Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. This decision overturns a previous precedent where the odor of marijuana was considered enough justification for a search.

The Court reasoned that because the use and possession of marijuana is now legal for adults in Michigan under certain circumstances (following the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act – MRTMA), the smell of marijuana no longer automatically indicates illegal activity. The odor could just as likely be associated with the legal possession or recent legal use of marijuana.

Therefore, the Court concluded that while the smell of marijuana can still be a factor in determining probable cause, it must be accompanied by other specific and articulable facts indicating illegal activity to justify a search.

This ruling stems from a case where a firearm was found in a vehicle after a search was conducted based solely on the smell of marijuana. The Supreme Court sided with the lower courts in suppressing the evidence, stating that the initial search was unlawful because the smell of marijuana alone did not provide probable cause in light of the state’s legalization of cannabis.

This decision is a significant shift in Michigan law and will likely impact how law enforcement conducts vehicle searches. It emphasizes the need for additional evidence beyond the smell of marijuana to establish probable cause for a search.

They can’t say because we smell weed we are going to search your car. Because the whole town may reek.  Alas… there are a hundred other words to choose from to make the arrest.

They have to say something else now. If you’re sitting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle all a police officer has to say is “I believe you’re impaired”. And operating a motor vehicle impaired is a crime.

So don’t think this is a win. Maybe a little one.

Read the ruling linked below.

Michigan Supreme Court Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

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

More Articles

More

SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

Drone Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: A New Case In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance conducted without a warrant or pursuant to a recognized...

read more
Michigan Forfeiture

Michigan Forfeiture

Property that can be forfeited: Under Michigan law, the following property can be forfeited: Cash Vehicles Real estate Boats Aircraft Other personal property Crimes that can lead to forfeiture: Property can be forfeited if it is used or derived from a crime, or if it...

read more

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement agencies in Michigan to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity, even if the owner hasn’t been charged with a crime. This practice has been controversial, leading to significant reforms in recent years.

Key Points:

News Article links

  • Definition: Civil asset forfeiture permits authorities to confiscate assets believed to be involved in or resulting from criminal conduct without necessarily charging the owner.Mackinac Center
  • Reforms: Michigan has implemented several reforms to address concerns about civil asset forfeiture:Mackinac Center
  • 2015: Increased the standard of evidence required for forfeiture from “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”Mackinac Center
  • 2016: Eliminated the requirement for property owners to post a bond before challenging a seizure.Mackinac Center
  • 2019: Mandated a criminal conviction or plea agreement before forfeiting property valued under $50,000 in drug-related cases.AP News
  • 2022: Amended laws to allow forfeiture of assets over $20,000 at airports without a criminal conviction.Mackinac Center
  • Recent Developments: In 2023, a federal court ruled that Wayne County’s vehicle seizure program violated constitutional due process rights, highlighting ongoing concerns about forfeiture practices.Mackinac Center
  • Statistics: In 2022, Michigan law enforcement agencies seized over $10.2 million in cash and conducted nearly 4,000 forfeitures. Notably, more than 150 individuals lost property without being charged, and another 100 without a conviction.Mackinac Center
  • Criticism: Critics argue that civil asset forfeiture can lead to abuses, disproportionately affecting innocent individuals and marginalized communities. 
  • Advocacy for Change: Organizations like the Mackinac Center for Public Policy advocate for ending civil asset forfeiture, suggesting that property should only be forfeited following a criminal conviction to better protect citizens’ rights.Mackinac Center

Understanding Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws is crucial, as they directly impact property rights and law enforcement practices. While reforms have been made, ongoing debates suggest that further changes may be necessary to ensure fairness and protect citizens’ rights

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

More Articles

More

SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

Drone Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: A New Case In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance conducted without a warrant or pursuant to a recognized...

read more
Michigan Forfeiture

Michigan Forfeiture

Property that can be forfeited: Under Michigan law, the following property can be forfeited: Cash Vehicles Real estate Boats Aircraft Other personal property Crimes that can lead to forfeiture: Property can be forfeited if it is used or derived from a crime, or if it...

read more
What Happens When the Government Takes Your Property?

What Happens When the Government Takes Your Property?

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?

Forfeiture laws in Michigan allow the government to seize property – like cash, cars, or even houses – if they believe it was involved in a crime.  This can happen even if the owner hasn’t been convicted of a crime. It’s a complex area of law with some important things to understand. 

What is Forfeiture?

Forfeiture is a legal process where the government takes ownership of private property because it’s believed to be connected to illegal activity. There are two main types:  

Criminal Forfeiture: This happens after someone has been convicted of a crime. The property seized is usually related to that specific crime. 

Civil Forfeiture: This can occur without a criminal conviction. The government argues that the property itself was involved in a crime, regardless of whether the owner is found guilty.  

Important Points to Know:

What Property Can Be Forfeited?

Under Michigan law (specifically related to drug crimes, (MCL 333.7521), a wide range of property can be seized, including:

  • Money, negotiable instruments, and securities.
  • Real estate (MCL 600.3815)
  • Vehicles, boats, and aircraft (S.B. 2 & H.B 4001-4002)
  • Equipment and materials used in illegal activities (like drug manufacturing).
  • Anything of value exchanged for illegal substances.

How Does it Work?

Seizure: Law enforcement can seize property if they have probable cause to believe it’s connected to a crime. In some cases, they need a warrant, but not always (MCL 333.7522). 

Notice: If your property is seized, the government is supposed to notify you (MCL 600.4707 & 333.7523). If they can’t find you, they may publish a notice online or in a newspaper.  

Claim: If you want your property back, you usually have a limited time (e.g., 20-28 days after notice) to file a claim with the government, stating your interest in the property and why it shouldn’t be forfeited. This claim often needs to be written, signed, and verified (notarized).  

Civil Action: If you file a claim, the government (usually the Attorney General or local prosecutor) may then file a civil lawsuit in court to try and get a forfeiture order.

Burden of Proof: In a forfeiture hearing, the government generally has to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” (meaning it’s more likely than not) that the property was connected to a crime (MCL 600.4707). However, for property valued over $50,000 in drug cases, the burden might shift to the owner to prove they didn’t know about the illegal activity (according to some interpretations of MCL 333.7523a).  

Conviction Requirement (Limited): A significant reform in 2019 (Senate Bill 2 and House Bills 4001 & 4002) requires a criminal conviction or plea agreement for forfeitures of property valued under $50,000 in drug-related cases, unless the owner abandons the property (news from May 2019).  

Rights of Property Owners

You have the right to:

  • Be notified about the forfeiture proceedings.
  • File a claim to contest the forfeiture.
  • Have a hearing in court (if you file a claim).
  • Present evidence to show your property wasn’t involved in a crime or that you were an innocent owner.

What Happens to Forfeited Property?

Generally, the law enforcement agency that seized the property can keep it for their use or sell it.

The proceeds from the sale are often used for law enforcement purposes (MCL 333.7524).

Kelsey’s Law Connection: It’s important not to confuse forfeiture laws with traffic laws like Kelsey’s Law (related to teen drivers and cell phone use). They are completely different areas of law.

Links to Laws:

  • MCL 333.7521 (Controlled Substances – Forfeiture): You can find these sections within the Michigan Public Health Code on the Michigan Legislature website.
  • MCL 600.4701 (Revised Judicature Act – Forfeiture): This act also contains provisions related to forfeiture.

Recent News:

  • Michigan Supreme Court Ruling (July 2024): The Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Detroit’s practice of seizing cars in drug-related cases unless there’s evidence the car was used to transport drugs for trafficking purposes. This decision is seen as a curb on aggressive forfeiture practices.  
  • Report on Forfeiture (October 2023): A report highlighted that even with recent reforms, Michigan still sees cases where people lose property without being charged with a crime, and most forfeiture cases happen without much court oversight (Mackinac Center, October 2023). 
  • Limitations on Forfeiture Without Conviction (2019): As mentioned earlier, laws were passed in 2019 requiring a conviction in many drug-related forfeiture cases involving property under $50,000 (Michigan.gov press release, May 2019).

It’s crucial to understand that forfeiture laws can have a significant impact on individuals, even those who haven’t been found guilty of a crime. If your property has been seized, it’s highly recommended to seek legal advice immediately to understand your rights and options.

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

More Articles

More

SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

Drone Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: A New Case In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance conducted without a warrant or pursuant to a recognized...

read more
Michigan Forfeiture

Michigan Forfeiture

Property that can be forfeited: Under Michigan law, the following property can be forfeited: Cash Vehicles Real estate Boats Aircraft Other personal property Crimes that can lead to forfeiture: Property can be forfeited if it is used or derived from a crime, or if it...

read more
Appeals Court – Detroit’s Asset Forfeiture Violates Due Process

Appeals Court – Detroit’s Asset Forfeiture Violates Due Process

A federal circuit judge writes that Detroit’s vehicle seizure scheme

“is simply a money-making venture—one most often used to extort money from those who can least afford it.”

A panel of federal appellate judges ruled that Detroit’s practice of seizing people’s cars for months before allowing them to contest the seizure violates vehicle owners’ 14th Amendment right to due process.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, agreeing with a lower U.S. district court, found that Michigan’s Wayne County, which includes Detroit,

“violated that Constitution when it seized plaintiffs’ personal vehicles—which were vital to their transportation and livelihoods—with no timely process to contest the seizure.”

The 6th Circuit’s ruling mandates that Wayne County must conduct a court hearing for car owners post-seizure within a two-week timeframe. 

Wayne County will probably spend two weeks looking for a loophole.

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 Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

What Are Your Rights Before And After Arrest?

What Are Your Rights Before And After Arrest?

What are your rights before and after arrest?Generally, police require a search warrant to lawfully enter any private premises or to search electronic devices such as your phone or computer. If the police do not possess a search warrant, you are under no obligation to...

read more
What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a...

read more

Other Articles

Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. This decision overturns a previous precedent where the odor of marijuana was considered enough...

read more
Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement agencies in Michigan to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity, even if the owner hasn't...

read more
What Happens When the Government Takes Your Property?

What Happens When the Government Takes Your Property?

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?Forfeiture laws in Michigan allow the government to seize property – like cash, cars, or even houses – if they believe it was involved in a crime.  This can happen even if the owner...

read more

Defending Against Criminal Sex Charges

Defense against false accusations of Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in MichiganDefending against a false accusation of Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Michigan is a serious matter and requires a well-prepared legal strategy. Here are several steps you should take to...

read more
Forfeiture without Criminal Charges

Forfeiture without Criminal Charges

Can the police seize your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?Read the summary below and watch Attorney Michael Komorn in the Court of Appeals.Summary of "Ruben Delgado v. Michigan State Police": This case was filed in the Jackson County Circuit...

read more
Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) – Michigan

Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) – Michigan

Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Michigan: Definitions, Penalties, and Legal References.Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) is a set of laws in Michigan that define and penalize various forms of sexual offenses. These laws are categorized into four degrees, with each degree...

read more
23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and your data is?

23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and your data is?

As of Friday 3/28/25, the firm’s shares were worth less than a dollar.If you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248) 357-2550Genetic testing service...

read more
SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

SEARCH & SEIZURE: Government Use of Drones

Drone Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: A New Case

In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance conducted without a warrant or pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The case, Long Lake Township v Maxon, involved a civil zoning dispute in which the Township used a drone to take aerial images of the Maxon property without consent or any other specific legal authorization.

The Court of Appeals found that drone surveillance of private property is necessarily more intrusive and “qualitatively different” than the use of airplanes and helicopters permitted under California v Ciraolo and Florida v Riley. The Court noted that drones can fly at lower altitudes and hover in place, allowing them to collect more detailed images and information about private property.

The Court also found that the use of low-altitude unmanned drones to conduct targeted surveillance of private property is more like the use of thermal imaging devices found to be a “search” in Kyllo v United States. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court held that the government’s use of a thermal imaging device to monitor the radiation of heat from a home was a Fourth Amendment search. The Court reasoned that the government’s use of the thermal imaging device was a physical intrusion into the home’s curtilage, which is an area around the home that is considered to be part of the home itself.

The Court of Appeals in Long Lake Township v Maxon found that the Township’s use of a drone to take aerial images of the Maxon property without consent was a similar physical intrusion into the Maxon property. The Court also noted that the existing law in Michigan recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy and other legal protections against drone misuse.

The decision in Long Lake Township v Maxon is significant because it is one of the first cases to address the Fourth Amendment implications of drone surveillance. The Court’s decision provides clear guidance to law enforcement and other government agencies that they cannot use drones to conduct surveillance of private property without a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

Implications for Law Enforcement

The decision in Long Lake Township v Maxon has important implications for law enforcement agencies that use drones for surveillance purposes. Law enforcement agencies should review their policies and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with the Fourth Amendment requirements set forth by the Court of Appeals.

In general, law enforcement agencies should obtain a warrant before using a drone to conduct surveillance of private property. However, there are a few limited exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as when the surveillance is conducted in response to an emergency or when it is conducted in a public area where there is a diminished expectation of privacy.

Law enforcement agencies should also be aware that the Fourth Amendment may apply to the use of drones even if the surveillance is not conducted directly by the agency itself. For example, if a law enforcement agency contracts with a private company to conduct drone surveillance on its behalf, the agency may still be required to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

Have you been charged with driving while high?

Want to fight that charge!
Call Our Office for a Free Case Evaluation

The decision in Long Lake Township v Maxon is a significant development in the law of drone surveillance. The Court’s decision provides clear guidance that the Fourth Amendment protects people from warrantless drone surveillance of their private property. Law enforcement agencies and other government agencies should review their policies and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with the Court’s decision.

The Court found the use of low-altitude unmanned
drones to conduct targeted surveillance of private property
to be more like the use of thermal imaging devices found
to be a “search” in Kyllo v United States when used to
monitor the radiation of heat from a home, and further
noted the existing recognition of a reasonable expectation
of privacy and other legal protections against drone misuse
as found in MCL 259.322(3) and MCL 259.320(1) (See Below)

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 436 of 2016

259.322 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; harassment, violation of order, or invasion of privacy prohibited; definition; individual registered as sex offender.

Sec. 22.

  (1) A person shall not knowingly and intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system to subject an individual to harassment. As used in this subsection, “harassment” means that term as defined in section 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.411h and 750.411i.
  (2) A person shall not knowingly and intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system within a distance that, if the person were to do so personally rather than through remote operation of an unmanned aircraft, would be a violation of a restraining order or other judicial order.
  (3) A person shall not knowingly and intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system to violate section 539j of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.539j, or to otherwise capture photographs, video, or audio recordings of an individual in a manner that would invade the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
  (4) An individual who is required to register as a sex offender under the sex offenders registration act, 1994 PA 295, MCL 28.721 to 28.736, shall not operate an unmanned aircraft system to knowingly and intentionally follow, contact, or capture images of another individual, if the individual’s sentence in a criminal case would prohibit the individual from following, contacting, or capturing the image of the other individual.

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 436 of 2016

259.320 Criminal liability; offense committed with aid of an unmanned aircraft system; exception.

Sec. 20.

  (1) A person is guilty of an offense committed with the aid of an unmanned aircraft system if the unmanned aircraft system is under the person’s control and the activity performed with the aid of the unmanned aircraft system would have given rise to criminal liability under the penal law of this state if it was performed directly by the person without the aid of an unmanned aircraft system.
  (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), and except as provided in sections 21 and 22 and section 45a(1) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.45a, solely flying an unmanned aircraft system through navigable airspace in accordance with federal law does not give rise to criminal liability under the penal law of this state.

 

Did You Know

Michigan State Police Legal Updates

MSP Legal Update No. 153 (01/2023)

  • Search & Seizure: The smell of marihuana, standing alone, no longer constitutes probable cause to search for that substance
  • Vehicle Code: Violation for impeding traffic requires evidence the accused’s conduct actually affected the normal flow of traffic.

Legal Update No. 153 (01/2023)

 

MSP Legal Update No. 150 (01/2022)

  • Vehicle Code: Persons under the age of 21 may be prosecuted for operating a motor vehicle with the presence of marihuana in their system
  • Criminal Law: Ethnic intimidation based on gender includes harassing or intimidating another person because of the actual or perceived gender of that person.

Legal Update No. 150 (01/2022)

 

Legal Update No. 148 (09/2021)

Statutes: Code of Criminal Procedure amended to prohibit issuance of appearance tickets to a person arrested for an “operating while intoxicated” offense; Juvenile Law: Individuals who are 17 years of age to be treated as juveniles in criminal proceedings rather than automatically being treated as adults; Did You Know: The mere presence of an unidentified cocaine metabolite is insufficient to prove operation of a vehicle with the presence of “any amount” of cocaine in the body.

Legal Update No. 148 (09/2021)

 

Legal Update No. 147 (03/2021)

Statutes: The Code of Criminal Procedure amended to require persons arrested for certain misdemeanor and ordinance violations not exceeding 1-year in jail to be released from custody upon issuance and service of an appearance ticket; Vehicle Code: The Michigan Vehicle Code amended to eliminate the requirement to provide an audible signal when overtaking another vehicle.

Legal Update No. 147 (03/2021)

More Posts

How Much Does It Cost To Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

How Much Does It Cost To Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

Don't do the crime - if you can't pay the price.Average Flat Fees. Some criminal defense attorneys charge a flat fee for certain types of cases, instead of billing by the hour. This may or may not include filing fees, motions, fees, etc. Flat fees include: DUI/DWI –...

read more
How Much Does It Cost To Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

If you are pulled over for suspected drunk driving you are probably going to be arrested. The less you say - the better off you are in the long run. If you find yourself being pulled over for suspected DUI, ensure you pull over safely to the roadside, maintain a...

read more
One of Michigan’s Top DUI Attorneys

One of Michigan’s Top DUI Attorneys

We aggressively defend all aspects of traffic law, from simple civil infractions to more serious alcohol and drug-related offenses.  Don't wait till the last second to get an attorney.  That's how you lose.Why Attorney Michael Komorn is one of Michigan’s Top DUI...

read more
Michigan DUI Laws and Consequences – Second Offense

Michigan DUI Laws and Consequences – Second Offense

Michigan DUI Laws and Consequences – Second Offense Operating Under the Influence (OUI) is a serious offense in Michigan. If someone is caught driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they can face severe penalties. When it comes to a second offense, the...

read more
Michigan DUI Laws and Consequences – First Offense

Michigan DUI Laws and Consequences – First Offense

First Offense DUI in Michigan: Laws and ConsequencesFacing a first offense DUI in Michigan can be daunting as the implications are significant and the legal landscape is complex. Understanding the laws surrounding Operating While Intoxicated is essential, as these...

read more

Michigan Forfeiture

Michigan Forfeiture

  • Property that can be forfeited: Under Michigan law, the following property can be forfeited:
    • Cash
    • Vehicles
    • Real estate
    • Boats
    • Aircraft
    • Other personal property
  • Crimes that can lead to forfeiture: Property can be forfeited if it is used or derived from a crime, or if it is intended to be used or derived from a crime. Some of the crimes that can lead to forfeiture include:
    • Drug trafficking
    • Money laundering
    • Racketeering
    • Human trafficking
  • Procedural requirements: In order to forfeit property, the government must follow certain procedural requirements. These requirements include:
    • Giving notice to the property owner
    • Holding a hearing
    • Proving that the property was used or derived from a crime
  • Rights of the property owner: The property owner has certain rights in a forfeiture proceeding. These rights include:
    • The right to be notified of the forfeiture proceeding
    • The right to a hearing
    • The right to present evidence
    • The right to challenge the government’s evidence

Did your property get stolen by “forfeiture” – Act on it now. We can fight to get it back.
We have done it many times. Call Us Komorn Law 248-357-2550

In recent years, there has been some controversy surrounding civil asset forfeiture laws in Michigan. Some people argue that these laws are unfair because they allow the government to seize property without a criminal conviction. Others argue that these laws are necessary to combat crime.

In 2019, Michigan passed a law that prohibits law enforcement from forfeiting seized assets (under $50,000 in value) from crimes involving controlled substances without a conviction or plea agreement, or unless the property owner relinquishes the property.

This law was intended to address some of the concerns about civil asset forfeiture in Michigan.

If you have had property seized by the government in Michigan, you should speak to an attorney to discuss your rights.

Here’s the Law

Michigan Forfeiture and Seizure under MCL 333.7522

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime or DUI.
Call Komorn Law and turn the odds in your favor.
Call Now 248-357-2550

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Blog Cannabis Science Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Driving DUI Federal Laws Forfeiture Health Benefits of Marijuana Hemp Know Your Rights Komorn Law Blog LARA-MMFLA Info Legalization Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan Laws Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan News Michigan Supreme Court News Planet Green Trees Radio Recent Victories Supreme Court Uncategorized USA news Victories Project Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – 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. You’re on the internet.