Oct 1, 2017 | Blog, News
The implied license to approach a home and conduct a “knock and talk” is time sensitive and the police violated the Fourth Amendment when they trespassed on the defendants’ property in the predawn hours with the intent to gather information
In People v. Frederick, the Michigan Supreme Court considered two cases, People v. Frederick and People v. Van Doorne, which raised a common question: whether a “knock and talk” by police conducted during the predawn hours violated the Fourth Amendment.
The names of defendants Frederick and Van Doorne came up during a criminal investigation involving marihuana butter. Rather than waiting until daytime or seeking a search warrant, the police decided to make unscheduled visits to each of the defendants’ homes to conduct a “knock and talk.” The police knocked on Frederick’s door around 4 a.m. and later knocked on Van Doorne’s door around 5:30 a.m.. At both homes, everyone appeared to be asleep when the police approached and all of the occupants were surprised and alarmed by the early morning contact by police. After being advised of the nature of the investigation and being advised of their Miranda rights, both defendants consented to a search of their respective homes where marihuana butter and other marihuana products were recovered.
Read More
Oct 1, 2017 | Blog, News
FORFEITURE
Public Health Code amended to eliminate forfeiture bond requirements
Public Act 418 of 2016 amended MCL 333.7523(1)(c) of the Public Health Code to eliminate the requirement that a person post a cash bond in order to file a written claim expressing an interest in property that is the subject of a forfeiture notice required by MCL 333.7523(1)(a). All other provisions in MCL 333.7523(1)(c) were unchanged.
Officers are reminded that the written claim must be signed by the claimant and must be filed within 20 days after receipt of the forfeiture notice or of the date of the first publication of the forfeiture notice with the local unit of government that seized the property or the state, if the property was seized by the state.
Act No. 418
Public Acts of 2016
Approved by the Governor
January 3, 2017
Filed with the Secretary of State
January 4, 2017
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 2017
STATE OF MICHIGAN
98TH LEGISLATURE
REGULAR SESSION OF 2016
Introduced by Rep. Lucido
ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 4629
AN ACT to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “An act to protect and promote the public health; to codify, revise, consolidate, classify, and add to the laws relating to public health; to provide for the prevention and control of diseases and disabilities; to provide for the classification, administration, regulation, financing, and maintenance of personal, environmental, and other health services and activities; to create or continue, and prescribe the powers and duties of, departments, boards, commissions, councils, committees, task forces, and other agencies; to prescribe the powers and duties of governmental entities and officials; to regulate occupations, facilities, and agencies affecting the public health; to regulate health maintenance organizations and certain third party administrators and insurers; to provide for the imposition of a regulatory fee; to provide for the levy of taxes against certain health facilities or agencies; to promote the efficient and economical delivery of health care services, to provide for the appropriate utilization of health care facilities and services, and to provide for the closure of hospitals or consolidation of hospitals or services; to provide for the collection and use of data and information; to provide for the transfer of property; to provide certain immunity from liability; to regulate and prohibit the sale and offering for sale of drug paraphernalia under certain circumstances; to provide for the implementation of federal law; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide for sanctions for violations of this act and local ordinances; to provide for an appropriation and supplements; to repeal certain acts and parts of acts; to repeal certain parts of this act; and to repeal certain parts of this act on specific dates,” by amending sections 7523 and 7524 (MCL 333.7523 and 333.7524), section 7523 as amended by 2006 PA 130 and section 7524 as amended by 2011 PA 161.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 7523. (1) If property is seized under section 7522, forfeiture proceedings shall be instituted promptly. If the property is seized without process under section 7522, and the total value of the property seized does not exceed $50,000.00, the following procedure shall be used:
(a) The local unit of government that seized the property or, if the property was seized by this state, the state shall notify the owner of the property that the property has been seized, and that the local unit of government or, if applicable, the state intends to forfeit and dispose of the property by delivering a written notice to the owner of the property or by sending the notice to the owner by certified mail. If the name and address of the owner are not reasonably ascertainable, or delivery of the notice cannot be reasonably accomplished, the notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the property was seized, for 10 successive publishing days.
(b) Unless all criminal proceedings involving or relating to the property have been completed, the seizing agency shall immediately notify the prosecuting attorney for the county in which the property was seized or, if the attorney general is actively handling a case involving or relating to the property, the attorney general of the seizure of the property and the intention to forfeit and dispose of the property.
(c) Any person claiming an interest in property that is the subject of a notice under subdivision (a) may, within 20 days after receipt of the notice or of the date of the first publication of the notice, file a written claim signed by the claimant with the local unit of government or the state expressing his or her interest in the property. Upon the filing of the claim, the local unit of government or, if applicable, this state shall transmit the claim with a list and description of the property seized to the attorney general, the prosecuting attorney for the county, or the city or township attorney for the local unit of government in which the seizure was made. The attorney general, the prosecuting attorney, or the city or township attorney shall promptly institute forfeiture proceedings after the expiration of the 20-day period. However, unless all criminal proceedings involving or relating to the property have been completed, a city or township attorney shall not institute forfeiture proceedings without the consent of the prosecuting attorney or, if the attorney general is actively handling a case involving or relating to the property, the attorney general.
(d) If no claim is filed within the 20-day period as described in subdivision (c), the local unit of government or this state shall declare the property forfeited and shall dispose of the property as provided under section 7524. However, unless all criminal proceedings involving or relating to the property have been completed, the local unit of government or the state shall not dispose of the property under this subdivision without the written consent of the prosecuting attorney or, if the attorney general is actively handling a case involving or relating to the property, the attorney general.
(2) Property taken or detained under this article is not subject to an action to recover personal property, but is deemed to be in the custody of the seizing agency subject only to this section or an order and judgment of the court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings. When property is seized under this article, the seizing agency may do any of the following:
(a) Place the property under seal.
(b) Remove the property to a place designated by the court.
(c) Require the administrator to take custody of the property and remove it to an appropriate location for disposition in accordance with law.
(d) Deposit money seized under this article into an interest-bearing account in a financial institution. As used in this subdivision, “financial institution” means a state or nationally chartered bank or a state or federally chartered savings and loan association, savings bank, or credit union whose deposits are insured by an agency of the United States government and that maintains a principal office or branch office located in this state under the laws of this state or the United States.
(3) Title to real property forfeited under this article shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. A forfeiture of real property encumbered by a bona fide security interest is subject to the interest of the secured party who neither had knowledge of nor consented to the act or omission.
(4) An attorney for a person who is charged with a crime involving or related to the money seized under this article shall be afforded a period of 60 days within which to examine that money. This 60-day period begins to run after notice is given under subsection (1)(a) but before the money is deposited into a financial institution under subsection (2)(d). If the attorney general, prosecuting attorney, or city or township attorney fails to sustain his or her burden of proof in forfeiture proceedings under this article, the court shall order the return of the money, including any interest earned on money deposited into a financial institution under subsection (2)(d).
Sec. 7524. (1) When property is forfeited under this article, the local unit of government that seized the property may do any of the following, or if the property is seized by or in the custody of this state, the state may do any of the following, subject to section 7523(1)(d):
(a) Retain the property for official use.
(b) Sell the property that is not required to be destroyed by law and that is not harmful to the public. The proceeds and any money, negotiable instruments, securities, or any other thing of value as described in section 7521(1)(f) that are forfeited under this article shall be deposited with the treasurer of the entity having budgetary authority over the seizing agency and applied as follows:
(i) For the payment of proper expenses of the proceedings for forfeiture and sale, including expenses incurred during the seizure process, maintenance of custody, advertising, and court costs, except as otherwise provided in subsection (4).
(ii) The balance remaining after the payment of expenses shall be distributed by the court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings to the treasurer of the entity having budgetary authority over the seizing agency. If more than 1 agency was substantially involved in effecting the forfeiture, the court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding shall equitably distribute the money among the treasurers of the entities having budgetary authority over the seizing agencies. A seizing agency may direct that the funds or a portion of the funds it would otherwise have received under this subsection be paid to nonprofit organizations whose primary activity is to assist law enforcement agencies with drug-related criminal investigations and obtaining information for solving crimes. The money received by a seizing agency under this subparagraph and all interest and other earnings on money received by the seizing agency under this subparagraph shall be used only for law enforcement purposes, as appropriated by the entity having budgetary authority over the seizing agency. A distribution made under this subparagraph shall serve as a supplement to, and not a replacement for, funds otherwise budgeted for law enforcement purposes.
3
EHB 4629
(c) Require the administrator to take custody of the property and remove it for disposition in accordance with law.
(d) Forward it to the bureau for disposition.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), this state or local units of government may donate lights for plant growth or scales forfeited under this article to elementary or secondary schools or institutions of higher education that request in writing to receive those lights or scales under this subsection, for educational purposes. This state or local units of government shall donate lights and scales under this subsection to elementary or secondary schools or institutions of higher education in the order in which the written requests are received. This state or local units of government may limit the number of lights and scales available to each requestor.
(3) In the course of selling real property under subsection (1)(b), the court that has entered an order of forfeiture may, on motion of the agency to whom the property has been forfeited, appoint a receiver to dispose of the real property forfeited. The receiver is entitled to reasonable compensation. The receiver has authority to do all of the following:
(a) List the forfeited real property for sale.
(b) Make whatever arrangements are necessary for the maintenance and preservation of the forfeited real property.
(c) Accept offers to purchase the forfeited real property.
(d) Execute instruments transferring title to the forfeited real property.
(4) If a court enters an order of forfeiture, the court may order a person who claimed an interest in the forfeited property under section 7523(1)(c) to pay the expenses of the proceedings of forfeiture to the entity having budgetary authority over the seizing agency.
Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.
Clerk of the House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate
Approved
Governor
https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ENROLLED-HOUSE-BILL-No-4629.pdf
Sep 30, 2017 | Blog, News
Novi Judge Brian MacKenzie has provided “falsified” court documents to prosecutors to hide his practice of improperly handling domestic violence cases, according to a new filing by Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper. And in some cases, he has kept defendants on probation beyond the two years allowed by law, Cooper claims.
Cooper made the allegations in a motion filed before Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen O’Brien to find MacKenzie in contempt of court. O’Brien is expected to issue her ruling within weeks.
MacKenzie’s attorney, David Timmis, said, “These attacks are factually inaccurate and misleading,” and accused Cooper of trying to harm MacKenzie’s re-election chances in November.
“This is an experienced, compassionate and award-winning judge who has been lauded throughout his career,” Timmis said in an e-mail to the Free Press.
Cooper’s office has been reviewing MacKenzie’s files after O’Brien ordered in February that he hand them over to prosecutors because he was treating repeat domestic violence offenders as if they were first-time offenders and then placing them on probation, a violation of state law.
“The problems are far worse than we could have imagined,” Cooper wrote in her Aug. 6 filing. Her review of the files uncovered conduct on criminal cases “that ranges from outright dismissals of valid criminal convictions to the falsification of official judicial records; issues that compromise the very integrity of the criminal justice process of that court.”
Her office found cases in which defendants were kept on probation after more than two years, a violation of Michigan statutes, she said.
■ Related: Novi judge calls claims of running rogue court ‘inaccurate and misleading’
■ Related: Oakland prosecutor says Novi judge should be held in contempt
Timmis said there was no evidence of doctored files, and the defendants who were on probation for more than two years were serving “protracted” jail sentences or had violated MacKenzie’s probation and faced new charges.
If Cooper’s allegations are true, it could spell trouble not just for MacKenzie, but for Oakland County, which funds his court.
“This may be much more than bringing a case in front of the judicial tenure commission, this could have a criminal aspect along with civil claims,” said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and expert on criminal procedure, judicial ethics and the legal profession.
Defendants kept on probation longer than two years could sue the county because their rights had been violated, he said.
“It would not be a defense even if the probationer agreed to it,” he said. “You’re not agreeing to anything when you’re standing in front of a judge. You’re accepting what the judge does.”
In charging that documents have been altered, Cooper cites a 2010 case in which a defendant was charged with assault and battery following a domestic assault. Cooper’s staff obtained a copy of the original 2010 court docket showing the man pleaded no contest, and that MacKenzie took his plea “under advisement” meaning the case would be dropped if the man stayed out of trouble. The file read “Plea Advisement Spouse Act Bench Trial.”
The defendant, though, was not eligible for such a deal because he had five prior arrests.
The case was closed in April 2012.
But when MacKenzie’s staff handed the file over to Cooper’s office on July 11 on orders of O’Brien, the records had changed, Cooper said.
There was no mention of spousal abuse or a no-contest plea. Instead, it showed the man had pleaded guilty to a minor drug charge — although there were no drugs involved, and that MacKenzie had again taken the case “under advisement.”
“If records have been altered, that could be a criminal violation for anyone involved,” Henning said.
Cooper, in her filing, says, “It requires little speculation to guess why the entries on an illegally dismissed case would be subsequently changed to delete references to the (Spousal Abuse Act).”
Timmis denied that the original involved a domestic assault and that the current records provided to the prosecutors are accurate. “There was never any attempt to falsify documents related to this matter” and questioned the accuracy of the prosecutor’s records.
O’Brien, should she find MacKenzie in contempt, has several options, including ordering him to appear before her, sanctioning him in writing or jailing him.
Cooper has forwarded a copy of her complaint to the Michigan State Court Administrative which can refer it to the tenure commission for sanctions as well.
MacKenzie’s troubles come as he faces his first challenge since he took the bench in 1988. He faced off against two challengers in the Aug. 5 primary and came in second, with 7,727 votes, behind attorney Travis Reeds, who garnered 8,003. Attorney Scott Powers finished third with 5,559 votes.
Novi judge provided ‘falsified’ documents, Oakland prosecutor says
www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/…/novi-judge…/14314411/
Aug 20, 2014 – Novi Judge Brian MacKenzie has provided “falsified” court documents to prosecutors to hide his practice of improperly handling domestic …
Judge MacKenzie – Oakland County
https://www.oakgov.com/courts/dc52div1/Pages/elected_off…/bio_mackenzie.aspx
Brian W. MacKenzie 52nd District Court Judge Judge Brian MacKenzie has served as a Judge of the 52nd District Court, located in Novi Michigan, since 1988.
Circuit judge rules Novi judge was sentencing illegally
www.theoaklandpress.com/…/circuit-judge-rules-novi-judge-was-sentencing-illegally
Feb 14, 2014 – It is “uncontested” that a Novi District Judge Brian MacKenzie didn’t follow … Jeffrey Arthur Roberts: In another dispute over Michigan’s Spousal …
Novi judge accused of wide array of misconduct – The Oakland Press
www.theoaklandpress.com/general…/novi-judge-accused-of-wide-array-of-miscondu…
Jun 11, 2014 – The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission recently filed a formal complaint … death threats against fellow Novi District Judge Brian MacKenzie, …
Judge Brian MacKenzie accused of trading jail time for… – ClickOnDetroit
www.clickondetroit.com/…/judge-brian-mackenzie-accused-of-trading-jail-time-for-d…
Mar 24, 2014 – NOVI, Mich. – Four years ago, Judge Brian MacKenzie presided over his calling card: a drunken driving case. Walled Lake police upped the …
Novi District Judge MacKenzie faces cease and desist order, and …
www.wxyz.com/…/novi-district-judge-mackenzie-faces-cease-and-desist-order-and-p…
Dec 5, 2013 – NOVI, Mich. (WXYZ) – The 7 Action News Investigators are digging deeper into the rare complaint filed by Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica …
52-1 District Court Judges Face Heat – Michigan Criminal Defense …
thelawyermichigan.com/judge-powers-judge-mackenzie/
Jan 1, 2016 – Judge Powers and Judge MacKenzie have brought a tremendous amount of negative attention to the 52-1 District Court in Novi. Here is an …
Oakland County prosecutor calls probe request a ‘rant’ – Detroit News
www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/02/…/23373607/
Feb 13, 2015 – … Jessica Cooper in her handling of concerns at the Novi’s 52-1 District Court. … disputed cases before former Novi Judge Brian MacKenzie.
Novi Judge Brian MacKenzie using six-time drunk driver to drive for …
www.theoaklandpress.com/…/novi-judge-brian-mackenzie-using-six-time-drunk-driv…
Oct 19, 2014 – Novi District Judge Brian MacKenzie has been using a convicted felon with history of drunken driving and other offenses to drive around and …
FBI said to be reviewing secret recording by Mich. judge – USA Today
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/24/judge-secret…fbi…/6825947/
Mar 24, 2014 – A secret recording being reviewed by the FBI of Novi District Judge Brian MacKenzie and defense attorney Timothy Corr discussing a case in …
Neil Rockind Comments On Judge Brian MacKenzie And Complaint …
www.rockindlaw.com/neil-rockind-comments-on-judge-brian-mackenzie-and-compla…
Dec 5, 2013 – At about 5:00-5:30 a.m., I awake, grab a cup of coffee and scan the headlines for interesting stories. Today, I found one that disappointed me.
Sep 29, 2017 | Blog, News
His lawyers say he’s the innocent victim of illegal search and seizure aimed at medical-marijuana users. Police and prosecutors beg to differ
Donny Barnes said he just wants to be a regular guy.
He just wants to run his small businesses scattered around Oakland County. Just wants to hang out with his family at their split-level home on a woodsy street. And just wants to keep using medical marijuana for calming the neck and shoulder pain that Barnes said has plagued him ever since he was in a snowboarding accident at age 19.
But a drug bust in 2014 “turned my life upside down,” said Barnes, 41, of Orion Township. Police seized his property, shutting down his antique resale and spyware businesses, and charged him with possessing more than 100 pounds of marijuana, which Barnes and his lawyers argued didn’t belong to him.
This month, after two years of legal battles, Barnes’ lawyers claimed what they called a rare victory against the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office, widely known for its aggressive prosecutions of medical-marijuana cases; and against the confiscatory tactics of OAKNET, the county’s much-feared Narcotics Enforcement Team.
Oakland Circuit Judge Denise Langford Morris dismissed a criminal charge against Barnes — marijuana possession with intent to distribute — and she ruled that police had failed to establish probable cause for raiding Barnes’ house, his office and warehouse.
Ecstatic at the ruling early this month, Barnes’ lawyers said it was a sign that times are changing — that a Michigan judge, even in such a conservative bastion as Oakland County, refused to continue waging the discredited war on drugs against one of Michigan’s medical marijuana users.
Yet, Oakland County law-enforcement officials said Barnes merely got lucky with a lenient judge and that, on appeal, the tables would be turned.
A county sheriff’s spokesman said that detectives had indisputable evidence of Barnes having been a big-time marijuana dealer, one who’d tried to hide his illegal activity under the cloak of medical marijuana while overseeing the sale of plastic baggies of marijuana to total strangers — a violation of the state law that allows “transfers” of the medicinal drug but only from a state-registered “caregiver” to that person’s five registered “patients.”
► Police seize property and cash in questionable raids
► Watchdog group gives Michigan a ‘D-‘ on forfeiture laws
► Cannabis industry roiled by White House comments on enforcement
The spokesman said that nothing about the ruling would change the tactics of Oakland County’s drug investigators. And the prosecutor’s office said it decided last week to appeal.
The outcome of the appeal could decide not only Barnes’ fate but also whether his case becomes a landmark ruling that aids others in similar circumstances.
The appeal of the case will explore just what constitutes a legal search and seizure of citizens in Michigan, who have faced civil forfeiture of their cars, cash and even their farmland and houses in some marijuana busts.
It will be argued in a year when Michigan could pivot toward more tolerance of the drug, or the state could adopt even tighter restraints under a Trump administration whose top law enforcer is the notoriously anti-marijuana Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
And the appeal will occur in a year that began with Gov. Rick Snyder signing a bill that gives limited protections to citizens facing civil forfeiture; they no longer must pay a bond of 10% of the value of their seized property to challenge the forfeiture in court. When Snyder signed the bill in early January, both sides of the political spectrum in Michigan — both the conservative/Libertarian Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the liberal American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan — called for more protections.
Outside Michigan, in 12 other states, law enforcement must get a criminal conviction before a suspect forfeits property, and in two states — New Mexico and Nebraska — civil forfeiture is altogether banned, Jarrett Skorup, spokesman for the Mackinac Center, said in the news release.
It was late November 2014 when police shook up what Barnes said was his tranquil lifestyle.
“They even took the Christmas presents I had wrapped for my kids,” Barnes said.
Heavily armed police in masks seized his family’s cars as well as the business computers, tools and considerable inventory of his several trades, and took the contents of several bank accounts including one belonging to his mother. That scenario is a familiar one around Michigan, and especially in Oakland County, where authorities are notorious among marijuana users for being merciless to those accused of skirting Michigan’s medical marijuana act.
Countless defendants in such cases, lacking the money to mount aggressive legal defenses, have been forced to plea bargain, to give up their possessions and accept jail or prison sentences as well as pay fines said David Moffitt a Bingham Farms lawyer.
One of two attorneys defending Barnes. Because his family “has significant resources,” Barnes was able to fight back and win the dismissal, Moffitt said.
This ruling “sends a strong message that in appropriate procedures on the part of police and prosecutors will result in dismissal. To have an Oakland County judge dismiss search warrants for faulty procedures is a game-changer in the state because everyone looks at Oakland County for their legal leadership on key issues.
“What this judge said was that you can’t just kick down doors and seize people’s property without having good reason to do so,” he said.
The same judge, after reviewing a lengthy brief submitted by Barnes’ attorneys, allowed him in a ruling last fall to use medical marijuana while out on bond “for a very demonstrable medical need,” instead of the opioid painkilling pills that caused him dangerous side effects, Moffitt said.
Getting a judge’s approval to use the drug as a bond condition is rare enough, but Moffitt said he was thrilled that Langford Morris wrote a detailed opinion justifying her circuit court ruling, making it precedent-setting for the state, he said.
One strikingly unfair tactic of Oakland County authorities is to arrest a medical-marijuana user, seize property “and then not even file charges if the defendant doesn’t contest the forfeiture — that’s become a standard approach there,” Moffitt added. Barnes wasn’t arrested until 14 months after the raids, seemingly not until he “aggressively challenged and contested the forfeiture case” in a civil case completely separate from his criminal case, his lawyer said.
“Both Mr. Barnes and I believe that the Oakland County sheriff’s department is protecting us every day, but I think they must agree that not everything they do is done perfectly in every case, and this is one of those cases,” said Moffitt, who is a former Oakland County commissioner from Farmington Hills.
Medical-marijuana cases can be complex, said Oakland County Undersheriff Mike McCabe. And so, there was nothing odd or unfair about how long detectives took to investigate before Barnes was arrested, he said. “With the sensitivity of these cases, the prosecutor goes over them with a fine-tooth comb” before approving arrest warrants, he said.
The sheriff’s and prosecutor’s offices have taken strong and specific issue with the dismissal of charges against Barnes. Among his small-business activities was a monthly free magazine called The Burn, whose masthead listed as publisher “Donald Barnes III.” Each edition was loaded with full-color ads, the most prominent ones being those for Metro Detroit Compassion Club, a facility open six days a week at the same address in Waterford Township as Barnes’ magazine
.
Among the come-ones for the Metro Detroit Compassion Club? “All meds locally grown … Providing our members only the best … We now accept valid out-of-state medical cards.”
That line refers to cards issued by numerous states, including Michigan, showing that someone is approved to use medical marijuana although not approved to buy medical cannabis from just anyone in Michigan except under the state’s tightly controlled system that ties caregivers to five so-called and only five “patients.”
So, when undercover informants of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office were able to buy medical marijuana last year four times at the Metro Detroit Compassion Club, detectives linked that wrongdoing to Barnes, who was listed as the “resident agent” on the incorporation papers of the nonprofit club.
That’s when they decided to burst into the magazine’s offices, as well as into the compassion club at the same address where they found about two pounds of marijuana, and into a warehouse Barnes owned that was full of marijuana plants and more than 100 pounds of marijuana stored in refrigerators, as well as into Barnes’ rambling modern house that held about four pounds, McCabe said.
Did all of the marijuana belong to Barnes? If the case goes to trial, prosecutors will show that much of it did and the motive was to sell the drug for profit, McCabe said. At the warehouse, “the marijuana was in small baggies in refrigerators,” he said.
As for the nonprofit compassion club, it constituted a dispensary — a retail outlet for selling marijuana, McCabe said. Even though Detroit is said to have more than 100 dispensaries, operating mostly without interference by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, Oakland County authorities abide by the view of Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who has declared dispensaries illegal in Michigan that will soon change, but it hasn’t yet, McCabe said.
Dispensaries are going to be legal in Michigan, through a new law enacted last year, “but not until at least early 2018 — that’s what we’ve been told by people in Lansing; that’s the soonest anybody can get a license to operate one,” McCabe said.
A top attorney at the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office was adamant about not dropping Barnes’ case.
“We felt that the evidence rose to the level showing that Mr. Barnes was violating state law,” said Paul Walton, Oakland County’s chief assistant prosecutor.
The judge “made the statement that Mr. Barnes was simply an officer of the corporation, but there’s every reason to believe that he had significant involvement, if not outright ownership,” in the dispensary masquerading as a nonprofit club, Walton said.
So,was the ruling was a victory for medical-marijuana users across Michigan, as Barnes’ attorneys insist? Or just a temporary setback to the law-enforcement establishment in Oakland County, standard bearers for a rigid approach to users and distributors of medical marijuana?
Only time, and Michigan’s higher courts, will tell.
https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Oakland-County-medical-marijuana-case-comes-at-key-moment.pdf
Contact Bill Laitner: blaitner@freepress.com
Sep 29, 2017 | Blog, Medical Marijuana, News
States that have legalized medical marijuana could soon get an unwanted visit from the DEA. Yesterday, Congress stunned the cannabis industry by rejecting the only legal protection preventing Attorney General Jeff “good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions from cracking down on those 30 states for violating federal cannabis prohibition.
Back in 2014, lawmakers passed an amendment to the federal budget to protect state-legalized medical marijuana industries and the patients they serve. The amendment prevented the DEA from spending a single penny on enforcing cannabis prohibition in those states. It didn’t overturn federal cannabis prohibition or legalize medical marijuana, but it did tie the Department of Justice’s hands by freezing their finances.
At the time, medical marijuana was legal in 21 states, a number that has grown to 30 since then. But they could all be shuttered soon because that amendment — which has to be renewed with every budget — was rejected yesterday by the House Rules Committee. That means the House can’t include the rider in their final version of the federal budget.
If the budget passes without that rider, budtenders, dispensary owners, doctors recommending cannabis and even medical marijuana patients could face prosecution for their involvement in the industry. And not just for what they’re doing right now. They could be charged with offences dating back to when they got involved in the state’s cannabis industry.
And Attorney General Sessions might do just that since he’s been itching to crackdown on those states. Since taking office, Sessions has ramped up anti-marijuana rhetoric in America. And last May, he asked Congress to drop the amendment so that he could unleash the DEA on medical marijuana states if he saw fit. His request was denied in July by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but it seems like his message resonated in the House.
The fight for the marijuana amendment isn’t over yet though. The budget has yet to reach the Senate, where the rider could be re-inserted with support from Senators Cory Booker (D – NJ), Mike Lee (R – UT), Lisa Murkowski (R – AK), Rand Paul (R – KY), Bernie Sanders (D – VT) and others.
But even if it does get reinserted and passed, the amendment only buys patients, doctors and businesses a small window of relief before they have to start looking over their shoulders for DEA helicopters again. The reality is that the industry won’t be safe until Congress listens to the 94 percent of Americans who support medical marijuana and changes the country’s criminally outdated cannabis laws.
By James McClure | Sep 7, 2017 | Politics
https://www.civilized.life/articles/medical-marijuana-states-stripped-dea-protection/
Sep 28, 2017 | Blog, News
http://www.marijuanaliferproject.org/
Federal prisoner Ricardo Montes is on Obama’s clemency list and will be released in May 2017. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, his co-defendant Luke Scarmazzo’s petition was denied last week. Luke has already served 10 years and isn’t scheduled for release until 2027. Read more.
Charles Lynch filed an Appropriations Act, 2015 Section 538 Motion to end his prosecution for operating a medical marijuana dispensary in 2006. He is due in court in LA on February 2, 2017 in Los Angeles.
Eddy Lepp was released in December 2016 following eight years of imprisonment.
NEWS:
US Court Records Show Nearly 500 Years in Prison Time for Medical Marijuana Offenses
LAST UPDATED: 1/19/2017
Pending Cases in California and Elsewhere In Prison Sentenced or Case Terminated Died Pending Prosecution Raided by DEA (partial list)
Read More Federal Case Info
