Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?

The Conflict

The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a person accused of possession with intent to deliver between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana from being prosecuted under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii).

Some Background

At a preliminary examination, Michigan State Police Trooper Joshua Ashlock testified about the circumstances of this case.

On October, 26, 2022, Trooper Ashlock received information that Illinois State Police intercepted approximately 85 pounds of marijuana in a rental vehicle headed for southwest Michigan.

The driver of the vehicle agreed to cooperate with Illinois State Police and deliver the marijuana as originally planned to Chad Boylen. Per Boylen’s instruction,the driver brought the marijuana to defendant’s residence in Niles, Michigan. Boylen was arrested outside the residence. Defendant eventually exited the residence after police officers surrounded the house and called for her to exit.

A “protective sweep of the residence” revealed large quantities of marijuana inside.

“After” obtaining a search warrant, officers seized approximately 20 pounds of marijuana from the residence, the majority of which was found in what was believed to be
defendant’s bedroom.

No soup for you says the Michigan Court of Appeals. Back to the public health code you go.

Court of Appeals Opinion

Because we conclude the MRTMA provides no such proscription,we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for trial on felony charges.

If you want to know more read the opinion here, otherwise just call our office if you get in the same sticky situation.

STATE OF MICHIGAN v JULIA KATHLEEN SOTO – MRTMA – COA 20241007_c370138_23_370138.opn

But Wait… What’s This???

MI COURT OF APPEALS – Over 1000 Cannabis Plants Just a Misdemeanor

Here’s More Court of Appeals Opinions and Decisions

• COURT OF APPEALS DECISION GREEN LIGHT FOR MMMA CAREGIVERS? 1000 plants is OK.
• MICHIGAN MAN GROWING MARIJUANA WON’T FACE MAJOR CHARGES, COURT SAYS
• JUDGES CAN’T PREVENT PEOPLE FROM USING MEDICAL MARIJUANA WHILE ON PROBATION COURT OF APPEALS SAID
• MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW DOES NOT PROTECT LIARS SAYS COURT OF APPEALS
• MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDES IT’S OKAY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS
• MI COURT OF APPEALS – Over 1000 Cannabis Plants Just a Misdemeanor
• Search the site for “Court of Appeals” to see more
• Search the site for “Supreme Court” for interesting cases

Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

The “automobile exception” in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be moved or destroyed before a warrant is obtained.

Probable cause is a key element in applying this exception.

If law enforcement has a reasonable belief—based on the facts and circumstances—that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of illegal activity, they can conduct a search.

This standard often arises in cases involving drug-related offenses.

For example, the smell of marijuana has frequently been cited as a factor contributing to probable cause, although recent rulings have added complexity due to the legalization of marijuana in small amounts under Michigan law.

One notable case is People v. Kazmierczak (2000), where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the smell of marijuana alone could justify a search under the automobile exception.

However, as marijuana laws evolved, this principle was reconsidered.

In People v. Armstrong (2023), the court ruled that while the smell of marijuana can contribute to probable cause, it must be combined with other suspicious factors to justify a search.

The debate around this exception continues as courts balance law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes and individuals’ privacy rights, especially with the legalization of marijuana in Michigan.

Cases

Several legal cases have examined the validity of conducting warrantless vehicle searches based on the odor of marijuana, particularly considering the changing landscape of marijuana legislation.

People v. Freddie Wilkins III (2024):  In Wilkins’ case, the search was triggered by the odor of marijuana, but his defense challenged whether that alone should constitute probable cause for a broader search, particularly when possession of small amounts of marijuana is legal.

People v. Armstrong (2023): In this instance, the courts in Michigan reassessed the applicability of the automobile exception, taking into consideration the provisions outlined in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).

The court ruled that while the smell of marijuana could still contribute to probable cause, it must be accompanied by other suspicious factors to justify a search. This case closely mirrors Wilkins, where the search was based on marijuana odor but also raised questions about unregistered firearms found during the search​.

People v. Moorman (2020): During a traffic stop, a police officer detected the scent of marijuana, and when the defendant denied possessing any, this denial, along with the odor, provided the officer with probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle.

The court found that the defendant’s behavior, along with the odor, justified the search, similar to the arguments presented in Wilkins. The ruling was based on the idea that such behavior suggests illegal possession beyond the legal limits​

People v. Kazmierczak (2000): Previously, Michigan courts held that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

However, this decision was later overruled in part due to changes in marijuana laws.

This case laid the groundwork for discussions like those in Wilkins, where courts must determine if the presence of marijuana (legal in small amounts) is enough to justify a search​.

Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.

Police conducted a warrantless search under the “automobile exception.”

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.

Wilkins appealed a conviction stemming from the discovery of unregistered firearms in his car after police conducted a warrantless search under the “automobile exception.”

This legal principle allows law enforcement to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

In the Wilkins’ case, the search was triggered by the odor of marijuana, which raised questions under Michigan’s marijuana laws.

While the odor of marijuana previously constituted probable cause, recent changes under Michigan’s recreational marijuana law, the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), complicate this.

The court debated whether the smell of marijuana alone still justifies a search, especially since possession of small amounts is now legal for adults.

The appellate court highlighted that for the search to be lawful, additional suspicious factors would need to accompany the marijuana smell to support probable cause for finding contraband.

The case draws comparisons to similar rulings like People v. Armstrong, where Michigan courts have reconsidered the application of the automobile exception in light of the state’s evolving marijuana laws.

The central question in both instances revolves around whether the smell of cannabis, in conjunction with additional elements such as the driver’s deceptive behavior, provides sufficient grounds for conducting a search without a warrant.

The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.

Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.

However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.

The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.

Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.

However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.

Similar Cases

A number of legal cases have scrutinized the legitimacy of performing warrantless vehicle searches based on the scent of marijuana, especially in light of the evolving status of marijuana laws:

People v. Armstrong (2023): In this instance, the courts in Michigan reassessed the applicability of the automobile exception, taking into consideration the provisions outlined in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).

The court ruled that while the smell of marijuana could still contribute to probable cause, it must be accompanied by other suspicious factors to justify a search. This case closely mirrors Wilkins, where the search was based on marijuana odor but also raised questions about unregistered firearms found during the search​.

People v. Kazmierczak (2000): Previously, Michigan courts held that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

However, this decision was later overruled in part due to changes in marijuana laws.

This case laid the groundwork for discussions like those in Wilkins, where courts must determine if the presence of marijuana (legal in small amounts) is enough to justify a search​.

People v. Moorman (2020): During a traffic stop, a police officer detected the scent of marijuana, and when the defendant denied possessing any, this denial, along with the odor, provided the officer with probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle.

The court found that the defendant’s behavior, along with the odor, justified the search, similar to the arguments presented in Wilkins. The ruling was based on the idea that such behavior suggests illegal possession beyond the legal limits​

Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization is a crime.

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization can lead to serious criminal charges.

Michigan law has strict regulations regarding firearms, and violating these laws can result in significant penalties.

This article explains what carrying a concealed weapon means, the potential punishments, legal defenses, and how an experienced attorney can help you if you’re facing charges.

As always – Don’t talk and you must invoke your 5th amendment right and ask for a lawyer. No matter what the police say or what they promise you!!

What Is Carrying a Concealed Weapon?

In Michigan, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon on your person or in a vehicle without a valid permit.

A concealed weapon typically means a handgun, but it can also include other dangerous weapons like knives or brass knuckles if they are hidden from view.

The law that governs carrying a concealed weapon is MCL 750.227. This law makes it a crime to carry a concealed pistol or other dangerous weapon without a Concealed Pistol License (CPL).

If you do not have a CPL, you are at risk of being charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Penalties for Carrying a Concealed Weapon

Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a felony in Michigan. The potential penalties are severe and can affect your freedom and future. If convicted, you may face:

• Up to 5 years in prison
• Fines of up to $2,500

Additionally, a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon could lead to a permanent criminal record, which could impact your ability to find employment, own a firearm in the future, or even vote. It is important to take these charges seriously.

Legal Defenses for Carrying a Concealed Weapon

• Valid CPL: If you had a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) at the time of your arrest, this can be a strong defense. You must show that you were legally allowed to carry the weapon.
• Lack of Concealment: If the weapon was not truly concealed and was instead visible or partially visible, the charge might not hold up in court. A weapon that is in plain view does not meet the legal definition of “concealed.”
• Unlawful Search and Seizure: If the police discovered the weapon during an illegal search or traffic stop, the evidence could be thrown out. Your Fourth Amendment rights protect you from unreasonable searches, and if violated, your case may be dismissed.
• Innocent Intent: In some cases, you may have forgotten the weapon was in your possession or had no intent to conceal it. While this can be harder to prove, it may be relevant in certain situations.

How Komorn Law Can Help

If you’re facing charges for carrying a concealed weapon in Michigan, it’s important to work with an experienced legal team that understands Michigan’s gun laws.

Komorn Law has over 30 years of experience handling criminal defense cases in both state and federal courts. They specialize in defending clients charged with weapons-related crimes, including CCW.

Komorn Law can assist by:

• Reviewing the details of your case to identify any mistakes made by law enforcement
• Challenging the legality of the search and seizure of the weapon
• Arguing for reduced charges or penalties
• Defending your rights in court with a strong and effective strategy

If you’ve been charged with carrying a concealed weapon, don’t face the legal system alone. Contact Komorn Law (248) 357-2550 for a consultation or to hire the team to fight for your rights and protect your future.

Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.