SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

May 15, 2024 | Blog, Supreme Court

SCOTUS: When police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading Alabama police to seek civil forfeiture of the cars.

Their vehicles were confiscated under an Alabama statute that empowers law enforcement to seize cars utilized in the commission or facilitation of drug-related offenses.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law  (248) 357-2550

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment mandates a timely forfeiture hearing in cases involving the seizure of personal property—however, it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.

CULLEY ET AL. v. MARSHALL, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF ALABAMA, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 22–585. Argued October 30, 2023—Decided May 9, 2024

Petitioner Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was later pulled over by Alabama police officers and arrested for possession of
marijuana. Petitioner Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who was
stopped by Alabama police and arrested for trafficking methamphetamine.

In both cases, petitioners’ cars were seized under an Alabama civil forfeiture law that permitted seizure of a car “incident to an arrest” so long as the State then “promptly” initiated a forfeiture case. Ala. Code §20–2–93(b)(1), (c).

The State of Alabama filed forfeiture complaints against Culley’s and Sutton’s cars just 10 and 13 days, respectively, after their seizure. While their forfeiture proceedings were pending, Culley and Sutton each filed purported class-action complaints in federal court seeking money damages under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that state officials violated their due process rights by retaining their cars during the forfeiture process without holding preliminary hearings.

In a consolidated appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ claims, holding that a timely forfeiture hearing affords claimants due process and that no separate preliminary hearing is constitutionally required.

Read the rest of the SCOTUS Opinion here

 

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

Traffic FAQs-Golf Carts-Mini Motorcycles-ATVs-Electric Scooters

Traffic FAQs-Golf Carts-Mini Motorcycles-ATVs-Electric Scooters

May 15, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

Traffic FAQs – Golf Carts – Mini Motorcycles – ATVs  – Electric Scooters

  • Know the laws if you get pulled over.
  • Know who to call if you need legal defense if a violation turns into a DUI or worse. That would be us.

Question: We recently got “Bird” scooters (electric skateboards) in our town. Are they considered a motor vehicle? Can I be arrested for drunk driving on an electric skateboard?

Answer: Public Act 204 of 2018 amended the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC) by adding MCL 257.13f to define “electric skateboard” as a wheeled device with a floorboard to stand on that is not more than 60 inches long and 18 inches wide and is designed for only one person at a time. To be an electric skateboard, the device must have an electrical propulsion system that does not exceed 2,500 watts and a maximum speed on a paved level surface that does not exceed 25 mph. An electric skateboard may be designed to be powered by human propulsion, in addition to the electric propulsion system.

An electric skateboard is exempted from the definition of “motor vehicle” under MCL 257.33, but a person riding an electric skateboard “has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.” MCL 257.657.  Questions regarding an arrest for a violation of MCL 257.625 (Operating While Intoxicated) on an electric skateboard/horse, should generally be referred to your city attorney or local prosecutor.

Question: My husband saw on the news last night that golf carts were allowed on the county roads in the state of Michigan. Is this true?

Answer: MCL 257.657a authorizes a village or city of fewer than 30,000 people to allow the operation of golf carts on the streets of that village or city by resolution, and sets forth the requirements and restrictions in doing so.  Similarly, a township of fewer than 30,000 people is also authorized to allow this under certain circumstances unless disapproved by the county board of commissioners.

Previously, it was possible to equip, register and insure your golf cart to be road legal as a low speed vehicle.  However, the Michigan Department of State (MDOS) has announced that it will no longer process assembled vehicle title applications for vehicles manufactured as a golf cart and has requested law enforcement personnel to refuse or deny any request to complete a TR-54 Vehicle Number and On-Road Equipment Inspection for a golf cart.  Additional information may be found on the MDOS website.

Golf carts that are currently titled and registered for on-road use will retain its current title and registration.

If the golf cart is not currently titled, registered, and insured for on-road use, and is not within one of the cities, villages or townships that has allowed on road use, it may only be operated on a highway under very limited circumstances if it meets the definition of an ORV as provided in MCL 324.81101 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.  The limited circumstances, such as crossing a street or highway at a right angle for the purpose of getting from one area to another, can be found in MCL 324.81122.  Additionally, MCL 324.81131 authorizes local municipalities to pass an ordinance allowing the operation of ORV’s on streets within the municipality and sets forth the requirements and restrictions in doing so.

Question:  I have a Polaris Ranger and want to know if I can operate it on the road? 

Answer: As noted on the SOS website, certain off-road vehicles (ORVs), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and off-road dune buggies can be titled as an assembled vehicle for on-road use.

If this type of ORV is not currently titled, registered and insured for on-road use, it may only be operated on a highway under very limited circumstances if it meets the definition of an ORV as provided in MCL 324.81101 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.  The limited circumstances, such as crossing a street or highway at a right angle for the purpose of getting from one area to another, can be found in MCL 324.81122.

Additionally, MCL 324.81131 authorizes local municipalities to pass an ordinance allowing the operation of ORV’s on streets within the municipality and sets forth the requirements and restrictions in doing so.

Question: Where can I legally ride a goped?

Answer: A goped, while not specifically defined in the Michigan Vehicle Code, does fall under the definition of a moped  (MCL.257.32b) . Mopeds are required to have certain equipment such as; a headlight, brake light, seat, horn, muffler, and brakes on each wheel, in order to be legally operated on the roadway. In addition, the operator of a moped must be at least 15 years of age, have a moped license or an operator/chauffeur license, and the vehicle must be registered with the Department of State and display a valid registration plate. Finally, a person operating a moped must wear an approved crash helmet if they are under 19 years of age.

Because gopeds are not equipped with the required equipment they cannot be legally driven on the roadway. Also, by definition they are a motor vehicle and therefore cannot be driven on a sidewalk constructed for use by pedestrians.

Question: Can someone tell me what the laws in Michigan are for riding pocket bikes?

Answer: If the “pocket bike” has an engine displacement of 50cc’s or less, produces 2.0 brake horsepower or less, is capable of a top speed of no more than 30 mph, and the operator is not required/allowed to shift gears, then it may be legally classified as a moped. The document titled “Moped Requirements” lists the operational and equipment requirements for such motor vehicles. Most “pocket bikes” will not meet those requirements and therefore will not be street legal.

If the “pocket bike” has an engine displacement greater than 50cc’s then it is classified as a motorcycle and must meet the requirements applicable to that type of vehicle.  Again, most “pocket bikes” will not meet these requirements.

The Michigan Point System

Each traffic violation has a point value, which is set by law in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

Read about it here

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

RED ALERT

Distracted driving law now in effect:

Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a bill making it illegal to manually use a cell phone or other mobile electronic device while operating a vehicle on Michigan roads. Under the law, a driver cannot hold or support a phone or other device with any part of their hands, arms, or shoulders.

Even if a cell phone or other device is mounted on your dashboard or connected to your vehicle’s built-in system, you cannot use your hands to operate it beyond a single touch.

As a result, you cannot manually do any of the following on a cell phone or other electronic device while driving:

  • Make or answer a telephone or video call.
  • Send or read a text or email message.
  • Watch, record, or send a video.
  • Access, read, or post to social media.
  • Browse or use the Internet.
  • Enter information into GPS or a navigation system.

Hands-free Law Guide

Michigan State Police Legal Update

Disclaimer: This Frequently Asked Questions page is provided solely as a means of providing basic answers to questions about the Michigan Vehicle Code and is not designed or intended to provide a basis to contest a citation for a violation of the code. The positions stated are only those of the Michigan Department of State Police and are not binding on any other law enforcement agency or any Court. If our position is supported by case law then it will be enumerated within the answer provided. Source of Information – Traffic Laws FAQ

School district says marijuana-related incidents on the rise

School district says marijuana-related incidents on the rise

May 13, 2024 | Blog, Michigan News

School district reports an increase in marijuana-related incidents at schools and calls on leaders to take action.

The Detroit Public Schools Community District has observed a substantial rise in the use of marijuana edibles and vape pens within schools. In light of this concerning trend, the district is appealing to local, state, and federal leaders to promptly implement a policy addressing this issue.

In an email sent on Thursday, Superintendent Nikolai Vitti reports a significant increase in drug-related incidents within the district. Between 2019 and 2021, there were 289 recorded incidents. However, the number has surged to 1,735 between 2021 and 2023, emphasizing the urgent need for attention and immediate action to address this concerning issue.

The email reportedly reached ot to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, city council members, and Senators Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

May 10, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

In a landmark case that underscores the evolving landscape of cannabis regulation and taxation in agricultural contexts, HRP Cassopolis, LLC v LaGrange Township Assessor in Cass County, Michigan, has set a precedent that significantly benefits cannabis farming operations.

The case not only highlights the challenges faced by cannabis cultivators but also emphasizes the importance of legal clarity in defining cannabis cultivation as an agricultural activity.

At the heart of the matter is the interpretation of Michigan’s tax laws, particularly MCL 211.34c(2)(a), which outlines the criteria for classifying a property as an agricultural operation for property tax purposes.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

The statute defines an agricultural operation as land “used for agricultural purposes, including, but not limited to, the production of field crops, livestock, poultry, fruit, and nursery stock.”

Historically, the Michigan State Tax Commission has argued that growing cannabis does not fall within the scope of agricultural operations under this statute.

HRP Cassopolis, LLC, a cannabis cultivation facility, challenged this interpretation, asserting that their activities align with the definition of agriculture outlined in MCL 211.34c(2)(a). The crux of their argument rested on the premise that cannabis cultivation involves the production of a crop, akin to other agricultural endeavors like growing fruits or vegetables.

In the initial proceedings, the Michigan State Tax Commission contended that cannabis cultivation should not be considered agricultural because it is federally illegal and does not have the same historical precedent as traditional agricultural practices. However, HRP Cassopolis, LLC countered by highlighting the state’s legalization of medical and recreational cannabis, arguing that its cultivation should be treated similarly to other lawful agricultural activities.

The case went through several stages of appeals, with each level of the judicial system scrutinizing the interpretation of Michigan’s tax laws in the context of cannabis cultivation.

Ultimately, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HRP Cassopolis, LLC, asserting that cannabis farming qualifies as an agricultural operation under MCL 211.34c(2)(a).

The court’s decision represents a significant victory for cannabis farmers in Michigan. By officially recognizing cannabis cultivation as agriculture, the ruling provides these businesses with access to important tax benefits and protections afforded to traditional agricultural operations. This includes favorable property tax assessments, which are crucial for the economic viability of cannabis farms in the state.

Moreover, the ruling brings much-needed clarity to the legal status of cannabis farming in Michigan. As the cannabis industry continues to grow and evolve, establishing clear guidelines for regulatory and tax purposes is essential for ensuring compliance and facilitating the industry’s responsible expansion.

HRP Cassopolis, LLC v LaGrange Township Assessor marks a pivotal moment for cannabis farming in Michigan. By affirming that cannabis cultivation qualifies as agriculture under state tax laws, the ruling not only benefits cannabis businesses but also contributes to the normalization and legitimization of the cannabis industry as a whole.

Moving forward, it is essential for policymakers to continue refining and updating regulations to support the growth of this burgeoning sector while ensuring accountability and responsible stewardship of agricultural resources.

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

May 9, 2024 | Blog, USA news

The Impact of Marijuana Reclassification on Legal Landscape

On May 6, 2024, the DEA made a groundbreaking decision, accepting the US Department of Health and Human Services’ recommendation to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substance. This move marks a significant shift in federal drug policy, potentially altering the legal framework surrounding cannabis cultivation, distribution, and use.

Reclassification from Schedule I to Schedule III places marijuana alongside substances like acetaminophen with codeine, ketamine, and testosterone, removing it from the category that includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. While federal legalization isn’t on the table, this reclassification acknowledges marijuana’s accepted medical use and low potential for abuse.

However, this change doesn’t impact state marijuana laws in the 24 states, two territories, and Washington D.C. that have legalized adult recreational use or the 38 states permitting medical cannabis. But it does offer substantial tax breaks for businesses involved in marijuana production and sales. Under the current Internal Revenue Code, businesses selling Schedule I substances can’t deduct business expenses, but reclassification would allow for significant tax savings, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

Related News

Moreover, reclassification opens doors for cannabis companies to access major stock exchanges, attracting investment capital for further growth. Yet, it doesn’t address banking industry challenges. Federal illegality prohibits cannabis businesses from utilizing deposit accounts and other financial services, leaving many operating solely in cash due to banks’ reluctance to engage with them.

Despite reclassification, cannabis remains illegal under federal law, leading to financial service limitations and unresolved conflicts between state and federal laws. For instance, Michigan legalized recreational marijuana, but employers still hold the right to refuse employment or discharge individuals for violating workplace drug policies, unaffected by federal reclassification.

“I guess reclassification to a three is a good start.  It’s better than a one” said Attorney Michael Komorn

The shift to Schedule III also raises regulatory concerns, potentially subjecting medical marijuana to increased FDA oversight, affecting licensing and distribution protocols. However, it doesn’t resolve issues like lack of bankruptcy protection or federal trademark registrations for state cannabis companies.

Cannabis businesses remain ineligible for federal bankruptcy protection due to their violation of the Controlled Substances Act, a hurdle unaffected by rescheduling. Likewise, federal trademark registrations are unavailable due to cannabis’ federal illegality, leaving companies vulnerable to trademark infringement and legal disputes.

While reclassification signifies growing recognition of cannabis companies, its effects are pending. The proposal must undergo review by the Office of Management and Budget, followed by publication in the Federal Register and a 60-day public comment period, possibly leading to further review by an Administrative Law Judge.

The reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III represents a significant step towards legitimizing cannabis businesses and altering the legal landscape. However, its full impact remains uncertain, pending further regulatory and legal developments.

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

Traffic Laws FAQs – Speed and Speed Limits

Traffic Laws FAQs – Speed and Speed Limits

May 9, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

Michigan Traffic FAQs – Speed/Speed Limits

  • Know the laws before you make the call.
  • Know the laws if you get pulled over.
  • Know who to call if you need legal defense if a violation turns into a DUI or worse.

Question: My Uncle has a country place that no one knows about. He says it used to be a farm before the motor law. Please provide me with the state law, act or policy that outlines the speed limits on unmarked rural roads. It is our understanding that the speed limit on an unmarked rural dirt road is 45 mph and 55 mph on an unmarked rural paved road.

Answer: MCL 257.628 of the Michigan Vehicle Code sets the statewide maximum speed limit on all unposted highways at 55 mph. Gravel roads are included in this. Gravel roads are currently excluded from the process of lowering posted speeds through a Traffic Control Order due to the changing conditions of these roads. The Basic Speed Law, MCL 257.627, adequately covers these changing conditions by requiring drivers to “drive at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the highway and of any other condition then existing.”

Question: Under what conditions may a police officer exceed the posted speed limit?

Answer: MCL 257.632 of the Michigan Vehicle Code states that an officer may exceed the speed limit “when traveling in emergencies or in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with or suspected of a violation…”

The Michigan Point System

Each traffic violation has a point value, which is set by law in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

Read about it here

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

RED ALERT

Distracted driving law now in effect:

Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a bill making it illegal to manually use a cell phone or other mobile electronic device while operating a vehicle on Michigan roads. Under the law, a driver cannot hold or support a phone or other device with any part of their hands, arms, or shoulders.

Even if a cell phone or other device is mounted on your dashboard or connected to your vehicle’s built-in system, you cannot use your hands to operate it beyond a single touch.

As a result, you cannot manually do any of the following on a cell phone or other electronic device while driving:

  • Make or answer a telephone or video call.
  • Send or read a text or email message.
  • Watch, record, or send a video.
  • Access, read, or post to social media.
  • Browse or use the Internet.
  • Enter information into GPS or a navigation system.

Hands-free Law Guide

Michigan State Police Legal Update

Disclaimer: This Frequently Asked Questions page is provided solely as a means of providing basic answers to questions about the Michigan Vehicle Code and is not designed or intended to provide a basis to contest a citation for a violation of the code. The positions stated are only those of the Michigan Department of State Police and are not binding on any other law enforcement agency or any Court. If our position is supported by case law then it will be enumerated within the answer provided. Source of Information – Traffic Laws FAQ