If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana recommended to you as a medical marijuana patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, contact Komorn Law and ensure your rights are protected. Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading 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.
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
I was at a meeting of the Detroit City Planning Commission when a proposed dispensary law was being discussed. One commissioner, clearly an opponent of marijuana stores, asked, “If we pass this, can we start closing these places tomorrow?”
Donald Bailey, a member of the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board that is tasked with setting up the rules for a marijuana distribution system by mid-December, did the same thing at the board’s Aug. 21 meeting. Bailey opened the meeting with a proposal to tell all dispensaries whose owners want to be considered for a state license that they have to shut down by mid-September.
Luckily, others on the five-member board decided to hear testimony from the 200 or so people at the meeting. After four hours of testimony, the four MMLB members in attendance decided to seek information from the state licensing board and the attorney general’s office before making a decision.
Bailey is a retired state police sergeant who apparently still carries a banner for the war on drugs. That’s his right, and I guess his proposal should come as no surprise. However, it’s a shame that people with that attitude — at city and state levels — are those tasked with setting up the system for patients to access marijuana. To start with, I’m pretty sure they don’t believe that marijuana is medicine, because they appear to have no concern for patients here.
If all of the dispensaries shut down in September, are the epileptics just supposed to have seizures all the time until the new system opens up in mid-December? That seems to have been the attitude of legislators and law enforcement in Michigan since the medical marijuana law passed nine years ago. They basically said, “Well, the law says you can have this stuff, but it doesn’t say you can have stores to supply it.”
Then, instead of fixing that, they demurred, hemmed, hawed, blocked, arrested, ruined lives, and tried everything possible to take down legal patients, including reportedly pressuring the state crime lab to classify extracts in a manner that allowed prosecutions. (Thank you attorney Michael Komorn for exposing that.)
In the face of a medical marijuana law created by a vote of the people, the state amended the war on drugs to include a war on patients.
Another reason I think that much of our government leadership doesn’t believe marijuana is medicine is that in all of the legislating that has been done, there has been nothing calling for medical qualifications or standards — or anything else regarding the medical side of this. (Americans for Safe Access has a Cannabis Care Certification program you can learn about at CannabisCareCertification.org.)
So far, the laws that have been passed set up a system that’s more about law enforcement and who gets paid. We haven’t yet seen what the MMLB will come up with, but we know there are going to be licenses that will have to be paid for by growers, processors, transporters, and retail sales at the state and local level. Then the state gets tax revenue too, although I don’t begrudge that.
The city of Warren charges $2,500 to dispensary applicants just to process the application. In Detroit, a Caregiver Center license costs $1,470.70. However, there’s a $160 site plan review fee, $1,000 for a conditional hearing, and $2,276 for an annual Detroit Health Department inspection, in addition to a few other charges.
Money is the main incentive the state has to put its system together — not compassion for patients, not the will of the people, not doing the right thing. So it should be no surprise that this is the system that’s coming down the pike.
There are plenty of activists who want to make money somewhere in this system. And the vast majority of the people who have started dispensaries want to turn a profit. They got into the business early in order to already be there when the state came around. A lot of them got busted, incurred huge legal fees, and some went to jail. Who knows — they may be penalized for it in the long run.
I don’t think they should be penalized, but even more so I don’t think patients should be penalized — which is going to be the end result if retail outlets have to shut down.
This whole shutdown suggestion has me wondering if there are other — preferred — vendors they want to make room for. MMLB Chair Rick Johnson (a former Republican state speaker of the House) was praised by the Michigan Responsibility Council when he was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder back in May. But the MRC was the front for a group of investors who, a few years back, were trying to get a system of legal marijuana in which they controlled all production and sales. Now, the MRC opposes the 2018 ballot effort to “regulate marijuana like alcohol” because it’s the “wrong” kind of system.
Hmm. I wonder if the “right” kind of system is one where they control everything?
There does need to be a system for marijuana regulation. The state has dragged its feet for far too long, and the lack of a clear vision in Lansing has left the system vulnerable to ideologues like Bailey and profiteers like Johnson. And nobody seems to be particularly concerned about the patients.
Looks like we’re going to get something that mimics the for-profit medical care system we already have in place.
Closure has already hit the Reef, a caregiver center on Eight Mile Road that shut down on Sunday because owners anticipated having to apply for state certification. In a press release sent last week, the Reef announced that “all indications are that the Board will eventually vote in favor of closing all dispensaries in Michigan until each one is licensed through the State.”
The Reef is already certified to operate in Detroit, a spokesperson told me, saying, “We don’t know what the board is going to do. We don’t know what authority they have to do any of this. But we’re doing everything in anticipation. We did the same thing with the city of Detroit. We also complied to the terms the city set out.”
Regarding patients, the spokesperson said: “Our plan is to reopen with state licensing. We’re hoping that they can find their medicine elsewhere. … This is a temporary situation to make sure we’re there for the long haul.”
I guess we could see a lot of this across the state.
Despite all that, folks who wish to pursue their dream of starting a marijuana-related business may want to check out the marijuana business seminar scheduled for Friday, Sept. 22 at Cobo Center. Sponsored by the Royal Oak-based Cannabis Legal Group, the seminar will focus on licensing, testing, and business operations.
The Michigan appeals court again has reversed a decision and reinstated charges against a man who was accused of running illegal medical marijuana dispensaries in the state’s Thumb region.
The court says James Amsdill knew the legality of marijuana sales was unclear and was also aware that state police didn’t view his Blue Water Compassion Center as legal. The court says, “Prosecution is more than fair under the circumstances.”
A judge in St. Clair County twice dismissed the case, the last time on grounds of entrapment. The case was filed in 2013, long before Michigan lawmakers created a system to allow certain marijuana dispensaries to operate legally.
Licenses could be issued by spring.
Copyright 2017 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Posted by Michael Komorn , 12 April 2017 · 792 views
Our client, a medical marijuana patient registered with the State of Michigan, was out for a boat ride and some fishing on his friend’s boat. What started out as a glorious day with intentions of sun and fishing on the Detroit river later turned into federal charges of possession of marijuana (21 USC 844, 21 USC 844a) when a Border Patrol agent pulled up to them and wanted to search their vessel.
Related: Michigan law regarding marijuana manufacture, delivery, and possession The federal border patrol agent required that the two passengers, my client and his friend, open all the containers in the immediate area, to which they complied.
After the agent found no contraband, he demanded that the occupants of the boat hand over the marijuana because, according to the agent, it smelled like marijuana on the boat.
Additionally, the agent said that if someone did not give him the marihuana, he was going to call the K9 unit. What does the driver of a car or boat say in response to a law enforcement officer demanding that the occupants of the vehicle hand over the marijuana, or else?
For a vehicle, we know that the traffic stop can’t or shouldn’t take last for any longer that it takes to execute the traffic stop, identify and inform the driver of the violation, and issue a ticket, if appropriate.
A traffic stop is not an opportunity to gather evidence of probable cause of the vehicle to search. That basic threat, calling the dogs, would be unconstitutional. That is to say, the delay in calling the dogs to get probable cause would be a delay beyond the scope of the lawful police interaction. The delay to call the dogs is a delay for the purpose of getting probable cause to search the vehicle. Most times this decision on how to respond should be determined on a case-by-case factual basis. In other words, depending upon what is within the vehicle, the driver may or may not comply with the request of the officer.
The rule of thumb, however, is to never consent to a search, ever. Equally important is the rule that you should never talk to the police or answer questions. Specifically, in these traffic encounters, or even vessel encounters, the investigated driver is not under arrest.
The encounter is an interaction called an investigation, and anything that is said during this encounter will be used against you. Ultimately, our client handed over the marijuana cigarettes and his patient card.
As my client was reminded by the Border Patrol Agent, there is no medical marihuana on federal jurisdiction. Or said another way, it was the intent of this agent to make a federal case out of it.
After being retained by our client, and after a few pretrial conferences and conferences with the Assistant United States Attorney, we learned that it was also the intent of the United States Government to make a federal case of it. Federal jurisdiction, as mentioned above, is a very different venue to litigate a marihuana case, even if it’s just for a joint or two.
The liabilities for punishment are much greater, and in certain situations get worse, the more the accused litigates the case. That is to say, any benefits of resolving the case with a plea bargain are minimized should you force the government to litigate the case. It is under these circumstances that we needed to make our decisions on how to proceed.
As we got closer to the day of trial, the Government offered a number of different plea offers and options to resolve the case. Unfortunately, none of them contemplated the medical use of marihuana while being supervised on probation.
Similar to many of the State Courts throughout Michigan, the likelihood of any probation supervision of any kind would preclude the medical use of marihuana.
Not directly pertinent to this case either factually or due to our federal court venue, the only Michigan case law that addresses the issue is a recent case in the Court of Appeals, People v Magyari, the defendant argued that, pursuant to the MMMA, the court could not prohibit his medical marijuana use during probation because he possessed a patient card, but the court’s opinion characterized the defendant’s use of marijuana as non-medical, and did not apply their reasons for upholding the lower court decision the appeal to all cardholders.
A probation condition disallowing his medical use of marijuana was not acceptable to my client, and besides, who would want to plead guilty to something that the state government has authorized you to possess, let alone be on probation for the same behavior? So as often is the case, the choices that presented themselves compelled us to reject the offers to plead guilty and instead litigate the case.
Our response to the offer to plead guilty was to file a “Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Justice Spending Funds to Prevent Implementation of Michigan Marijuana Laws.” I think it is more than ironic that as we put together the motion challenging the federal government’s authority and jurisdiction to prosecute the matter, the issue of States’ Rights was in the forefront in a national debate. As outlined in the motion, the legal authority prohibiting the jurisdiction of the government in our matter was vitiated by the Cole memorandum – both of them.
Additionally, the Rhorabacher-Farr amendment was more than clear in its intent to preclude federal agents employed by the DOJ, including the DEA, from investigating or prosecuting medical marihuana patients that are in compliance with state law. If there was ever a case with the perfect facts to prevail upon it would be this case, and the mere two marijuana cigarettes.
In contrast, the circumstances of the case cited, US v McIntosh, dealt with dispensaries and commercial marihuana sales. Our case was as authentic patient activity as one could find. After filing the motion to dismiss, and appearing for the motion hearing, we learned that the Government had decided to dismiss the case. The AUSA indicated to me that he had “no desire to go to the mat with me on this case” and he was “not going to make bad case law with this case.” Or said another way, he knew that he was going to lose, and instead of dealing with that result which would be precedent and impact the entire Sixth Circuit Trial Court, he thought it best to dismiss the case, and let us go on our way.
The moral of this story is that when they make a federal case out of it, you should do the same.
