If you feel like your case has been or could be affected by the inaccuracy of the MSP’s marijuana testing results contact our office immediately! Call 800-656-3557
Michigan State Police locked up more than 3,000 people because of faulty marijuana tests, according to internal memo The drug tests failed to distinguish between THC and CBD
Michigan State Police relied on faulty testing to produce criminal charges in about 3,250 cases since March 2019 in which a driver was allegedly under the influence of marijuana and no other drugs or alcohol.
In a letter to prosecutors sent on Wednesday, Jeffrey Nye, director of MSP’s Forensic Science Division, acknowledged that the tests could not have conclusively proven the driver was intoxicated by cannabis.
The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. As many as 3,250 people may have been wrongfully arrested and convicted based on faulty testing.
Komorn Law has been the leading law firm bringing awareness to the public about alleged lab scandals they come across or uncover through client representation. If you need your case reviewed or you have a current charge regarding anything to do with marijuana there is no better versed or more knowledgeable than Attorney Michael Komorn.
WXYZ ABC Report 8/31/22
(WXYZ) — The Michigan State Police say more than three thousand cases involving alleged marijuana impairment could have been false positives. Last week, the MSP Forensic Science Division announced they were halting all testing of marijuana drug samples due to the possibility that the tests were positive for CBD, rather than just THC. The state police warned prosecutors not to rely on the THC toxicology results until they could learn more about the alleged problems in the testing.
THC is the psychoactive compound in marijuana. CBD is a chemical found in marijuana that does not produce a high, and CBD has not been considered a controlled substance in Michigan since March 28, 2019.
In a letter sent to prosecutors across the state today, MSP Forensic Science Division Director Jeffrey Nye said approximately 3,250 THC cases since March 28, 2019 could be impacted. The cases identified have an “alleged violation [that] is based on the finding of THC alone and there is insufficient evidence of impairment, intoxication or recent use of marihuana to otherwise support the charged offense.”
According to Nye’s letter, the identified 3,250 cases “did not have other drugs within the scope of analysis and/or alcohol detected above the 0.08% legal threshold.
Official Statement: State Police Halts THC Toxicology Testing and Takes Steps to Ensure Transparency, Accuracy After Technical Issue with CBD
August 31, 2022
Statement by Col. Joe Gasper, Director
The Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division (MSP/FSD) is committed to providing the highest standard of forensic services to the criminal justice community. The MSP/FSD is accredited in toxicology and analyzes approximately 20,000 samples annually for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs pursuant to a forensic examination request. The men and women who work in the MSP/FSD strive to provide laboratory testing services that are timely, transparent, and scientifically accurate.
The MSP/FSD has halted all THC toxicology testing due to a technical issue in which samples containing Cannabidiol, commonly known as CBD, may be converted to Tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as THC, during the testing process, leading to potentially inaccurate test results.
CBD, which is structurally similar to THC, was illegal in Michigan until March 28, 2019. Since that date, however, CBD, which is reported to have no psychoactive properties, has been legal under Michigan law.
When the issue first came to our attention on August 19, 2022, the MSP/FSD immediately launched a significant evaluation of our testing process. The evaluation found the laboratory confirmatory method in use may cause 1) THC to be identified when the sample contains THC, 2) THC to be identified when the sample contains a combination of THC and CBD, or 3) THC to be identified when the sample contains CBD alone.
Upon this discovery, the MSP/FSD immediately halted the processing of samples using the current THC confirmation test. Notification was also made to the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan on August 25, 2022, for dissemination to prosecutors statewide to prevent these reports from being used in any current or pending court cases.
After further review, we now believe this discrepancy may impact cases that occurred on or after March 28, 2019, where the alleged violation is based on the finding of THC alone and there is insufficient evidence of impairment, intoxication, or recent use of marijuana to otherwise support the charged offense.
Laboratory data indicates there are approximately 3,250 laboratory reports that may be impacted. These are reports in which there was a THC-confirmed result without other drugs present or alcohol detected above the 0.08% blood alcohol content legal threshold. These individual cases are being identified and will be shared with the prosecuting attorney of record for further investigation as to any potential impact to the individual involved.
In addition to temporarily halting testing of THC samples and disclosing the issue to prosecutors, the MSP/FSD has taken the following action steps:
Reported the issue to our accrediting body, ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB), and requested they conduct an independent review.
Temporarily halted the disposal of blood samples to preserve this evidence should re-analysis be required.
Started validating a new cannabinoid confirmatory method that will be able to distinguish CBD from THC. This method will be validated before being put into use to ensure similar issues with drug interference will not happen in the future.
Started the process to establish a contract with a private, accredited laboratory for processing THC samples in the interim before the new method is validated.
The MSP/FSD remains committed to providing the highest standard of forensic services to the criminal justice community. We have demonstrated this commitment through accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 International Standards and voluntarily incorporating forensic standards from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) into our laboratory management system, among other efforts. The MSP/FSD continues to strive to be timely, transparent and ethical in our response to this emerging technical issue.
Letter To “Criminal Justice” Partners
Michigan-State-Police-Letter Release – Page 2
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law PLLC and turn your defense into an offense. Call Now 248-357-2550
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
When facing criminal charges you have the right to have a trial by jury. The justice system will offer you the right to a jury trial. It’s just a matter if you can afford that right. A jury trial with an attorney that is not a public defender can be costly. If you give up that right and take a plea deal you will not have a choice or chance to defend your rights and will be at the mercy of the deal you agreed to and the court.
“Hiring the right lawyer is the most important part of your case”
Kim W
Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving terrorism, but much more often figures in cases that involve (for example) jury selection or the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses in need of protection from retaliation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
§ 14 Jury trials.
Sec. 14.
The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one of the parties in the manner prescribed by law. In all civil cases tried by 12 jurors a verdict shall be received when 10 jurors agree.
History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 14, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 13.
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law and turn your defense into an offense. Call Now 248-357-2550
Amdt7.2.2 Identifying Civil Cases Requiring a Jury Trial
Seventh Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The Seventh Amendment grants a right to a jury trial in Suits at common law, which the Supreme Court has long interpreted as limited to rights and remedies peculiarly legal in their nature, and such as it was proper to assert in courts of law and by the appropriate modes and proceedings of courts of law.1 The drafters of the Seventh Amendment used the term common law to clarify that the Amendment does not provide a right to a jury in civil suits involving the types of equitable rights and remedies that courts enforced at the time of the Amendment’s framing.2
Two unanimous decisions, in which the Supreme Court held that civil juries were required, illustrate the Court’s treatment of this distinction. In the first suit, a landlord sought to recover, based on District of Columbia statutes, possession of real property from a tenant allegedly behind on rent. The Court reasoned that whether a close equivalent to [the statute in question] existed in England in 1791 [was] irrelevant for Seventh Amendment purposes.3 Instead, the Court stated that its Seventh Amendment precedents require[d] trial by jury in actions unheard of at common law, provided that the action involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than in an action at equity or admiralty.4 The statutory cause of action, the Court found, had several analogs in the common law, all of which involved a right to trial by jury.5
In a second case, the plaintiff sought damages for alleged racial discrimination in the rental of housing in violation of federal law, arguing that the Seventh Amendment was inapplicable to new causes of action Congress created. The Court disagreed: The Seventh Amendment does apply to actions enforcing statutory rights, and requires a jury trial upon demand, if the statute creates legal rights and remedies, enforceable in an action for damages in the ordinary courts of law.6
In contrast, the Court has upheld the lack of a jury provision in certain actions on the ground that the suit in question was not a suit at common law within the meaning of the Amendment, or that the issues raised were not particularly legal in nature.7 When there is no direct historical antecedent dating to the Amendment’s adoption, the court may also consider whether existing precedent and the sound administration of justice favor resolution by judges or juries.8
The Seventh Amendment does not apply to cases in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in which the court conducts a trial without a jury.9 Nor does it reach statutory proceedings unknown to the common law, such as an application to a court of equity to enforce an administrative body’s order.10 For example, Congress, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, authorized an administrative agency to make findings of a workplace safety violation and to assess civil penalties related to such a violation. Under the statute, an employer that has been assessed a penalty may obtain judicial review of the administrative proceeding in a federal court of appeal.11 The Supreme Court, in Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, unanimously rejected the argument that the law violated the Seventh Amendment because it authorized penalties to be collected from an employer without a jury trial:
At least in cases in which public rights are being litigated-e.g., cases in which the government sues in its sovereign capacity to enforce public rights created by statutes within the power of Congress to enact-the Seventh Amendment does not prohibit Congress from assigning the factfinding function and initial adjudication to an administrative forum with which the jury would be incompatible.12
On the other hand, if Congress assigns such cases to Article III courts, a jury may be required.
In Tull v. United States,13 the Court ruled that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury to determine whether an entity is liable for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a civil action in a federal district court to enforce the Act. In the Court’s view, the penal nature of the Clean Water Act’s civil penalty remedy distinguishes it from restitution-based remedies available in equity courts.14
Consequently, it is a type of remedy that only courts of law could impose.15 However, a jury trial is not required to assess the amount of the penalty. Because the Court viewed assessment of the amount of penalty as involving neither the substance nor a fundamental element of a common-law right to trial by jury, it held permissible the Act’s assignment of that task to the trial judge.
Later, the Court relied on a broadened concept of public rights to define the limits of congressional power to assign causes of action to tribunals in which jury trials are unavailable.
As a general matter, public rights involve ‘the relationship between the government and persons subject to its authority,’ whereas private rights relate to ‘the liability of one individual to another.’16 In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,17 the Court held that Congress lacks the power to strip parties contesting matters of private right of their constitutional right to a trial by jury.
The Seventh Amendment test, the Court indicated, is the same as the Article III test for whether Congress may assign adjudication of a claim to a non-Article III tribunal.18 Although finding room for some debate, the Court determined that a bankruptcy trustee’s right to recover for a fraudulent conveyance is more accurately characterized as a private rather than a public right, at least when the defendant had not submitted a claim against the bankruptcy estate.19
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
One thing is clear: Michigan marijuana regulators intend to increase enforcement to eradicate black-market marijuana making its way to the licensed commercial market and the new Michigan marijuana director hints at plans to go after black market marijuana
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s placement of Brian Hanna, a former Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) inspector and Michigan state police analyst, as the agency’s “acting” director, hints at a new, stricter approach by the agency.
Hanna confirmed that during a meeting with members of the media at a roundtable in Lansing on Tuesday, Oct. 25, although he was at times vague.
“I can’t talk about open investigations,” Hanna said when asked about the size of the illicit market that’s infiltrating the licensed industry and for examples. “I would say, stay tuned.”
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
The validity of results issued by marijuana safety labs in Michigan and across the nation have been called into question. There are allegations of labs intentionally issuing higher THC potency test results — which makes the marijuana more valuable to retailers — and passing product that should have failed for reasons, such as, over-limit amounts of yeast and mold or the presence of potentially dangerous pathogens. like aspergillus.
Marijuana producers are the labs’ customers, so issuing low THC results or failing product may result in the loss of revenue for the lab.
The CRA is currently tied up in litigation with one of the state’s largest lab operators, Viridis Laboratories, which is founded by former state police and operates locations in Bay City and Lansing.
The CRA on Nov. 17, 2021, issued a recall on any product tested by Viridis. A state Court of Claims judge subsequently overturned a large portion of the recall that Viridis CEO Greg Michaud called “baseless, meritless and totally detached from science, facts and data.”
Public complaints issued against Viridis by the CRA called into question the validity of Viridis THC tests results and accused the lab of using testing techniques that have never been approved by the CRA.
When asked how the lab is allowed to use unapproved tests, Hanna said: “It’s a good question. We have pending litigation, so we can’t comment on pending litigation that’s in process right now. We’re aware of the concerns.”
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law PLLC and turn your defense into an offense. Call Now 248-357-2550
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
Police are allowed to lie to you. One might believe that if you ask an undercover cop if they are a police officer they have to tell you. That’s not true. Police can and will lie to you.
It’s legal for cops to lie
The Police may legally lie, bluff, mislead and intimidate you.
The police may not “strong arm” you into a confession.
depriving the defendant of food, water, or use of the bathroom
threats (threats to carry out the law like threatening to arrest a codefendant are usually acceptable)
promises of “leniency” – even though they do.
kicking, striking, or otherwise getting physical with a suspect.
interrogating the suspect at gunpoint.
When encountering any law enforcement agency remember… they are not your friend
Famous one liners
The famous line… Your partner is spilling the beans in the next room.
Another famous line… This is just between you and me.
Another one… Help me help you. Come clean and we will go easy on you.
Here’s a good one… Talk to me and I’ll talk to the prosecutor about going easy on you.
“There is video evidence”
So many more
The Police Encounter will escalate negatively if and when a person:
Makes an admission of guilt
Consents to a search.
Offer information that is unresponsive to the questions asked.
Refusing to answer questions is not an admission of guilt
Asserting your right to remain silent is not an admission of guilt
Demanding to have your lawyer present during any questioning is not an admission of guilt
Refusing a search is not an admission of guilt.
Officers must have a reasons to detain you, if they do not, you are free to leave.
If you are free to leave, and not being detained,
What you say can and will be used against you.
Miranda Rights are required to be read only if you are in “police custody” and you are being interrogated.
Miranda warnings are not required to be read to you when you are arrested. If you are in police custody and you are not Mirandized, and you begin to talk or discuss something, and you have not been Mirandized, the statements can and will be used against you.
If you are in custody… the police have no obligation to Mirandize you.
Miranda Warnings are not required when the police are merely investigating, and the requirement of Miranda only applies after the police have arrested you, seized your person and specifically have begun to interrogate you, and or illicit information about the investigation or the alleged crime that has resulted in your arrest or custody.
One of the Operative facts for 4th Amendment issues is the Seizure, arrest or detention of the person.
Law Enforcement Encounter? Remain silent and request your lawyer. Komorn Law 248-357-2550
Be aware of Phrasing:
“Have you had anything to drink tonight?” Best response is: NO
Where are you coming from? It is best to have this answer pre-prepared so as to not raise suspicion. You can also answer the Officer’s questions by stating “Respectfully officer, I don’t have to answer that.”
“Not answering is suspicious, why are you not answering my question, clearly you are doing something wrong?” Best Answer: “Officer, respectfully I am aware of my rights, and constitutional protections, and I know I have no legal obligation to answer your questions.
“Not answering is resisting me in this investigation” Best Answer: “I’m not resisting, respectfully, I don’t have to answer anything.”
“If you have nothing to hide, you don’t mind if I look around.” Best response: “I’m sorry Officer, but I don’t consent to searches.”
“If you refuse a search, I’ll have to call a K-9 unit.” Best response: “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”Officers cannot detain you past the purpose of the traffic stop and detaining you beyond this purpose is constitutionally illegal. Specifically officers cannot detain you beyond the traffic stop for the purpose of calling for a k-9 unit or drug sniffing dog.
Remember
Refusing to answer questions is not an admission of guilt
Asserting your right to remain silent is not an admission of guilt
Demanding to have your lawyer present during any questioning is not an admission of guilt
Refusing a search is not an admission of guilt.
Supreme Court Case
Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics. On its own, police deception in interrogations did not automatically constitute misconduct.
Hell no. You shouldn’t be talking to the police in the first place but if you’re talking, you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing. As far as whether you can lie to the police, you can always be charged with obstruction. That’s why you’re always best to just not say anything at all.
Police have some code of ethics like a lawyer or a judge. But it doesn’t say that they can’t trick you into confessing. They are trained to do that, and they will do it.
Michigan law 750.479c – A person informed of criminal investigation by peace officer; prohibited conduct; violation; penalty; exception; definitions.
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
Most likely they assume you’re guilty when you choose your right to remain silent. So should we do the same?
Michigan state police remain silent on marijuana testing debacle while critics call for change.
March 28, 2019, is the date Michigan state police say CBD became legal in Michigan.
While the mystery behind what led Michigan state police forensic scientists to produce thousands of faulty marijuana blood test results lingers, multiple criminal defense attorneys who spoke with MLive are calling for a new way of doing things.
They believe the science that produces data at the center of criminal prosecution should be unbiased and independent of law enforcement influence. They want police out of the the forensic testing business and they’re using the latest THC blood testing debacle to justify their stance.
Komorn Law has been the leading law firm bringing awareness to the public about alleged lab scandals they come across or uncover through client representation. If you need your case reviewed or you have a current charge regarding anything to do with marijuana there is no better versed or more knowledgeable than Attorney Michal Komorn.
Michael Komorn, a Farmington Hills-based attorney who also specializes in marijuana law and criminal defense, said the issue could call into questions thousands of convictions across the state, depending on how long the problem has continued.
He’s calling for a full independent investigation into the state police crime lab and the creation of a lab that operates independently from the police force.
Komorn said blood test findings for marijuana are frequently used as a basis to prosecute driving offenses, especially when alcohol isn’t detected, including crashes that result in serious injury or death.
“I think that it’s time to get a new lab,” Komorn said. “Because the procedures and protocols that are being used here, if they’re wrong and unscientific and they’ve been convicting people wrongly because their tests are wrong, I think a criminal investigation should be opened. I think people should be held accountable.”
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
