An attorney probed for medical marijuana defenses as a hearing began Friday for a Hudson man charged with illegally growing and selling marijuana this fall.
Paul Alan Williams, 55, rejected a plea bargain offer before a preliminary examination on four felony charges got under way in Lenawee County District Court. The hearing is set to continue Tuesday, Dec. 8, with cross examination of a Michigan State Police trooper in charge of the investigation.
Williams was arrested Oct. 22 when search warrants were executed at a building on Meridian Road in Hudson, another in Rollin and at a house on Rome Road where Williams was believed to have been living.
Police seized nearly 21 pounds of marijuana and 9 grams of hashish from the building at 553 S. Meridian Road in Hudson where Williams was arrested, said Trooper Craig Whittemore.
At the building in Rollin, he said, police found 34 marijuana plants and processed marijuana weighing 91.5 ounces, and 19 grams of hashish oil. Another 7.2 pounds of marijuana were swept up from a trailer and pickup bed at the scene, he said.
Cash, vehicles and guns were also reported seized during the searches.
No marijuana was found at the home on Rome Road.
Whittemore testified the investigation was based on tips that Williams was selling marijuana to people without being their registered medical marijuana caregiver.
A confidential informant made three trips to the building in Hudson under police surveillance to make controlled buys, he said. On Sept. 2, the informant bought 8 ounces with $800 supplied from a Michigan State Police fund. On Sept. 16 another 12 ounces were purchased with $1,200. And on Oct. 21, 16 ounces were purchased with $1,600, he said.
Search warrants were then obtained, he said, and executed on Oct. 22. He and other members of the Region of the Irish Hills Narcotics Office were assisted by officers from seven other police agencies.
Defense attorney Michael Komorn of Southfield questioned details of the investigation. He asked if the confidential informant showed a medical marijuana card during the purchases.
“I don’t know if he was representing himself as a medical marijuana patient,” Whittemore said.
“You never corroborated a sale to anyone without a card, is that right?” Komorn asked.
Whittemore agreed.
The hearing is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bind the case over to circuit court for trial. Williams is charged with three counts of delivery of marijuana and one count of illegally manufacturing marijuana. He remains free on bond.
“Allowing medical marijuana for those with autism was supposed to be the clinical trial,” Komorn said. “Instead, we’re going to have criminal trials.”
Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids
The Detroit News Article
August 28, 2015 – Lansing — Michigan’s regulatory director on Thursday rejected the use of medical marijuana for the treatment of children with severe autism.
Michigan was poised to possibly become the first state to allow medical cannabis consumption for children with severe autism when the state’s Medical Marijuana Review Panel voted 4-2 earlier this month to recommend autism as a condition that qualifies for the drug.
Mike Zimmer, director of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, said he rejected the request because of the lack of medical evidence showing marijuana helps with treating autism. He cited the opposition from the state’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Eden Wells.
“This lack of scientific evidence is more concerning when considering the broad scope of the petition, which does not limit medical marijuana treatment to overly severe cases of autism,” Zimmer said in his four-page letter.
Michael Komorn, a lawyer who filed the petition on behalf of a mother in southeast Michigan, called the decision disappointing and misguided. He said he’s considering seeking judicial review of the decision in Ingham County Circuit Court, where a judge’s prior ruling led to the review panel decision.
“He calls out the 55 parents and calls them all criminals. How dare you?” Komorn said of the impact of Zimmer’s decision on families seeking legalization of marijuana for autism treatment. “These parents are all in because their children are sick.”
Komorn said Zimmer’s concerns about a lack of controlled trials “is the red herring we’ve been fighting for a long time.”
Parents, he said, “are coming forward with anecdotal evidence” their children are being helped. The proper starting point for a clinical trial would be allowing them to continue, Komorn said.
Dr. David Crocker, a Kalamazoo physician who recommends cannabis use for patients with chronic pain, serves on the state’s medical marijuana board and questions its purpose if Zimmer can overrule Michigan’s marijuana “experts.”
“If you’re going to assemble a panel of experts for the purposes of determining this, why wouldn’t you go with their recommendation?” Crocker said. “I thought that our advice would be heeded in this case.”
“While I fully support finding new treatment options, there are neither sufficient studies nor scientific trials demonstrating its clinical impact to justify approval at this time,” Calley said in a statement.
Paul Welday, head of a marijuana advocacy group seeking reforms of Michigan’s medical marijuana law, said Zimmer’s decision “has met with universal disdain by virtually everyone who has been watching this issue.”
Welday said his organization, the Michigan Responsibility Council, “will be talking with our attorneys/drafters to include both autism and Parkinson’s as eligible conditions” for medical marijuana in reforms it is proposing lawmakers adopt this fall. The organization wants to work with lawmakers on pending legislation that also would set up a regulatory regime governing medical marijuana policies.”
State law doesn’t appear to allow the use of marijuana oil or juice — two methods that advocates described as ways children could take medical marijuana, Zimmer said.
He also worried that allowing autistic children to use medical marijuana could cause an explosion of use with unknown health consequences, considering the prevalence of autism in Michigan.
The director added that autistic children who experience seizures because of their condition may already be eligible to use medical marijuana as a treatment under state law.
Supporters argued oil extracted from marijuana and swallowed has been effective in controlling extreme physical behavior by kids with severe autism.
But Michigan’s 2008 voter-initiated law did not explicitly legalize oil-based cannabis products. Supporters of marijuana for children with autism said the drug could be ingested orally instead.
“The reality is there are other ways of ingesting it besides the oil form that can be just as effective,” Crocker said. “I don’t think that the fact the oils are illegal should preclude autism from being a qualifying condition.”
The panel that initially approved the use of marijuana for autistic children was influenced by comments from some Detroit-area doctors, especially the head of pediatric neurology at Children’s Hospital of Michigan, and from parents desperate for relief.
The state panel in 2012 and 2014 rejected allowing medical marijuana for autism. It led to a court battle and a challenge by Attorney General Bill Schuette before the panel accepted the latest formal request in the spring.
Article by
Gary Heinlein and Chad Livengood, Detroit News Lansing Bureau August 28, 2015
Three men will go to trial next month after police say they were growing large quantities of marijuana illegally. All are charged with delivering or manufacturing between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana, the equivalent of between 20 and 200 plants, as well as a generic charge of delivering or manufacturing marijuana.
The charges were filed following police raids on an alleged marijuana dispensary in Brighton Township and two homes, which authorities say were being used to grow marijuana.
The defendant’s attorneys have also questioned officers involved with the raid whether they were aware if their clients were registered caregivers and/or patients under Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act, but were told by one DEA agent that didn’t matter as they were operating under a federal search warrant. Federal law doesn’t recognize state efforts to legalize marijuana, whether for medicinal or recreational use. (JK)
7/20/15 – Michigan law enforcement has thrown down the legal gauntlet against at least three medical cannabis dispensaries this month, including two in the Detroit metro area and one in a small town several hours northwest of the city.
In Detroit proper, the dispensary Detroit Medz was raided on July 14, with police seizing a gun and “drugs” and making an arrest, according to Mlive.com.
In Canton, a suburb west of Detroit, three residents who operate a dispensary that was raided in March were charged with felony crimes last week, including conspiracy to deliver marijuana.
In Shelby Township, far to the northwest of Detroit, local and federal law enforcement agents raided the dispensary Advance Medical Supply on July 10. Police conducted at least four searches and seized three vehicles and at least 10 pounds of cannabis.
The raids and criminal charges come just a few months after eight other dispensaries were raided in northern Michigan. They could be a response by the law enforcement community to a resurgence in the state’s MMJ industry.
Some of the raids may have been sparked by dispensaries not verifying the Michigan residency of customers, Mlive.com reported. But given the gray legal area that dispensaries operate in, how law enforcement deals with such businesses is often left to local discretion.
State police raided eight medical cannabis dispensaries in northern Michigan this week, serving 16 search warrants and seizing an untold number of cannabis plants.
Not a single arrest was made, however, even though law enforcement officials said the eight dispensaries are “suspected of selling marijuana illegally.” Police also seized processed marijuana products and “other evidence” from the homes and businesses that were searched.
The dispensaries were all in Otsego County, some in the town of Gaylord, which is more than three hours north of Detroit. Whether or not any criminal charges will be filed will be up to the county prosecutor.
The medical cannabis industry in Michigan has long been in limbo. The state’s Supreme Court ruled two years ago that dispensaries are illegal, but as many as 250 dispensaries still exist in a quasi-legal status, with some getting protection from local communities that approve of MMJ.
It remains to be seen if the eight dispensaries that were raided will reopen. In some other states that have experienced similar raids, targeted dispensaries actually were able to open their doors again.
On November 8th, 2008, by a majority of 63 percent, the citizens of the State of Michigan voted into law the constitutional initiative, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, ratified into law December 4, 2008, herein referred to as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421 et seq. (the “MMMA”).
The voters of the State of Michigan, who at that time had no reason to believe a need to prevent misconstruction, misinterpretation, or abuse of its intent, upon this day declare that certain basic rights afforded all the citizens of Michigan are not being recognized for the medical marihuana community, to the extent that the following rights must be decreed, declared, recognized, and adopted, as the
Michigan Medical Marihuana Patient Bill of Rights
All patients possess the following rights, without limitation:
There shall be a presumption that registered patients and their caregivers are in compliance with the MMMA.
The right to be treated reasonably, with dignity and respect, by law enforcement and the government, and by the medical community and private business in general. “Reasonable” should be based in part upon the best available medicine and science, and not upon emotion or politics.
The right to be protected against arrest, prosecution, or any penalty.
The right to be free from searches, seizures, and forfeiture.
The right to equal protection under the law.
The right to privacy, of any and all information related to patient or caregiver status.
The right to the best medical care, and to the best medication in the proper delivery form, to treat their condition, disease, or debilitation.
The right to safe, immediate access to a continuous supply of medication to treat their condition, disease, or debilitation, and the right to a choice of where to obtain that medication.
The right to equal employment.
The right to equal and fair housing.
The right to be protected from denial of custody or visitation of a child.
The right to speak, the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel.
The right to civil remedies and punitive damages against those who violate any of these rights.
The right to prosecute those who violate the protections of the MMMA.
The right to protection under the Victim Rights Act of Michigan.
Annette SHATTUCK’s mother was clipping coupons at their Port Huron home when local law enforcement came rushing in wearing masks and camouflage on July 28, 2014.
The officers from the St. Clair County Drug Task Force were there to execute a no-knock search warrant. And Shattuck alleges that through civil asset forfeiture, the officers seized a wide variety of items from her house, including car seats, hammers, saws and $85 that was inside birthday cards for one of her children.
Although Shattuck says she and her husband weren’t even charged with a crime for five and a half months and they still haven’t been convicted, those items are still being held by the police.
“They leave you with nothing,” Shattuck said of her situation, in an interview today. Shattuck was one of a group of individuals who spoke out today in favor of reforms to the civil asset forfeiture process as the House Judiciary Committee voted to advance new reporting requirements and increased legal standards for forfeiture.
Lawmakers are also trying to determine whether stories like Shattuck’s are isolated anecdotes with debatable details or widespread problems that point to systemic issues.
Asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to punish suspected criminals by taking money and property that officers believe were obtained through or involved in illegal activity.
According to a 2014 report from the Michigan State Police (MSP), law enforcement agencies in the state seized some $24 million in assets in 2013 related to drug crimes.
The reporting requirements in HB 4500, HB 4503 and HB 4504 are meant to help the public better track the forfeitures. Other bills in the package, which includes HB 4499, HB 4506, HB 4507 and HB 4508, would increase the legal standard for forfeiture from a preponderance of the evidence to “clear and convincing” evidence.
Those who are most in favor of civil asset forfeiture reform say the bills are merely a step in the right direction to bigger reforms. Meanwhile, the law enforcement community has been somewhat quiet about the legislation.
Judiciary Chair Klint KESTO (R-Commerce Twp.) said today that reporting bills would ultimately help determine what needs to be done.
“Everybody has their opinion we should go in this direction or that direction,” Kesto said. “That’s premature. Let’s get the data.”
Shattuck and her attorney, Michael KOMORN, who testified today, said the reporting requirements are good first steps. But greater reform is needed. Komorn said he’s heard stories about individuals having all kinds of items seized under forfeiture, including a 1925 mandolin, Bridge cards and $37 out of a woman’s purse.
Many of the cases, like Shattuck’s, involve the state’s medical marijuana laws, which don’t fit with asset forfeiture, Komorn said.
The laws can be complicated and if a patient or grower isn’t following them exactly right, the person could be subject to forfeiture.
In an interview, he detailed a case of someone whose house was raided. Law enforcement kept the seized items for a year up until the start of the trial when they all of sudden gave the items back.
“You know why they do that? Because they can,” Komorn said. “There are no checks and balances.”
When Shattuck’s house was raided in July 2014, her children were home alone with Shattuck’s mother. Shattuck said the officers separated her mother from the children as the raid took place. Her children still talk about it, Shattuck said.
When they see a police car, the 9-year-old daughter asks, “Is it coming to my house?” Shattuck was eventually charged for crimes related to the manufacturing of marijuana. The case is ongoing.
Ginnifer HENCY, of Kimball, also shared her forfeiture story today. She said law enforcement raided her house, although she believes she was compliant with the state’s medical marijuana laws.
Police took iPads and phones, she said. “They have had my stuff for 10 months,” she said.
Thomas BUCKLEY, undersheriff of the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office, said he read through the police reports of both Hency and Shattuck’s cases. “I don’t see anything in the report that anyone did anything improper,” he said.
The task force, which is funded through a millage, usually only seizes items that are involved in the crime itself or that can be directly tied to the crime, Buckley said.
And he said sometimes offenders store proceeds from drugs in unusual places. Because cases are ongoing, Buckley couldn’t provide many details about the situations. But he said the raids were part of a large investigation involving federal agents and multiple locations involved in drug dealing. “A lot of it was under the guise of legitimate medical marijuana,” Buckley said.
As for forfeiture overall, Buckey said he can’t speak for every law enforcement agency, but he believes it’s a positive. “It takes the profit out of the drug trade for a lot of people,” Buckley said.
In an interview earlier this year, Robert STEVENSON, a former law enforcement officer who now leads the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, urged lawmakers to look beyond individual anecdotes when it comes to asset forfeiture.
Komorn had a different take. He said he has an office full of documents on cases where asset forfeiture was used inappropriately. “The system is broken,” he said, holding a stack of documents on other cases. “These are examples.”
Asked if stories like Shattuck’s and Hency’s are anecdotes or widespread problems, Kesto said he couldn’t answer that and he didn’t know the specific details of their cases. “These stories are anecdotal in nature,” Kesto said. “However, I think it’s unfortunate the way these woman told their stories. If that’s what happened, that’s a real, real problem and that cannot be tolerated. “That’s why we need the reporting bills to see what’s going on.”
