A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

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

Traffic Laws FAQs – Speed and Speed Limits

Traffic Laws FAQs – Speed and Speed Limits

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

Traffic Laws FAQs – Cellphones

Traffic Laws FAQs – Cellphones

Michigan Traffic FAQs – Cellphones

  • 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.

Cell Phones

Note: These are from the Traffic FAQs – For this subject follow the link down below for more important distracted driving information that’s bound to be used to get in your vehicle and get some charges thrown at you.

Question: I was told that you could dial *677 from your cell phone and it would connect you directly to the state police. Is this true?

Answer: This internet myth is based partially in reality, but does not apply to Michigan. In Michigan, as well as most states, the number to contact for an emergency is 911. Some states have a non-emergency number as well, with *677 being the variant that works in Ontario (677=OPP on the telephone keypad).

Question: Is it against the law to talk on a cell phone while driving in Michigan?

Answer: MCL 257.602b prohibits texting while driving at any age, while MCL 257.602c (Kelsey’s Law), is a different law aimed at discouraging verbal cell phone communication in graduated level drivers less than 18 years old.  Additionally, a driver who becomes distracted by using a cell phone and commits a traffic violation could be charged with careless driving, or with the specific violation, such as improper lane use, if they are drifting in and out of their lane.

Some municipalities have recently enacted local ordinances that prohibit using a cellular phone while driving within their respective jurisdiction.  Any municipality that establishes such an ordinance should post notification at their jurisdictional boundaries to alert motorists.

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

Traffic Laws FAQs – Equipment & Lighting Violations

Traffic Laws FAQs – Equipment & Lighting Violations

Michigan Traffic FAQs – Equipment and Lighting

  • Know the laws before you install extra equipment on your vehicle.
  • 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.

Equipment & Lighting

Question: Can I install neon lighting within the interior of my vehicle?

Answer: The problem with placing neon lighting inside a vehicle is that the vehicle code is very specific about the color of lamps allowed on a vehicle and what color can be seen from what direction.  For instance, the only color legally allowed to be displayed to the front of a vehicle is white or amber.  The only color allowed to be displayed to the rear is red or amber.  To the sides, front – amber or white, rear – amber or red.  No other colors are allowed and if any permitted color lamp is visible from any direction that is not allowed then it cannot be equipped that way.  If the lighting causes a visual impairment for the driver or is potentially distracting then such lighting is unlawful.  Finally, like exterior neon lighting, there is no provision within the Michigan Vehicle Code that allows the use of interior neon lighting.  Ultimately it will be a matter for the prosecutor and courts to decide.

Question: Are neon license plate frames legal?

Answer:  You may equip your vehicle with a license plate frame that contains neon lights however they must be covered and unlit while on the roadway or within the public right-of way. In addition, the frame cannot obstruct any of the registration information on the plate or tabs.

Question: Can I have neon underbody lighting on my vehicle?

Answer: MCL 257.698(4) prohibits equipping a vehicle with any lighting that is not expressly required or permitted by Chapter 6, unless both covered and unlit. Neon underbody lighting is neither expressly required nor permitted. If equipped, the lights must be unlit and covered while on a highway, which includes all public roads and the adjacent rights-of-way.

Question: I am considering equipping my vehicle with neon valve stem lights. Are they legal?

Answer:  If installed on a vehicle, the lights must be both covered and unlit while on a highway (any public road, including the right-of-way). This prohibition includes, but is not limited to: windshield wiper lights, tire valve stem lights, overhead/roll bar lights, underbody lights, and interior after-market lighting if visible from outside of the vehicle.

Question: Are smoked-out headlight covers legal?

Answer:  The Michigan Vehicle Code requires head lamps to emit a white light, with “high-beams” of intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 350 feet ahead, and low-beams of intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead. Since smoked headlamp covers change the color of light, and/or decrease their intensity below the requirements, they should not be used when headlamps are required to be on. However, smoked headlamp covers may be used when headlamps are not on, and not required.

Question: Is having smoked taillight/brake covers legal in Michigan? How about the smoked ones with slashes or vents in them showing a small part of the original red lens?

Answer: MCL 257.686   requires a tail lamp to emit a red light plainly visible for at least 500 feet to the rear of the vehicle. MCL 257.697  requires stop lamps to emit a red or amber light and be capable of being seen and distinguished from other lamps for a distance of 100 feet, including during normal daylight. If the cover you apply prohibits the lamp from meeting these requirements, then it is unlawful.

Question: I own a retired Police Cruiser and am looking into adding on some extra equipment (Spotlights, etc.). Before I do so I would like to know what is legal (both on and off the road) here in Michigan?
 
Answer:  If your intention is to equip this vehicle to represent an authorized emergency vehicle you cannot operate that vehicle on the roadway unless you are a peace officer. The use and/or possession of a flashing, rotating, or oscillating light of any color would be prohibited.

Should you decide to operate a vehicle on the roadway equipped as a police vehicle you would be subject to arrest for the criminal act of “False Representation as a Peace Officer”.

Question: Would it be legal to install a (police type) siren on my car for purposes of an auto alarm?

Answer: MCL 257.706 covers sirens on vehicles. Under the circumstances you describe the installation and use of a siren would be illegal.

Question:  What are the state laws on dash cameras?

Answer:  MCL 257.709(1)(c) prohibits an object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.  Assuming the driver of a vehicle is otherwise able to safely operate the vehicle, the added equipment (“dash camera”) does not interfere with or obstruct the driver’s clear vision of the highway or an intersecting highway, and to the extent the equipment might prevent the clear view of the highway behind the vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with 2 rearview mirrors (1 on each side, adjusted so that the operator has a clear view of the highway behind the vehicle), I am unaware of a specific provision of the MVC that could be cited as a violation.

Question: I would just like to know if there is any sound level or DB law here in Michigan for automotive exhausts, specifically aftermarket?

Answer: MCL 257.707c provides the decibel levels at which the noise is considered excessive, while MCL 257.707e addresses the procedure for conducting a test. It is important to note that while these objective levels are provided, a vehicle below these levels may still be in violation. MCL 257.707b requires an exhaust system to be maintained in good working order to prevent excessive or unusual noise, which can be subjective. MCL 257.707 requires that an exhaust system be equipped with a muffler, and a resonator and tailpipe, if originally equipped. This precludes the modification of an exhaust system beyond the replacement of worn-out parts.

Question: I am wondering what vehicle equipment requirements must be followed for a four-wheeled motorcycle. Or what the law is on making a 4-wheeler, able to use on public roads.

Answer: MCL 257.31 defines a motorcycle as “every motor vehicle having a saddle or seat for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 3 wheels in contact with the ground but excluding a tractor.” Therefore, a four-wheel vehicle is not a motorcycle under Michigan law regardless of the vehicle configuration. The type of vehicle that you are describing would probably fall in the category of “ORV,” defined in MCL 324.81101.

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: Are tire chains legal in Michigan?

Answer: MCL 257.710 of the Michigan Vehicle Code covers the use of tire chains, and states that a person may “use a tire chain of reasonable proportion upon a vehicle when required for safety because of snow, ice, or other condition tending to cause a vehicle to skid.” If used, the chain must not come in contact with the surface of the roadway.

Question: Are studded tires legal in Michigan?

Answer: In practical terms, no.   

MCL 257.710 allows for the use of studded tires if they meet the specifications listed in subparts (c), (d), and (e).  The part that specifically deals with studded tires is subpart (d) which states; “The department of state highways and transportation shall promulgate rules establishing acceptable standards to permit the use of a tire with studs or other traction devices to be used on a street or highway after April 1, 1975. The rules shall make separate provision for the extreme winter snow and ice conditions of the Upper Peninsula and the Northern Lower Peninsula. The rules shall include a restriction on the amount and dimension of protrusions that may be allowed on a tire, the type of material that may be used in a stud, traction device, or tire, and the amount of road wear that a tire with studs or other traction devices may cause on a street or highway.”

Administrative Rules 247.171 through 247.175 govern studded tires and set the criteria for their use.

These rules state two conditions that must be met for the use of studded tires. Note: to date no manufacturer of tire studs has supplied information to the Michigan Department of Transportation that their product meets or exceeds the required pavement wear specifications.

First, they can only be used between November 15 and April 1 of the succeeding year except in the Upper Peninsula and the Northern Lower Peninsula, where, because of extreme winter snow and ice conditions, they may be used between October 1 and May 1 of the succeeding year.  Northern Lower Peninsula is defined as those counties whose southern boundaries are as far or farther north than the southern boundary of Missaukee County. 

Second, studs or other traction devices shall not be used unless they wear either concrete or asphalt pavements, typical of those in this state, at a rate not to exceed 25% of the reference standard studded tire.

Question: Are radar jammers illegal in Michigan?

Answer: RADAR jammers, both active and passive, are illegal under federal law in all 50 states (see excerpt from FCC news release).

FCC FINDS MARKETING OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN RADAR’S SPIRIT II RADAR JAMMER TO BE IN VIOLATION OF ITS RULES. Ruled that a radar jamming device manufactured by Rocky Mountain Radar that interferes with police radar signals is illegal; found that interference from these devices creates a threat to public safety. Report No: CI 97-14. by MO&O. Action by: Commission. Adopted: December 4, 1997. (FCC No. 97-404) News Media Contact: David Fiske 202-418-0500. CIB Contact: Ana J. Curtis at 202-418-1160.

Question: Is the use of a radar detector in a private vehicle legal in the State of Michigan?

Answer: Radar detectors are legal for use in passenger vehicles in the state of Michigan.

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

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

Traffic Laws FAQs – Tinted Windows

Traffic Laws FAQs – Tinted Windows

Michigan Traffic FAQs – Tinted Windows

Tinted Windows

Question: Can I have tinted windows on my vehicle?

Answer: The law that covers window applications is MCL 257.709. The use of tinting is limited to the rear side windows, the rear window if the vehicle has outside mirrors on both sides, and the top 4 inches of the front side windows. There is a limited exception for medical necessity with a doctor’s prescription, which allows for tinting to be applied to the front side windows as well. Michigan does not have a specification for the darkness of the window application, but does prohibit applications with a solar reflectivity greater than 35%.

Question: If I have a signed letter by my doctor indicating a medical necessity for tinted windows can another person drive my vehicle if the windows are tinted?

Answer: Yes, provided the special window treatment or application has been determined by a physician or optometrist to be necessary for the protection of a person who is light sensitive or photosensitive, and the owner or operator of a motor vehicle is in possession of a letter signed by a physician or optometrist indicating that the special window treatment or application is a medical necessity as required by MCL 257.709(3)(e). However, the special window treatment or application shall not interfere with or obstruct the driver’s clear vision of the highway or an intersecting highway.

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

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

Redefining Impairment: Beyond THC Levels in Roadside Testing

Redefining Impairment: Beyond THC Levels in Roadside Testing

Redefining Impairment: Beyond THC Levels in Roadside Testing

In recent developments that promise to reshape our understanding of cannabis use and road safety, a federal government report has cast significant doubt on the efficacy of using THC levels as a benchmark for driver impairment. This revelation comes at a crucial juncture in the evolving discourse around cannabis, challenging long-held assumptions and urging a reevaluation of legal and scientific standards.

The Federal Perspective on THC and Impairment

The crux of the debate centers on the assertion by a researcher from the Justice Department, which signals a pivotal shift in federal stance. The department acknowledges the discrepancies between THC levels in the bloodstream and the actual impairment of an individual, especially among regular cannabis users.

This admission underlines a growing consensus that the current metrics for evaluating cannabis impairment might not only be flawed but fundamentally misaligned with the realities of consumption and its effects on the human body.

Frances Scott, a DOJ physical scientist, highlighted in a recent podcast that research funded by the federal government conclusively shows that THC concentration is not well-correlated with impairment for driving.

This insight is supported by studies indicating that chronic and infrequent marijuana users metabolize THC differently, complicating the establishment of a universal impairment threshold based on THC concentration alone.

The Scientific Challenge of THC Impairment Testing

The scientific community has long grappled with the complexities of THC impairment testing. Unlike alcohol, where a .08 blood alcohol content level can serve as a clear marker for impairment, THC’s effects are not as straightforwardly quantifiable.

This complexity is reflected in studies such as those by Hound Labs (2022) and research by Sewell (2019), which explore alternative testing methods and question the correlation between THC blood levels and crash risk, respectively.

This divergence from a simple, numerical standard for impairment necessitates a broader exploration of impairment testing methods.

The Department of Justice, while continuing to research a marijuana breathalyzer, is also exploring alternatives like saliva swabs and assessments of eye functioning, aiming to devise a more accurate measure of impairment.

The Path Forward: Rethinking Impairment Measurement

The acknowledgment of the inadequacy of THC levels as an impairment standard necessitates a reevaluation of how impairment is measured, particularly in the context of driving.

The development of technology like the DRUID app, which assesses impairment through a variety of cognitive and motor tasks, represents a step towards creating more objective benchmarks for marijuana impairment.

However, widespread implementation and acceptance of such technologies in law enforcement practices remain in the nascent stages.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Legal and Social Implications

The evolving understanding of THC and impairment has profound legal and social implications. As the federal government and researchers work towards establishing a more nuanced approach to evaluating impairment, there’s a pressing need for legal frameworks that reflect these complexities.

The push for an objective standard for marijuana impairment, as seen in recent legislative efforts, underscores the urgency of this issue.

Furthermore, this shift towards a more evidence-based approach to impairment testing holds the promise of creating a more just and equitable legal system.

By moving away from a one-size-fits-all standard based on THC levels, there’s potential to mitigate the risk of unjustly penalizing individuals, particularly those who use cannabis for medical purposes, based on an arbitrary metric.

Federal Government’s Admission

The federal government’s admission that THC levels do not reliably indicate impairment marks a significant step forward in our understanding of cannabis and its effects on driving safety.

This acknowledgment not only challenges existing paradigms but also opens the door to a more informed and nuanced approach to road safety and law enforcement.

As research continues and new technologies emerge, there’s hope for the development of impairment testing methods that accurately reflect an individual’s ability to drive safely, paving the way for fairer legal standards and safer roads for everyone.

Related Articles

Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

JUSTICE.GOVFor Immediate Release Office of Public AffairsA federal jury convicted a Michigan doctor today for causing the submission of over $6.3 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare for medically unnecessary orthotic braces ordered through a telemarketing...

School district says marijuana-related incidents on the rise

School district says marijuana-related incidents on the rise

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...

Whitmer Signs Bills for Health Services and Criminal Justice

Whitmer Signs Bills for Health Services and Criminal Justice

LANSING, Mich. – Today, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that aims to establish a licensure framework for dietitian nutritionists. The governor also signed legislation that delivers ongoing funding for trial courts across the state, reducing costs for...

What is corruption? U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments

What is corruption? U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments

What is corruption? U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could impact bribery cases in IllinoisThe high court is reviewing a law that’s popular among federal prosecutors — including those pursuing former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan.A cash-strapped...

More Posts