Dashcam video released this week from a traffic stop shows how a confrontation between a Texas woman and the arresting officer escalated.
Given the circumstances in the aforementioned Sandra Bland case, we wanted to find out what is allowed and not allowed during a traffic stop in Michigan.
Civil rights attorney Julia Kelly says the first thing is to have a valid license, registration, and proof of insurance in your car. “Are you required to give it to them? Yes, no questions asked. Driving in Michigan is a privilege, not a right.”
The officer will likely leave you in your car and check your ID. But, if he or she asks you to get out of the car, Kelly says, you should comply. “If he asks you a lawful command to get out, you should obey those commands to get out of vehicle.”
We also asked former Flint police officer and Grand Rapids Community College assistant professor Jermaine Reese what’s expected of an officer. The driver might be smoking a cigarette, angry that they got a ticket, or using profanity.
“They can do that. They can. The biggest thing is to remain professional. No matter what they choose to call you. I’ve been called everything but a child of God, but your responsibility is that you remain professional.”
In the end, most would agree that there is a level of respect expected from both the driver and the officer. It’s better to argue the legality of the situation in court, rather than have it escalate at the scene.
Question: Do I have to comply if ordered to leave a public area by a police officer?
Answer: If you disobey a police officer’s order to leave, you may be arrested. But is the order legal? It depends on why the officer is asking. If you are disrupting traffic, on private property without permission, or otherwise breaking the law, then the order is legal. But if the officer is requesting that you leave a public space because he or she disagrees with your message, the order is not legal.
There are a multitude of laws regulating public roadways that ensure pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic. If you break those, police can order you to leave the roadway, but you can congregate legally on the sidewalk.
Q: Can I record video of police?
A: It is legal to openly record on-duty police officers in public spaces. Some state laws may prohibit filming anyone in a public space without their consent, but there is doubt about whether those laws are constitutional. However, an officer may arrest you if you are obstructing an investigation.
Q: Can an officer search me on the street with no warrant when I am not under arrest?
A: There are limited circumstances under which an officer can search someone without a warrant who is not under arrest. They are:
Voluntary consent. If an officer asks you for permission to search you or your possessions and you voluntarily say yes, the officer has the right to do so.
Reasonable suspicion. If police have reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in criminal activity, they may stop you briefly. If they have reasonable suspicion that you may be carrying a weapon, they may pat you down for weapons. However, they may not conduct a full search unless they have probable cause to arrest you.
There are other exceptions for when police can search a home or a car and its passengers.
Q: How can a curfew trump my right to assemble and protest?
A: The government has the right to impose curfews in certain emergency situations to protect the lives, safety and property of citizens. However, it is unconstitutional if the curfew is imposed only to prevent a peaceable assembly.
Q: If I’m walking in public and an officer asks to speak to me, do I have to stop?
A: This is considered a voluntary encounter. The officer has the same right to request that you speak to him as any other person would, but you do not have to answer, nor do you have to stop. Ask the officer if you are free to go. If police have reasonable suspicion to believe you are engaged in a crime, they may detain you briefly to investigate.
Sources: Paul D. Butler, professor at Georgetown Law; Daniel J. Haus, attorney; Roger Goldman, professor emeritus at Saint Louis University School of Law; Orin S. Kerr, professor at the George Washington University Law School; Kenneth White, attorney
A blog article from the Metro Times by Larry Gabriel features a quote by Attorney Michael Kormorn.
Some excerpts from the article…
Last week the Detroit Medz shop on Detroit’s west side was raided for “selling marijuana outside the provisions of the state medical marijuana act,” says Sgt. Cassandra Lewis of the Detroit police media relations department. News reports said police found two guns, 4,100 grams (about 9 pounds) of marijuana, and arrested one person — although Lewis says two individuals were arrested that evening.
Lewis says that there were complaints from the community and that police previously had made undercover buys there, although it’s not clear if those undercover buys were made by people with state cards (or fake ones as has been done in the past) or by folks who just walked in with nothing to show.
So far no charges have been announced.
Tate has had Winfred Blackmon and his Metropolitan Detroit Community Action Coalition (MDCAC) riding his ass for several months regarding dispensaries in the city. I went to a couple of meetings early on and have been receiving Blackmon’s email alerts since then. Early on, it was obvious that MDCAC members didn’t want to see marijuana, medical or otherwise, in their neighborhoods. They have an old-school attitude. Early on, their complaints included the fact that most dispensary locations painted their storefronts green — as if that matters.
MDCAC has been pushing Tate, who represents District 1, to do something about what they call “illegal marijuana provision centers.” They’ve been riding city attorney Butch Hollowell too.
Truthfully, the city has been slow to address the issue. I’ve noticed a distinct tendency to avoid talking about marijuana by city officials while places such as Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Lincoln Park, and elsewhere have set up rules regarding dispensaries. Now those cities have not been going through their mayor being indicted and convicted, switching from an at-large to a district city council system, having an emergency manager, and a bankruptcy. However, it would be good from a number of viewpoints to set the rules about dispensaries.
That said, the MDCAC model is not a liberal one. Although over time, as they have come to accept that medical marijuana is not going away, they have lightened up some. Originally, they wanted only one dispensary per council district, which would mean only seven in the entire city. Their current proposal seeks to limit the number of dispensaries and limit their locations to industrial zones, mandates that they cannot be near a church, school, daycare or nursery, and proposes a number of inspections and permits before they can open.
This may be a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil.
“They chose this very uncivilized manner to try to make an example of this one particular facility,” says Southfield-based attorney Michael Komorn, who heads the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association. “There is no rule prohibiting [a location near a school], no rule. … Maybe that’s something they should think about doing — regulate this in a way that satisfies the community.”
Maybe the Detroit Medz folks were selling to people who aren’t registered patients, but the rest of this seems to be pure political theater.
Larry Gabriel writes the Stir It Up and Higher Ground columns for the Detroit Metro Times.
A bill for the use of medicinal marijuana on campus for students with chronic illnesses passed Monday night in the House at the Student Government Association’s weekly meeting.
The bill, which had passed earlier in February within the Senate, will now be taken to the Office of Student Conduct in order to see if amendments can be made to current Residence Life policy.
The bill’s creator, SGA Senator Ian Elliot, says through the bill, smoking on campus would not be allowed. However, students who use medicinal marijuana would be able to store their paraphernalia on campus without facing criminal charges.
“Somebody asked that with this bill, would people be allowed to just walk around and smoke joints – the answer is no,” Elliot said. “Not only would you not be allowed to smoke joints after this bill is passed, but you never will be because the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act says that you cannot use your medication, you cannot smoke, on public property or anywhere other than your private residence.”
West Bloomfield freshman Starr Walker raised concerns over whether or not this would mean students with medical marijuana access would be able to smoke in the dorms, fearing what the byproduct of smoking could bring into her dormitory.
“The dormitory is not a private residence,” Elliot said. “For the same reason that you can’t tell an officer or an RA that they cannot come into your residence, you’re not protected the same way you are in (an apartment).”
Elliot, who is both a user of medicinal marijuana and a sufferer of epilepsy, says that the medicine helps him to be able to attend college.
“We have dozens and dozens of patients with epilepsy (on campus), including myself,” Elliot said. “A lot of us could not attend college if it were not for these special treatments, a lot of which are in non-smokeable, capsule or oil forms, no different than any other pills you take for any other ailment.”
The bill would allow for students with conditions such as epilepsy, Dravat Syndrome and other ailments to use edible forms of marijuana to help users maintain their symptoms, particularly seizures.
Marie Sokolosky, a representative for Students for Life, also raised concerns about everything encompassed within the bill.
“When (the bill) says ‘capsule form’ is that only what it’s talking about, or is this (bill) talking about any form (of marijuana)?” Sokolosky asked.
After a resounding no, Elliot further explained the bill would only cover the possession of the marijuana flower itself within a locked container that only the user could access, marijuana edibles and marijuana concentrates. Possession of rolling papers and pipes, Elliot said, would also be protected under this bill.
“This (bill) really should be looked at as a compassionate act,” Elliot said. “This by no means has anything to do with recreational use or anything beyond what is discussed between a doctor and (their) patients. We just want to allow access for those who use (medicinal marijuana).”
Michigan medical marijuana laws are too ambiguous for students in need
Students at Central Michigan University have voiced their opinions on medical marijuana use loud and clear. The Student Government Association, the representative voice of the student body, passed a bill supporting the possession of medical marijuana by students with chronic illnesses on March 30.
The bill called for university students to be able to carry usable marijuana—in flower, edible and concentrate form—and paraphernalia on campus without fear of punishment. It would not apply to smokable marijuana or its use.
As admirable as SGA’s attempt to accommodate students in need is, its legislation will not be successful as long as marijuana use is illegal in Michigan. As long as public universities are federally funded, the use of marijuana, even for medical reasons, is prohibited.
Medical marijuana laws in Michigan are in dire need of clarification. This is not a call for legalization for recreational use, but rather for clearer legislation that does not act as an obstacle between students and medical treatment.
We support the use of marijuana for medical reasons, and urge the student body to educate themselves on the issue as well as exercise their political rights to affect change in current laws.
According to the Michigan Public Health Code: “Marihuana does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted from those stalks, fiber, oil, or cake, or any sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of germination. Marihuana does not include industrial hemp grown or cultivated, or both, for research purposes under the industrial hemp research act.”
Qualified medical marijuana users in the state are allowed to possess up to two and a half ounces of “usable” marijuana to treat a number of medical issues, including chronic pain, Crohn’s disease, nausea, seizures and severe muscle spasms.
These are problems that affect many of our own students, but the fact that concentrates and other edible forms of the drug are left out of the definition of medical marijuana use makes it hard for students to use this treatment.
In 2014, 1 percent of Michigan’s citizens were medical marijuana patients. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs processed 92,652 new medical marijuana applications in fiscal year 2014. With murky laws regarding medical use of marijuana and a system that does not support the operation of dispensaries, these users are faced with large obstacles to getting treated.
In Mount Pleasant, the possession and use of less than one ounce of marijuana on private property by people over 21 was legalized in November.
However, local police officers will still enforce state laws.
Since marijuana is decriminalized in Mount Pleasant, the opportunity to bring in dispensaries exists. However, Michigan as a whole does not allow dispensaries to operate, so those that run do so without state recognition.
Previously, Mount Pleasant had one medical marijuana dispensary. It was shut down in 2013 by a Michigan Supreme Court ruling. Now, students with medical needs must travel to Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids or other cities with operating dispensaries. The closest dispensary to Mount Pleasant is in Bay City.
We encourage students and community members to educate themselves on the laws of a drug that is becoming increasingly prevalent both state and nationwide. Lobbying for the recognition of dispensaries, casting your vote when the opportunity arises and otherwise contributing to the conversation are all ways to help those in need of medical marijuana treatment.
Michigan may not be close to completely legalizing marijuana, and that’s not what students with medical issues need. What they need, and deserve, is a clear path to the treatment that allows them to live their lives to the fullest potential.
A recent (6/8/15) editorial in the Livingston News visited the Michigan forfeiture laws which has become a hot topic lately.
The editorial goes on to say…
“When law enforcement agencies raid a suspected drug dealer’s home and confiscate property such as cars, money or other items, we understand this.
Police don’t want criminals to benefit from their illegal activity.
However, what happens if there is no conviction?
That property should and would be returned, one would think.
However, that’s not the case in Michigan, and we’re glad our state Legislature is working to reform civil asset forfeiture. The current forfeiture rules must be fixed because they allow police to confiscate items even if it’s determined there was no crime committed.
Michigan’s Civil Asset Forfeiture laws allow police to take property from citizens if they suspect a crime was committed, even when there is not enough evidence to charge them. Homeowners must then prove they did not purchase their property with proceeds from criminal activity and sue to get the property back.
In many cases, police raid a home where there clearly is no drug dealing happening; instead, residents are involved with medical marijuana, which voters stated is a legal use here in Michigan.
The following are a couple examples of how regular citizens were caught in the unjust web of forfeiture laws.
Gin Hency and Annette Shattuck describe themselves as soccer moms, active in their communities and in their children’s lives. Since July 2014, the St. Clair County women have shared another similarity: Both of their homes were raided by the St. Clair County Drug Task Force. Hency and Shattuck are registered medical marijuana caregivers. Among the things taken in the raid were their medical marijuana cards issued by the state, televisions, a bicycle and documents including driver’s licenses and insurance cards.
Another item reported taken was Hency’s vibrator (yes, a sex toy).
“It was devastating,” Shattuck said.
Hency and Shattuck were charged with marijuana-related counts several months after the raids. Three of the six charges against Shattuck were dismissed. Both charges against Hency were dismissed this month, but she has still been unable to reclaim her property.
Another example occurred with Thomas Williams, who was alone in November 2013 when police raided his rural St. Joseph County home wearing black masks, camouflage and holding guns at their sides. They broke down his front door with a battering ram.
“We think you’re dealing marijuana,” they told Williams, a 72-year-old, retired carpenter and cancer patient who is disabled and carries a medical marijuana card.
When he protested, they handcuffed him and left him on the living room floor as they ransacked his home, emptying drawers, rummaging through closets and surveying his grow room, where he was nourishing his 12 personal marijuana plants as allowed by law. Some had recently begun to die, so he had cloned them and had new seedlings, although they were not yet planted. That, police insisted, put him over the limit.
They did not charge Williams with a crime, though.
Instead, they took his Dodge Journey, $11,000 in cash from his home, his television, his cellphone and his shotgun — and are attempting to take his Colon Township home. And they plan to keep the proceeds, auctioning off the property and putting the cash in police coffers.
More than a year later, he is still fighting to get his belongings back and to hang on to his house.
“I want to ask them, ‘Why? Why me?’ I gave them no reason to do this to me,” said Williams, who says he also suffers from glaucoma, a damaged disc in his back, and COPD, a lung disorder. “I’m out here minding my own business, and just wanted to be left alone.”
We ask the same question: Why?
There’s no reason except that police have certain laws that allow for this type of forfeiture.
A bipartisan package of bills, approved by a House committee, would make changes including raising the standard for forfeiture to the highest in civil court, one of clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence. The bills would also require detailed reports from local police to the state police on property forfeited.
It’s a good first step, and we hope to see it approved so residents don’t have to worry about property getting taken when they’re broken no crimes.
Published: 04:55 EST, 5 June 2015 | Updated: 13:18 EST, 5 June 2015
Armed police raided a woman’s home and seized everything from a lawnmower to her daughter’s birthday money – because she was growing legal medical marijuana.
Ginnifer Hency, 56, suffers from multiple sclerosis, a disease which causes her immune system to attack and destroy healthy nerve cells, and is allowed to grown and use the drug under Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
But this did not stop officers of Michigan’s St. Clair County Drug Task Force from raiding her home and taking her children’s bicycles, her husband’s gardening equipment, TV sets, soccer gear and children’s car seats.
Raided: Ginnifer Hency, speaking at the state’s house of representatives, is allowed to grow marijuana because she suffers from MS. But that did not stop police storming her home and seizing everything from a lawnmower to her daughter’s birthday cash
After they breached my door, at gunpoint, with masks they proceeded to take every belonging in my house. And when I say every belonging, I mean every belonging,’ she said.
The officers also took credit card statements, tax returns, and the public assistance card she used to help feed her family.
Mrs Shattuck testified at the Michigan state House of Representatives, stating that officers hung her lingerie from the ceiling fans as they ransacked her home.
She is a registered medical marijuana care giver which allows her to grow a certain quantity of marijuana plants to distribute to a small number of medical marijuana patients.
‘I was fully compliant with the Michigan medical marijuana laws,’ she told the Michigan House Judiciary Committee in testimony this week. ‘I am allowed to possess and deliver.’
Police suspected she might be selling marijuana to people without a medical marijuana card – something she denies.
She initially faced six criminal charges related to marijuana possession and distribution, three of which have since been dismissed by a district court judge, according to court papers.
She will later appear in court on the remaining charges.
St. Clair County Sheriff Tim Donnellon deny her account of proceedings and claim she is trying to ‘further her cause’ of complete legalization of the drug in the state.
Her case has reignited debate over civil forfeiture and drug laws and have raised questions about whether local authorities are appropriately seizing the property of people who are never convicted of a crime.
WHERE: Williams Building, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI
WHAT: Public testimony in favor of adding autism to the list of conditions which may be treated with medical marijuana.
After a protracted legal battle lasting nearly a year, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has been compelled to submit a new petition for autism to the Medical Marihuana Review Panel. This petition was submitted to the department with 75 peer-reviewed studies attached, outlining in detailed scientific and medical terms marijuana’s efficacy in treating autism.
Public testimony will be held Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 1:00 PM in the 1st Floor Auditorium of the Williams Building, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48933. Parents of autistic children will offer testimony in favor of allowing treatment with medical marijuana, as well as physicians who specialize in treatment with cannabis and treatment of autism. Legal experts will testify on the need to protect parents treating their debilitated children from arrest and prosecution by adding autism to the list.
Written comments may be submitted after the hearing, between May 27 and June 1, by email at bhcsinfo@michigan.gov, or by mail at: Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Health Care Services, Post Office Box 30670, Lansing, MI 48909. Please send written testimony to the attention of Cheryl Pezon.
“Though the process of getting this new petition to the Panel has proved difficult, the People of the State of Michigan are now watching the outcome. The scientific literature attached to this petition is overwhelming: medical marihuana can effectively treat autism, and is much safer than other drugs routinely prescribed for treating autism.” said Michael Komorn, president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association and co-counsel for the petitioner.
LARA initially incorrectly denied the petition, submitted nearly a year ago, because two previous incomplete petitions were heard by the panel which failed to gain department approval.
Attorneys Tim Knowlton and Michael Komorn represented the petitioner, the parent of an autistic child who has seen substantial improvements in autism symptoms during successful treatment with medical marijuana for severe epileptic seizures. After briefing the Ingham County Circuit Court on both the mishandling of the new petition and the substantial irregularities in the process followed by LARA on the original Panel vote, LARA agreed that all new petitions must be heard by the Panel, despite any previous failed petition for the same condition.
After the public testimony, LARA must schedule a meeting of the Medical Marihuana Review Panel to discuss the petition and testimony, and take a vote. If a majority of the panel votes in favor of adding autism, the LARA director will issue a final determination allowing the use of medical marijuana in autism treatment by Michigan physicians.
