A case alleging two Livingston County men operated a collective marijuana-grow operation is on hold while their attorneys appeal a District Court judge’s decision not to dismiss felony charges.
In October, Judge Carol Sue Reader dismissed multiple manufacture marijuana counts lodged against Darryl Scott Berry, of Howell Township, and co-defendant Jeffrey Allen Michael, of Fowlerville, after learning Michigan State Police destroyed more than 500 marijuana plants without a judge’s order. She reversed her ruling March 3, prompting the defense attorneys on Wednesday to request a stay in the case to appeal.
Officers executed search warrants at five properties in Livingston County where they seized an estimated 545 plants as well as about 15 pounds of marijuana, 7 pounds of processed marijuana and suspected marijuana edibles, and more than $195,000 in cash.
The state’s attorney general’s office objected, saying the defendants are “not harmed” by proceeding with the preliminary exam Wednesday, but Reader noted she has a duty to protect a defendant’s rights.
The judge, however, noted that she stands by her opinion that it’s not a medical marijuana case, which was the state’s argument when it asked Reader to reconsider her earlier decision that dismissed the charges.
Defense attorney Michael Komorn, who represents Berry, said the attorney general’s office does not get to decide whether it’s a medical marijuana case because his client’s doctor has already made that determination.
Attorney Shyler Engel, who represents Michael, said the case should be dismissed because the evidence has been destroyed.
As a result, Engel argues, he cannot effectively assert what is known as the Section 4 defense of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.
That section gives qualified, registered patients broad immunity from arrest and prosecution.
“I want to tell the court there was only this number of plants but because they’ve been destroyed, I’m unable to do that,” Engel said. “That’s why this case must be dismissed.”
Assistant Attorney General Dianna Collins told the court the state has clippings from each of the plants seized.
Engel countered that the state’s attitude of “just trust us” that the evidence destroyed was a marijuana plant is inappropriate.
Collins further argued that the defendants “were not operating within the medical marijuana” statute.
Contact Livingston Daily justice reporter Lisa Roose-Church at 517-552-2846 or lrchurch@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter @LisaRooseChurch.
Trying to understand why prosecutors in St. Clair County, Michigan, suddenly decided to drop their case against Ginnifer Hency, a medical marijuana patient and caregiver, and return the property that police seized from her home, I obtained several court documents from Shyler Engel, her appellate attorney.
The documents clarify why prosecutors decided to charge her in the first place, why a judge dismissed the charges, and why the prosecutors appealed that decision. But their avowed reason for withdrawing that appeal—a recent ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court interpreting the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)—makes even less sense in light of these details.
Hency was caught up in a raid of the DNA Wellness Center in Kimball Township by the St. Clair County Drug Task Force on July 28, 2014. Police found six ounces of marijuana in her backpack, which was well within the 15-ounce legal limit for her and the five patients she assists.
But a sheriff’s deputy reported that Hency told him she planned to swap the marijuana with another registered caregiver, Dale Shattuck, for the same amount of a different strain that was more suitable for her patients. The alleged plan for a swap that never actually happened was the basis for accusing her of possession with intent to deliver, since the MMMA does not explicity allow caregiver-to-caregiver transfers of marijuana.
On May 18, after four days of hearings, District Judge David Nicholson dismissed the charges against Hency, concluding that any violation of the law was “de minimis”:
There is sufficient evidence to believe that [Hency] intended to deliver the six ounces of marijuana she had in her backpack…in exchange for a like amount to be delivered to her by Dale Shattuck. There is no evidence that would be admissible against Dale Shattuck that he knew of Hency’s intentions or that he participated in any plan to make such a swap. The court is of the opinion that the violation is de minimis. The sequence would be as follows: Two people each have legal possession of six ounces of marijuana. They trade those amounts so that each now possesses six ounces of marijuana, an amount that would be legally held based on caregiver cards each held and the patient cards assigned to each of them. While arguably the act of exchanging the amounts held would constitute a delivery, the court is of the opinion that under these conditions the mutual delivery was not a change in position such as there would be in an exchange of an amount of marijuana for money or any other tangible asset.
On June 19, St. Clair County Senior Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Amy Stover appealed Nicholson’s decision, arguing that it was an “abuse of discretion.” Engel and Michael Komorn, Hency’s trial lawyer, responded on July 7, arguing that Stover was applying the wrong standard of review. Nicholson’s decision should be reversed only if it was “clear error,” they said, and it wasn’t:
The record reflects that [Hency], if she had even made the statement regarding the exchange, was going to exchange the strain of marijuana for a different strain of marijuana for her registered qualifying patients. Accordingly, she was engaged in medical use under the Act, and her actions were protected. Should the MMMA not specifically permit a delivery or transfer to a non registered and qualifying patient, but it was for the benefit of the registered qualifying patients, then that violation of the MMMA is de minimis.
In her August 4 motion to withdraw her office’s appeal, Stover cited the Michigan Supreme Court’s July 27 decision in People v. Hartwick and People v. Tuttle. But it’s not clear how that decision affected the prosecution’s chances of winning its appeal or prevailing at trial. The ruling dealt with three main issues: a patient/caregiver’s right to a pretrial immunity hearing, the impact of prohibited conduct on the legal status of marijuana-related activities that would otherwise be permitted, and the affirmative defense that is available to unregistered as well as registered patients and caregivers. But the court did not change the criteria for immunity, which are spelled out in the MMMA, and it did not address the legality of caregiver-to-caregiver transfers.
Engel summarizes the sequence of events this way:
District Court judge offers cryptic opinion throwing out Hency’s case. Prosecutor appeals.
I write a reply. Prosecutor doesn’t respond to my brief on appeal. Prosecutor dismisses case first court date after my brief is filed. Between the time my reply is filed and the first date on appeal, Michigan Supreme Court publishes Hartwick/Tuttle. Prosecutor says it compels dismissal. No way.
Stover said her office was reassessing about 20 cases in light of Hartwick/Tuttle. If Hency’s case is any indication, the connection between the reassessment and the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision is pretty tenuous. It seems more likely that the negative publicity surrounding profit-driven raids of medical marijuana patients, which has led to serious talk of forfeiture reform in the state legislature, has encouraged local officials to de-escalate their crackdown.
A Southfield lawyer alleges the Michigan State Police crime labs have “falsified lab reports on marijuana statewide” and he’s asking a judge to dismisses charges lodged against a client.
Michael Komorn, who also represents defendants in Livingston County, said his office’s discovery stems from Ottawa County resident Maxwell Lorincz, who was initially charged with a misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The Ottawa County prosecutor’s office increased the charge to a felony when Lorincz declined to plead guilty, Komorn said.
“The extensive emails and documents we received through the Freedom of Information Act show the prosecution are relying on the lab to report these substances so that they can escalate these crimes from misdemeanors to felonies,” the defense attorney said.
Tiffany Brown, a spokeswoman with the state police, said the crime lab’s role is to “determine whether marijuana or THC are present in a sample.
” The department’s policy changed to include the statement “origin unknown,” she noted, “when it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a (marijuana) plant or synthetic means.”
“This change makes it clear that the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results,” Brown said in an email response to an inquiry for comment. “The ultimate decision on what to charge an individual with is determined by the prosecutor.”
A message to Karen Miedema, an assistant prosecutor with Ottawa County, was not immediately returned Wednesday.
As a result, Komorn is asking a judge to dismiss the case against Lorincz and to hold the parties, including the prosecutor, in contempt of court. The hearing was scheduled for next week in Ottawa County Circuit Court in Grand Haven; however, it was put on hold until December following a conference between prosecutors, the defense and the judge.
Komorn’s client was first charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, but the charge was increased to a felony alleging he had synthetic THC.
The charge resulted when an officer reporting seeing a small amount of hash oil in Lorincz’s Spring Lake home when he responded to his 911 call for medical assistance for his wife in September 2014.
Komorn says the state police’s policy change began in 2013 when Ken Stecker of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and state attorney general’s office “instructed the lab” it could report marijuana edibles and oils as Schedule 1 synthetic THC, which is a felony.
“This was counter to both law and science as plant-based edibles and oils are categorized as marijuana under Michigan law and their possession punished as a misdemeanor,” Komorn said.
Komorn’s office used FOIA to obtain numerous emails regarding the issue. Among those emails was one from Kyle Hoskins, a state police crime lab supervisor who said examiners needed to see plant material because they would have no idea how it was produced unless they watched its production.
He sought Stecker’s opinion, who reportedly responded: “That is my opinion, THC is a Schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from. I hope that helps. Ken.”
Marijuana is a Schedule 2 drug under state law.
Among the emails Komorn received were some from state police crime lab workers raising concern about the way they were told to report THC cases.
In one email, a forensic scientist notes that to “place the actual compound THC in Schedule 1 (drugs), the criteria of ‘synthetic equivalent’ should be met.”
“Since we really can’t do this, there are many of us who feel that these new evidentiary materials containing THC without any botanical morphology characteristics … should be identified as resinous extracts of marijuana,” the forensic scientist wrote.
The writer goes on to note that misdemeanors can jump to a felony charge and the topic is being brought up “because there seemed to be some concern about uniformity in making these calls. Further, it is highly doubtful that any of these (medical marijuana) products we are seeing have THC that was synthesized.”
Komorn’s office said the “statewide lab scandal” comes on the heels of a report that statewide marijuana arrests are on the rise.
Between 2008 — when Michigan passed the Medical Marijuana Act — and 2014, arrests for marijuana possession or use increased 17 percent statewide while arrests for all crimes dropped by 15 percent, according to statistics.
Charmie Gholson, founder of Michigan Moms United, said Komorn’s case clearly shows that Michigan’s top prosecutors and law enforcers “conspired to commit crimes against Michigan families.”
“There’s a strategy,” she said. “Someone at the top has sent these soldiers to people’s homes. … This proves the top law enforcement has conspired to target families.”
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – State police crime labs intentionally misrepresent marijuana oil and edibles as having unknown origins, a tactic that can turn a misdemeanor possession charge into a felony and remove protections for Michigan’s medical marijuana users, a federal lawsuit claims.
Maxwell Lorincz of Spring Lake and three others from the east side of Michigan are seeking class-action status in a lawsuit filed this week in U.S. District Court in Detroit against state police Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue and Inspector Scott Marier, interim director of the Forensic Science Division.
They allege the state police Forensic Division, in concert with the Prosecuting Attorney’s Association of Michigan, or PAAM, established a policy to report marijuana-based edibles and oils as, at least potentially, having an unknown origin if no visible plant material is present.
The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, could then be declared a synthetic substance.
“At least one reason for the policy change was to better establish probable cause to arrest medical marijuana patients, obtain forfeiture of their assets, charge them with crimes they did not commit, and to allow felony charges against others for what is at most a misdemeanor,” Farmington Hills attorney Michael Komorn said in the lawsuit.
State police would not comment with legal action pending, spokeswoman Shanon Banner said.
GRAND HAVEN, MI — The Ottawa County prosecutor says he is not out to overcharge Michigan Medical Marijuana Act cardholders who run afoul of state law. Prosecutor Ron Frantz offered the comments as he responded to criticism about a felony charge against a Spring Lake man who holds a medical marijuana card. Max Lorincz is charged with possession of…
The lawsuit also names Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard and his forensic sciences lab commander as defendants for also allegedly designating oils and edibles as Schedule 1 THC, without any qualification as to its origin.
Undersheriff Michael McCabe, who reviewed the lawsuit that has yet to be served, said the sheriff’s laboratory has received high marks and was recently re-accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board.
“Our testing procedures are above and beyond reproach,” he told The Grand Rapids Press and MLive.
“As far as we’re concerned, the lawsuit, in regards to Oakland County Sheriff’s Office, it’s garbage.”
He said his agency has not talked to state police or the prosecutors’ association – or the Oakland County prosecutor – about its procedures.
“We report the test results,” he said. “Charging decisions are made by the prosecutor’s office independently.”
Lorincz, a medical-marijuana patient, is joined in the lawsuit by Oakland County residents Brandon Shoebe, a licensed medical marijuana caregiver, and Cantrell Carruthers, a licensed caregiver and patient, and Livingston County resident Jason Poe, a licensed patient.
The lawsuit focuses primarily on Lorincz’s case. He was arrested last year after police found residue of oil extracted from marijuana while responding to a medical call at his northern Ottawa County home. Lorincz presented his medical-marijuana documentation, but the sample was sent to a crime lab in Grand Rapids for testing.
Max Lorincz is charged with a two-year felony.
Lorincz was charged with possession of marijuana. He insisted he had immunity. He says prosecutors threatened to charge him with a felony of possession of synthetic THC, and did just that when he refused to plead to the misdemeanor.
A Forensic Division scientist testified he could not tell if the THC sample came from a plant or was synthetic.
Prosecutors argued that the charge was appropriate because crime lab workers determined the origin of the THC sample was unknown because no plant material was present.
Prosecutor Ronald Frantz wrote then: “The court’s decision turned on definitions and statutory language that we believed supported the charge as written. The District Court judge found our interpretation to be correct, Circuit Judge Post disagreed and ruled otherwise. … We believe the increasing prevalence of extremely high potency marijuana-based and synthetic-based drugs is reason to update and clarify our statutes.”
Maxwell, who lost custody of his young son for a time, did not see his troubles end.
“Maxwell and the approximately 200,000 other participants in the (medical marijuana program) face the prospect of being wrongly detained, searched, and prosecuted as a result of the Forensic Division’s official reporting policy regarding marijuana,” Komorn wrote.
“Indeed, the rights of numerous other Michigan citizens are endangered by this policy of reporting false felonies.”
He said the state police crime lab’s own results of the substance in Maxwell’s case showed it to be plant-based.
Komorn said that state police documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests showed “a concerted action by Forensic Division, PAAM, and law enforcement to ignore the law and bend the science so as to report all marijuana oils and solids that do not contain visible plant matter as potentially Schedule 1 synthetic THC … .
“In fact, the Forensic Division actually changed its lab manual to require this result from its scientists. This change was made in an attempt to strip medical marijuana patients of their rights and immunities, charge or threaten to charge citizens with greater crimes than they might have committed, obtain plea deals, and increase proceeds from drug forfeiture.”
He said that a crime lab scientist wrote “that ‘it is highly doubtful that any of these (medical marijuana) products we are seeing have THC that was synthesized.”
Komorn said it makes no sense that anyone would try to synthesize THC given the ease of obtaining it from marijuana.
He said that Bradley Choate, a supervisor at the Lansing lab, objected to THC being labeled as potentially synthetic if plant material wasn’t found. Choate wrote in an email that such a designation “would lead a prosecutor to the synthetic portion of the law. …
“This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual.
“For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the division and the department.”
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.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation at 800-656-3557.
DETROIT — Attorneys filed a federal class action lawsuit against the Michigan State Police crime labs this week, claiming its current marijuana reporting policy violates due process and Fourth Amendment rights and demanding it be thrown out for good.
This suit would have statewide impact, directly affecting the some 180,000 registered medical marijuana patients and anyone caught with marijuana in Michigan. Attorneys Michael Komorn and Tim Daniels filed the suit Tuesday with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Division.
They write the crime labs intentionally misreport marijuana as synthetic, as we saw in the Max Lorincz case in Ottawa County. A judge threw out his felony drug charge 16 months into the case; meanwhile, Lorincz’s 6-year-old son spent 18 months in foster care.
Lorincz is one of the four plaintiffs in the complaint.
But it goes further, writing that the 2013 marijuana policy in the labs was “made in an attempt to strip medical marijuana patients of their rights and immunities, charge or threaten to charge citizens with greater crimes than they might have committed, obtain plea deals and increase proceeds from drug forfeiture.”
“The fact that it continues to go on,” said Komorn, “it’s an outrage; it’s not science. The Michigan Medical Marijuana [Program] was supposed to be a shield, not a sword.”
Last fall, the MSP Forensic Science Division Director Captain Gregoire Michaud, whoquietly retired this May, made a presentation for the Wayne County Criminal Defense Bar. Michaud had said out of the crime labs’ $60 million budget, 40 percent was spent on testing marijuana. He said this caseload volume impeded their work on investigating other cases, specifically testing rape kits statewide.
Komorn reiterated this suit is working to dismiss this policy in the labs and rearrange the state police’s priorities.
“That’s one of the things that I’m hoping comes out of this, is that we turn the focus away from and onto the more, that we would all agree, serious crimes that we need full-on police investigation attention,” said Komorn.
The MSP Public Affairs Manager Shanon Banner told FOX 17 Wednesday they will not comment on a pending case, defaulting to their Nov. 2015 statement.
Later this year, the state police labs are up for their renewal of their international accreditation with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board. It is likely the MSP’s crime labs’ marijuana misreporting allegations will be challenged during this process.
