Marijuana advocates say legal businesses and caregivers are being targeted for military-style drug raids in spite of attempts to obey the law in good faith.
For owners of mainstream businesses, a minor lapse in regulatory compliance could mean receiving a warning and reinspection later. But for medical marijuana businesses, minor lapses in compliance can put them outside the protection of the law.
Even the suspicion of a regulatory violation, or, in some cases, false accusations, can result in seizure of assets and prolonged court battles.
Darryl Berry studied Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act in detail before he started growing marijuana for his mother-in-law, who was dying of cancer at the time. He researched the medical benefits of marijuana as well as the regulations, and became a registered caregiver, meaning he was legally allowed to grow up to 12 plants for each patient in his care.
He began growing for her and several other patients — all legally. Berry had relationships with local law enforcement, and even invited them to inspect his operation. He thought he was following the law to the letter. That didn’t protect him from being raided in September of 2015.
Have you been charged with a drug crime or violation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act? Remain Silent and Contact Komorn Law Immediately to protect your rights and freedom 800-656-3557.
Berry says police ransacked his home and seized all of his assets. That included two houses, five vehicles, televisions, computers, cash, and many personal belongings. Liens were placed on both houses, preventing him from selling or taking out loans on them. Altogether, the value of the assets seized was over a million dollars.
“I was robbed. It was armed robbery that they did. And it really makes me mad because I am a staunch conservative. I always trusted the police and thought if the police arrest someone, most likely they are guilty. That’s what I thought,” said Berry.
Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture law allows police to seize property based on suspicion that it is used for illegal drug activity.
Berry’s attorney Michael Komorn said police are profiting by targeting legal marijuana businesses.
“It’s a financial incentive. The officers themselves are getting to decide whether an individual is in compliance or not. That decision is also about whether they are going to take every piece of value that exists in the house or not. This is way too much unchecked authority, with too much incentive,” Komorn said.
Amanda Joslin owned a marijuana business in Canton. She opened her business in compliance with state and local regulations.
“It was like if your grandma was going to go obtain some medicine, where would you feel comfortable letting her go? Make it safe, make it clean, make it affordable, and accessible. That’s where we found we could fill that niche,” said Joslin.
Police raided her business in 2015, arrested her and her adult son, and seized their assets including a house, cars, computers, and savings account. Her business had been open for nine months before the raid. Search warrants were executed at the Canton business and at her home in Ypsilanti. Those search warrants were later found by the Washtenaw County Circuit court to be invalid and unconstitutional, according to Komorn, who also represents Joslin.
Joslin said the police knew about her business from the beginning, but allowed it to operate for months.
“It’s like a savings account. They watch, for nine months, until they decide to collect. And that’s when they decided to raid,” said Joslin. The case against Joslin relied on testimony from a police informant who was later determined to have committed perjury, according to Komorn.
Many counts against Joslin were thrown out. She was found guilty on one count of possession with intent to deliver, and is now appealing that conviction.
Voting for Marijuana legalization is coming to the Michigan electoral ballot this Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Here is information regarding the Taxation and Distribution of collected taxes in the Proposed Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act
About Komorn LawKomorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.
If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.
Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation 800-656-3557.
Laws change – so please consult an attorney before taking any legal action or doing anything you may have the slightest feeling is illegal when it comes to marijuana / cannabis personal or commercial use.
Farmington Hills, Michigan
Michael A. Komorn focuses on medical marijuana representation. He is the president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 32,000 members, which advocates for medical marijuana patients and caregiver rights. Mr. Komorn is also an experienced defense attorney successfully representing many wrongfully accused medical marijuana patients and caregivers. He is a member of the Criminal Law and Marijuana Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan.
Property seized in the execution of a search warrant can be subject to civil forfeiture. Recovering this property requires a unique balancing of your client’s interests especially when they are facing potential criminal charges.
Gather critical information from the search warrant and intent to forfeit
Establish standing by providing evidence of ownership
Advise clients on potential out-of-pocket costs including storage or impound fees.
Michael Komorn and Jeff Frazier talk to Rachael Sedlacek (Preview)
NILES, Mich. — Michigan State Police officers are conducting roadside saliva tests on suspected drug-impaired motorists as part of a program spurring questions about the tests’ accuracy.
State Police Special First Lt. Jim Flegel told the South Bend Tribune that the program uses a portable saliva-testing device that can tell officers if there are certain drugs in a driver’s system, such as marijuana or opiates. The program will test the accuracy and reliability of the Alere DDS2 device, which is meant to assess the presence of drugs in about five minutes.
(HMMMM…..DNA Collection device?)
Law enforcement and academic experts say settling on such a test is complicated because drugs affect everyone differently and there is wide variation in the potency of pot and other drugs and the way they are consumed. As a result, there is no consensus on what level amounts to impairment.
“Nobody should be compelled to take this test until we’ve got some confirmation that it is an accurate test,” Michael Komorn said. “That’s basic fundamental liberty and freedom, that government shouldn’t be able to subject individuals to tests.”
The $150,000 program is called the Preliminary Oral Fluid Analysis. It aims to combat an increase in fatal crashes caused by drug-impaired drivers, Flegel said. Officers must have a reason to suspect impairment before testing a driver, he said. Officers have undergone a two-week training course and must follow a 12-step analysis to assess potential drug impairment.
The state saw a more than 30 percent increase in fatal crashes from 2015 to 2016. There were almost 240 fatal crashes in 2016, compared to almost 180 crashes the previous year.
The program is currently being used in five Michigan counties: Berrien, Delta, Kent, St. Clair and Washtenaw.
Police will report to the Legislature in a year about the program’s accuracy and the number of arrests. The program could be rolled out to more areas if it’s found to be effective, Flegel said.
Published: Nov 27, 2017, 10:14 am • By The Associated Press
A Michigan State Police lieutenant’s decision to destroy more than 500 marijuana plants without a judge’s order has led to dismissal of felony charges against two defendants.
Inspector James Wolf, the former lieutenant/commander of the Western Wayne narcotics unit, testified at a hearing Thursday that he destroyed the plants because they were rotting and had become a health hazard.
Livingston County District Judge Carol Sue Reader expressed surprise that a law enforcement veteran was unaware he had to receive a judge’s order to destroy the 556 large, tree-size plants seized in a Western Wayne Narcotics and Criminal Investigations Unit’s investigation in 2015.
“I cannot believe an officer who has been in the (Michigan) State Police for 27 years would not have known about these steps,” she said. “It wasn’t takenin this case so the court order never got issued. It would be like going in and searching a house without a search warrant. …
“I don’t think (the officer) can complain the health, molding and everything is why he did it,” Reader said. “The judge should have been the one who issued the order.”
Reader dismissed multiple manufacture marijuana counts lodged against Darryl Scott Berry of Howell Township, and codefendant Jeffrey Allen Michael of Fowlerville.
However, Berry still faces a charge alleging he delivered marijuana to an undercover officer in October 2014. The attorney general’s office said the marijuana related to that count was not destroyed. The defense believes it was and expects that count also will be dismissed.
Michael remains charged with one count alleging he possessed marijuana found in his home as well as felony firearms.
Berry and Michael return to Reader’s Howell courtroom on Jan. 20 for a preliminary exam on the remaining counts.
Assistant Attorney General Paul Cusik told the court his office may file a motion asking Reader to reconsider her decision as well as to amend the felony complaint to delivery of marijuana allegations.
During a hearing Thursday, Wolf testified that the marijuana plants seized Sept. 28, 2015, were stored at two warehouses and, despite officers’ attempts to dry out the plants for preservation, they became a health hazard.
“We could not keep up with removing the water, the moisture from the plant, and they were decomposing,” he said. “The plants were rotting and molding. … We weren’t able to preserve them.”
Wolf said he contacted his supervisor as well as Cusik, who advised that “he could not tell me to destroy evidence.” Wolf said he then made the decision himself to destroy the seized marijuana plants because it was a health hazard.
The plants were destroyed about three days after the seizure.
On cross examination, defense attorney Michael Komorn, who represents Berry, asked Wolf if he was familiar with a Michigan law that states a court order is needed to destroy evidence.
“Not until reading your motion,” Wolf replied.
Cusik argued the evidence is not destroyed because scientists with the Michigan State Police crime lab took “a sample” from each plant seized at Wolf’s request during the execution of the 2015 search warrants executed at five properties in Livingston County. Court documents show police seized an estimated 545 plants.
This step to preserve evidence, Cusik argued, showed officers acted in good faith.
“There is not any destruction of evidence,” he said. “… There are lab reports on the samples, which have been preserved.”
Officers also seized about 15 pounds of marijuana, 7 pounds of processed marijuana and suspected marijuana edibles, and more than $195,000 in cash, according to court documents.
Komorn argued the state acted in bad faith and violated his client’s due process. He said there is no way for the defense to confirm how badly, if at all, the plants had decomposed because there is “no description, no report, no additional photos” to prove what police claimed.
“We’re asserting my client was under the amount allowed and protected under immunity” in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Komorn said.
“The state says no. How do we argue that? We have to accept their word? We’re going to resolve it by trusting the prosecution and investigating officers … and forensic scientists who have no training in collection of evidence?” he asked. “Their job is to analyze, not collect the evidence. … There was clearly an intention to destroy (the marijuana plants) from the outset.”
Two of the codefendants earlier entered plea deals and are awaiting sentencing.
Contact Livingston Daily justice reporter Lisa Roose-Church at 517-552-2846 or lrchurch@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter @LisaRooseChurch.
A person who smokes marihuana in his or her own car while parked in the parking lot of a private business that is open to the general public is not entitled to assert the immunity or defense provisions of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act
In People v. Carlton, security personnel monitoring live feed cameras of a casino parking lot observed Carlton smoking what appeared to be marihuana inside his car. Police officers responded to the parking lot to investigate. Carlton, a qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 through MCL 333.26430, admitted to the officers that he had been smoking marihuana. The officers observed a marihuana roach on the dashboard and found four bags of marihuana during a subsequent search of Carlton’s car. Carlton was the only person in the car at the time.
In People v. Rea, officers were dispatched to Rea’s house to investigate a noise complaint. Upon arrival, an officer observed the door to Rea’s detached garage open and watched as Rea backed his vehicle “about 25 feet” before stopping at a point in his private driveway in line with his house. Rea then pulled the vehicle back into the garage. At all times Rea’s vehicle was either in his side yard or backyard. (See pictures in the Court’s opinion.) Rea was arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated pursuant to MCL 257.625(1).
MCL 257.625(1) provides in relevant part:
A person . . . shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles . . . if the person is operating while intoxicated.
Before trial, the circuit court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, ruling that “the upper portion of [Rea’s] private residential driveway” does not constitute an area “generally accessible to motor vehicles” as required by MCL 257.625(1) and the prosecution appealed.
Read much more on the Michigan State Police Legal Update link below
The Michigan legislature has passed into law a one-year pilot program set up in five counties that allows for Michigan State Police to perform roadside drug tests. The way this will work is if a driver gets pulled over for a traffic offense, in one of the five counties that are yet to be determined and shows signs of being under the influence of drugs the specially trained “drug recognition expert” will be able to conduct a field sobriety test. After which, the officer will be able to use the new saliva-based testing to check and see whether the driver has consumed marijuana, heroin, or cocaine.
– Can you say DNA collection?-
What the purpose is?
The officials in charge of pushing through this policy cite the reasoning being that there has been a large increase recently of drugged driving accidents and drugged driving fatalities. The addition of this test to the already used field sobriety testing is intended as means to provide further probable cause to establish the grounds for a lawful arrest.
Additional arrests leads to additional fines and penalties that the police are able to collect from its citizens.
In a study performed by AAA’s safety foundation, it was determined that it is impossible to set a blood-test threshold for THC. The test states:
There is no evidence from the data collected, particularly from the subjects assessed through the DRE exam, that any objective threshold exists that established impairment, based on THC concentrations measured in specimens collected from cannabis-positive subjects placed under arrest for impaired driving. An association between the presence and degree of indicators of impairment or effect from cannabis use were evident when comparing data from cannabis-positive and cannabis-negative subjects. However, when examining differences in performance in these parameters between subjects with high (>5 2 ng/mL) and low (<5 ng/mL) THC concentrations, minimal differences were found.
Setting any sort of legal limit or per se limit for cannabis and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science.
Furthermore, in a study done by Forensic Fluids Laboratory the window of time during which a swab test can pick up a THC positive test is up to as long as 3 days. Even though someone may still have THC in their system 3 days after consuming Cannabis, the likelihood that they are still intoxicated is extremely unlikely.
As a result of the probable cause that can be gained from this swab test an officer has the ability to issue an arrest warrant based on evidence that is not providing any scientific proof of the driver current intoxication, but based on its result creates an extremely misleading affidavit.
