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.
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.
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 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.”
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.
“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
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).
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
