropped this week
Emails spell out alleged scandal in state crime lab testing, falsely reporting marijuana
“A non-stop political game:” Former MSP Forensic Science director on false marijuana reporting …
Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges
Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests
Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients
DETROIT, Mich. — A judge on Wednesday heard arguments in a federal class action lawsuit filed by medical marijuana patients and caregivers against several Michigan law enforcement and crime lab officials.
The suit, filed in June, claims that because of false lab reports, prosecutors are charging people with felonies without proof, illegally arresting them and seizing assets. Four patients and caregivers are suing the directors of the Michigan State Police, their crime labs and the publicly-operated Oakland County lab and that county’s sheriff.
Chief Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit said she will issue an opinion and decide whether the labs’ marijuana reporting policies violate the Fourth Amendment and due process rights of the medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
Read the plaintiffs’ lawsuit here.
Read the state defendants’ motion to dismiss here.
One of the four plaintiffs, Max Lorincz from Spring Lake, testified to having hash oil, but was charged with a felony for having synthetic THC. He lost custody of his 6-year-old son to foster care for 18 months until his case was dismissed; a case and statewide scandal FOX 17 broke last year.
“The problem is, the way that the Oakland County lab and the Michigan State Forensic Science Division is reporting still would allow for arrests, still would allow for these patients and caregivers to not have immunity because they’re reporting it as something other than marijuana,” said Michael Komorn, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “And the law enforcement community, as far as we know, is still arresting people for possessing these substances.”
In court Wednesday, Defense Attorney Rock Wood with the Michigan Attorney General’s office representing the state police and crime labs’ directors, along with Defense Attorney Nicole Tabin representing the Oakland County lab’s director and sheriff, declined requests for comment. Wood argued this is not a case involving altered, hidden or destroyed evidence. Instead, the defense writes in their motion to dismiss the case:
“The MSP policy is consistent with the current national standard for testing of seized drugs and avoids speculation as to the source of chemical components unless there is zero qualitative uncertainty.”
Ultimately, the labs’ policy states that unless there is marijuana plant matter seen along with THC, scientists label it “Schedule 1 THC, origin unknown,” instead of marijuana. This is the difference between a felony, or a marijuana possession misdemeanor which patients and caregivers can be immune for under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys and their experts say that 100 percent certainty for any evidence, even DNA is not possible.
“You know that nobody’s going to go through the trouble of synthesizing THC, along with other cannabinoids,” said Timothy Daniels, another attorney representing the plaintiffs. “And therefore you know to almost a 100 percent, and I won’t say 100 percent, let’s say 99 percent certainty, that is marijuana, not synthetic.”
Overall, the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act protects licensed patients and caregivers from charges and prosecution for having limited amounts of usable marijuana, not THC with an unknown origin. It’s this lab policy the suit is working to stop.
“It’s a little troubling that the defense is still suggesting their reporting practices are honorable,” said Komorn.
Statewide, as crime labs continue to report THC and marijuana in ways that many call controversial, the decision now rests in the judge’s hands. It’s a decision that could potentially reopen hundreds of cases across Michigan.
Meanwhile, recently passed legislation now legalizes medical marijuana patients and caregivers use of marijuana extracts like oils and edibles. The defense argued the lawsuit is moot in part due to this, however the plaintiffs’ attorneys stand firm that people continue to be unlawfully arrested, charged, and prosecuted for possession of extracts due to the labs’ reporting policy.
AN ACT to establish a statewide monitoring system to track marihuana and marihuana products in commercial trade; to monitor compliance with laws authorizing commercial traffic in medical marihuana; to identify threats to health from particular batches of marihuana or medical marihuana; to require persons engaged in commercial marihuana trade to submit certain information for entry into the system; to provide the powers and duties of certain state departments and agencies; to provide for remedies; and to provide for the promulgation of rules.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “marihuana tracking act”.
Sec. 2. As used in this act:
(a) “Department” means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs.
(b) “Licensee” means that term as defined in section 102 of the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(c) “Marihuana” means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.
(d) “Registered primary caregiver” means that term as defined in section 102 of the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(e) “Registered qualifying patient” means that term as defined in section 102 of the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(f) “Registry identification card” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26423.
(g) “Statewide monitoring system” or “system” means an internet-based, statewide database established, implemented, and maintained directly or indirectly by the department that is available to licensees, law enforcement agencies, and authorized state departments and agencies on a 24-hour basis for all of the following:
(i) Verifying registry identification cards.
(ii) Tracking marihuana transfer and transportation by licensees, including transferee, date, quantity, and price.
(iii) Verifying in a commercially reasonable time that a transfer will not exceed the limit that the registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver is authorized to receive under section 4 of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26424.
Sec. 3. (1) The department shall establish a statewide monitoring system for use as an integrated marihuana tracking, inventory, and verification system. The system must allow for interface with third-party inventory and tracking systems as described in section 207 of the medical marihuana facilities licensing act to provide for access by this state, licensees, and law enforcement personnel, to the extent that they need and are authorized to receive or submit the information, to comply with, enforce, or administer this act; the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430; or the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(2) At a minimum, the system must be capable of storing and providing access to information that, in conjunction with 1 or more third-party inventory control and tracking systems under section 207 of the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, allows all of the following:
(a) Verification that a registry identification card is current and valid and has not been suspended, revoked, or denied.
(b) Retention of a record of the date, time, quantity, and price of each sale or transfer of marihuana to a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver.
(c) Determination of whether a particular sale or transfer transaction will exceed the permissible limit established under the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430.
(d) Effective monitoring of marihuana seed-to-sale transfers.
(e) Receipt and integration of information from third-party inventory control and tracking systems under section 207 of the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(3) The department shall promulgate rules to govern the process for incorporating information concerning registry identification card renewal, revocation, suspension, and changes and other information applicable to licensees, registered primary caregivers, and registered qualifying patients that must be included and maintained in the statewide monitoring system.
(4) The department shall seek bids to establish, operate, and maintain the statewide monitoring system under this section. The department shall do all of the following:
(a) Evaluate bidders based on the cost of the service and the ability to meet all of the requirements of this act; the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430; and the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(b) Give strong consideration to the bidder’s ability to prevent fraud, abuse, and other unlawful or prohibited activities associated with the commercial trade in marihuana in this state, and the ability to provide additional tools for the administration and enforcement of this act; the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430; and the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(c) Institute procedures to ensure that the contract awardee does not disclose or use the information in the system for any use or purpose except for the enforcement, oversight, and implementation of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430, or the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
(d) Require the contract awardee to deliver the functioning system by 180 days after award of the contract.
(5) The department may terminate a contract with a contract awardee under this act for a violation of this act. A contract awardee may be debarred from award of other state contracts under this act for a violation of this act.
Sec. 4. The information in the system is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. Information in the system may be disclosed for purposes of enforcing this act; the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430; and the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.
Enacting section 1. This act takes effect 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.
Enacting section 2. This act does not take effect unless House Bill No. 4209 of the 98th Legislature is enacted into law.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.
STATE OF MICHIGAN – 98TH LEGISLATURE – REGULAR SESSION OF 2016
Introduced by Rep. Kesto
Michigan Medical Marihuana Laws are constantly changing. Please Research New Laws and Updates
Go Here for Updates and Link to Current MMA Laws
Link to Current Registry Information
Link to MMMA Act and Updates via LARA (State of Michigan)
FARMINGTON- A pilot program allowing the Michigan State Police and special Drug Recognition Experts to administer a roadside test to detect the presence of THC in a person’s saliva was approved in Michigan. Although the bill creating this program was passed by both House and Senate, it had to overcome stiff resistance to do so. A previous effort to curtail legislation like this was defeated in the House during the 2013-2014 legislative session due to pressure from activists (including this author), attorneys and lawmakers.
Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) was a member of the Committees that heard the bills in the House in both the previous and current sessions. He joined the staff of the Planet Green Trees Radio Show (PGT) on June 23 to discuss the passage of this bill, among other things (see OTHER ARTICLE WITH LINK).
Listen to the entire interview at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2016/06/17/pgt-304-broken-boy-soldier
PGT is hosted by Farmington attorney Michael Komorn, who asked the Representative to fill in the details. “I know it passed. I know it’s not based on science or logic… it’s based on ‘The Earth Is Flat’ principles.
“You spoke out about it,” Komorn said to the Representative. “Who were the agencies lobbying for that?”
“That was primarily law enforcement, the prosecutors, you know, the same network of groups that were pushing for this are the same ones who are pushing against the medical marijuana bills,” Rep. Irwin replied. “There even seemed to be some talk that, hey, the Senate’s going to move the dispensary and the edibles bills and the House is going to move these Senate bills for them that provide these roadside saliva tests… there was a linkage between those bills…” The two bills are HB 4209 and HB 4210, which were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee until recently and are dormant until after the legislature’s summer recess.
“You know that I oppose (the tests). The amazing thing to me is… the Detroit News Editorial Board came out very strongly against these tests, arguing along the same lines as many of us who oppose them… I was quite shocked to see the Detroit News take opposition to the bills.” The News is a widely-read, generally conservative newspaper who typically support Republican platforms.
During Committee testimony, the MSP representatives did provide some details of the program. “The bill provides for this pilot to be rolled out in five counties, and then later in another five counties if they decide to do that,” the Representative explained.
“They said they were going to pick a mix of rural, urban and suburban locales to try to make sure they were getting a look at something that was more representative. They did not have anything in the legislation that would define anything that would look like success, in the context of a pilot, which would then be used to determine whether or not they should roll it out into another five counties or not. That was a real weakness in the approach.”
The roadside pilot would require participation by citizens, under penalty of a civil infraction ticket for refusing to comply. “We’ll see how those pilots roll out; we’ll see how the courts handle the constitutionality of even those civil infractions that might be issued to individuals who might refuse a test of questionable validity. We’ll see where it goes.”
“There is no magic number; these tests- what are they proving?” Komorn asked. “What are they showing- just the presence of (THC)? They are not giving a number.”
In truth, the reporting from the tests may be a simple yes or no to the presence of THC. Or it may be a number. We don’t know, because the MSP have not selected a test yet. There are a variety of products on the market, each with their pros and cons, each with different tolerances. Some test well for some things and not so well for others.
The methodology of the testing procedure itself was explained by Rep. Irwin as an extremely subjective process. “What they are hoping to prove is that, these tests work. They are hoping to prove that the tests work by administering the roadside swab, obtaining the result and then having the drug recognition expert, this officer that’s been trained with this particular flavor of training, will also be there to provide their that assessment which they are hoping will line up with the results from the test to demonstrate yes, since our drug recognition expert says this person was impaired and this test produced a result of X or Y, therefore we know that the result of X or Y is going to line up with impairment.”
“The problem is, this is not a proper test with a double-blind setup that you would use to test the quality of, say, a drug or something, like by the FDA.”
Administration of the test also raises issues of impartiality. During a roadside sobriety check, a DRE officer will supposedly wait until they have obtained the swab results before electing to charge the driver with a crime. “If the swab is administered and it says the person has five units of cannabis, or five units of opioids, on their oral swab, the Drug Recognition Expert is going to know that and is going to be influenced by that when they make their determination of is or is not impaired,” Rep. Irwin told the PGT audience.
“We all know how powerful suggestion is in humans, and we know that what’s going to happen is that these drug recognition experts are going to agree with these test results, at least that is what I suspect is going to happen, and they are going to try to use that to bootstrap it into a result that, hey, these tests are worth relying upon.”
The influence of the test on the trooper’s decision regarding a driver’s level of impairment could play into the prosecution and defense of any cases of intoxicated driving arising from these ‘pilot program stops.’ “I think there are groups like the criminal defense attorneys who are going to be looking at this and they are going to watch the process over and try to find ways to use the data developed by the pilot to reach a different conclusion.”
During some dialog with PGT on-air regular Jim Powers, myself and Komorn, Rep. Irwin revealed that the legislators were told that the pilot program swab analysis machines could quantify the amount of cannabis in your saliva- delivering a number or score similar to the way a breath test for alcohol works- and that it did not detect the inactive metabolites that linger in a person’s body for days after consumption.
“Is there any data or evidence that they are submitting in terms of the severity of accidents because of marijuana driving or patient drivers?” Komorn asked.
“No, and I asked questions in Committee about what evidence they had about impairment levels of all the various substances that these little swabs apparently can detect… they really weren’t able to give any answers for any of those questions,” Rep. Irwin complained. “They basically just said, ‘Hey, look, this thing what it does is it’ll tell ya how much of various substances are in a person’s saliva. Whether or not they are impaired, that’s not our expertise.”
In a roadside stop, the decision on impairment rests with the officer; in the case of the pilot program all the officers administering the roadside saliva test will be Drug Recognition Experts.
MSP testimony revealed that the testing company had not yet been chosen, per Rep. Irwin, which raised additional issues of credibility. In a market full of new start-up companies working with emergent technology, not every company has the same standard nor are their tests equally proficient at detecting substances.
“They are going to do a whole RFP process that is going to be open to anyone to apply. There was one company that showed up at the hearing and gave out brochures for their equipment.”
In deciding which counties might qualify for the pilot program, Rep. Irwin speculated on what was laid out to the lawmakers in Committee. “What they are going to do is they are going to roll this out by lining up these machines and/or testing sticks with deployment of the relatively small number of drug recognition experts in Michigan and do that within those counties. I think it will be somewhat determined by where their deployment is currently of those troopers are in terms of which posts they are working out of… I really have no idea.”
“Without a specific designee, it’s almost impossible for them to make a credible statement about what the tests will and will not accomplish or what it will and will not test for,” I added.
The Representative agreed. “In committee they were saying they were going to try and pick something that would test for a wide variety of substances. I kept trying to ask questions about, well, what is it you are trying to catch because from my understanding these different companies have products that are more or less good at identifying different substances. So, what is it you’re looking for?”
In researching a company that Rep. Irwin mentioned by name as vying for the saliva test, PGT staffers found an interesting connection. “We can’t confirm it, but the company that was mentioned… is a company that owns private prisons,” Komorn observed at the end of the show.
In describing the businesses that service the police industry as the “correctional market,” Komorn observed that, “‘The more laws we make, the more people get violated of it.’ That’s their pitch. It’s sickening.”
“Some of us remember back in 2012, when this issue first came up,” I reminded listeners. “The Michigan State Police said, ‘We went to this convention in California and this guy told us this great story about this wonderful machine and we want to bring it in for a pilot program.’ And that’s how they described discovering this whole process- they went to a cop convention in California and a slick salesperson sold them on the whole process, and they’ve been pushing it ever since. That’s my recollection of the origin of this entire issue.”
“They have yet to provide a causal link between marijuana and driving, as the AAA report illustrated,” said Powers.
Rick Thompson
Rick Thompson
CANNABIS MEDIA SPECIALIST
Named Citizen Activist of the Year 2015 by national media source
Print: High Times, Hybrid:Life Magazine, Culture Magazine, more
Internet: Editor, The Compassion Chronicles; contributor, The Weed Blog, more
Radio: The Planet Green Trees Radio Show, more
Activism: Michigan ASA, MiNORML and MiLegalize, Board member of all three
Safer Michigan Coalition
5.0 stars
Posted by a client December 31, 2015
Hired attorney
After an incident involving my medical marihuana grow, I found myself being charged with 2 manufacturing felonies. Upon a recommendation from an associate, I retained Michael Komorn. It was the best decision I ever made. Most of the cards were stacked against me but Michael was brilliant. He was very knowledgeable with all the case law needed. He explained the process we would take in the beginning and he stuck to his plan. In the court room he stood up for me like I was his brother. He knew every avenue we could explore and he explored most of them. In the end I received a misdemeanor with a few months non reporting probation. I am confident that if I had fought this case until the end, Michael would have won. I would, without hesitation, recommend Michael to anyone for any defense. I know my family and myself greatly appreciate the work Michael has done for me and if I find myself in a similar position in the future, he will be the first call I make.
5.0 stars
Posted by Jim June 5, 2015
My name is Jim, Did not believe I would be in need of an attorney. Yet there I was ! Being a firm believer , that knowledge is power. Brought me to find an attorney that is at the forefront of Michigan marijuana laws. An advocate for all of us. Micheal Komorn ! Komorn is leading the way, demanding clarity and definition of the laws that are always changing. Mike Komorn is that guy that fights for us all. Knowledge is Power. My case was dismissed, I rest my case. Thanks Mike !
5.0 stars
Posted by Dave March 21, 2015
Hired Komorn for a medical marijuana debacle. Komorn never jumped ship when it came down to the battle. I gave up before he would. Highly recommended when you need an attorney not to abandon you.
5.0 stars
Posted by Agatha March 19, 2015
When Mr. Komorn engages- it is on! I am so grateful for his expertise and thoughtful consideration for the predicament I and my family were in.
5.0 stars
Posted by Alex September 29, 2014
I hired Michael at a very difficult and stressful time. I had two charges pending and was facing jail time. He handled them with great care and confidence and kept me in the loop during the whole process. He got my most serious charge (2nd OWI) dismissed because the officer did not go by the book and violated my rights. My other charge which was a VOP over six years old was handled very well and I had the best outcome possible. I would recommend Michael to anyone I know. He is a great attorney that will fight for you just like he did for me.
5.0 stars
Posted by Kenneth September 18, 2014
Mike Komorn is very thorough and understanding. He listens attentively, he explained the law thoroughly and he advised me on my options. He also referred me to substance abuse counselors who have helped me to get back on the right track and make permanent and positive changes in my life. If is wasn’t for Komorn Law, I’d be in jail right now, instead of on probation and getting the help I really needed.
5.0 stars
Posted by John March 18, 2014
I cannot say enough good things about Micheal and his team at Komorn Law. Micheal met with me and explained exactly what was going to happen throughout the legal process and what I could expect throughout my case. He was clear and concise and didnt sugar coat anything. He took the time to explain what defense options I had and recommended an aggressive coarse of action. He then started to work on my case. We pooled together all of the documentation and information about my case including all prosecutor information and created my defense. Micheal and his team constructed my defense and approached the court with so much information and documentation that they lessened the charges and I was given a minimal fine. It was Michaels diligent determination that made this happen. He was professional yet firm. His arguments were always well prepared and presented in a timely manner. I would highly recommend Michael and his team at Komorn Law. He has been the only attorney that I truly feel has represented me the way I would like to be represented. He was aggressive yet professional. His team was always responsive and timely. Michael is the only attorney I would ever use. His experience and dedication is absolutely the best.
5.0 stars
Posted by Carruthers December 19, 2013
The work ethic of Tom Brady and brains of Peyton Manning. It was definitely an unfair and lopsided playing field in favor of prosecutors, however, there was a since of confidence after seeing him in action the 1st day.
Most attorneys are a lot of bark and no bite when it comes to actually fighting in court if you need to battle he is your fighter.
When countless attorneys advised us we had no chance to fight our case in Oakland County and just to take a plea mainly because it was too much work we fired them and hired Komorn who took the lead and we WON and we WON big.
Without Komorn’s sincere dedication (we talked to midnight at times!) and relentless pursuit of justice we would all be felons with a bleak future. This review does not justify all he has done for us and the entire mmj community. Komorn for Governor!
5.0 stars
Posted by Jeffrey November 18, 2013
Best attorney in the state in my opinion. Handled my case in BAd Axe.Took a couple yrs Case dismissed. Well publicized in Huron Daily Tribune.Medical Marijuana case.
5.0 stars
Posted by a Criminal Defense client November 13, 2013
My husband has chronic pain and I am disabled. Both of us are in our sixties and we are medical marijuana patients/caregivers. We were diligent about strict adherence to the law. Despite that, we found ourselves fully involved in the criminal justice system – Yikes!
Michael Komorn was the right call to make…so current on every front and more than willing to “go the extra mile” for his clients. His understanding and compassion certainly helped ease our stress. Always respectful and never condescending he took the time to explain all proceedings and took our case to its happy conclusion. Nothing more rewarding than seeing a great attorney put an over-zealous prosecutor in his place. This is one great lawyer