Your Rights

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Jul 7, 2024 | Blog, Supreme Court, Your Rights

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” complies with the Second Amendment.

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Aug 16 2023	Application (23A140) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 4, 2023 to October 5, 2023, submitted to Justice Alito.
Aug 25 2023	Application (23A140) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 5, 2023.
Oct 05 2023	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 9, 2023)
Oct 18 2023	Brief of respondent Bryan David Range in opposition filed.
Nov 01 2023	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/17/2023.
Nov 01 2023	Reply of petitioners Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 24 2024	Supplemental brief for the Federal Parties filed. VIDED.
Jun 26 2024	Supplemental brief of respondent Bryan David Range filed.
Jun 28 2024	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2024.
Jul 02 2024	Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

Read the SCOTUS Brief here and watch the video explanation below

20240626143114544_2024-06-24 Suppl Br for Respondent

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

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!

Supreme Court 8-1 Order Shatters Immediate “Assault Weapon” & Magazine Ban Hopes!

Legal Disclaimer: This content is not intended to provide any legal guidance or advice. Although I am a licensed attorney I am not providing any legal advice through this video. If you have any legal questions please contact a licensed professional in your area to address your specific issues.

Call Komorn Law

Third Circuit Holds that a Nonviolent Offender May Not Be Stripped of Second Amendment Rights. Read the Brief Here.

20240626143114544_2024-06-24 Suppl Br for Respondent 137-Harv.-L.-Rev.-1034

Recent

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a LawyerMan so drunk field sobriety tests were ‘too dangerous’ sentenced to life in prison for repeated DWI convictions‘Several terabytes’: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of...

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoIn Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for...

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

SCOTUS: When police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading...

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Jul 5, 2024 | Know Your Rights, Michigan News, News, Your Rights

Facial Recognition

How Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests

Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the potential pitfalls of this technology and its impact on individuals’ rights.

The Robert Williams Case in Detroit

In 2020, Robert Williams, a Detroit resident, experienced firsthand the flaws of facial recognition technology. Falsely identified as a theft suspect, Williams was wrongfully arrested by the Detroit Police Department. His case marked the first publicized instance in the United States where facial recognition led to an erroneous arrest

The city of Detroit has agreed to compensate him $300,000 for being falsely accused of shoplifting and has committed to revising the use of facial recognition technology by the police to enhance crime-solving efforts.

As per a lawsuit settlement with Robert Williams, his driver’s license photo was mistakenly identified as a potential match to an individual captured on security footage at a Shinola watch store in 2018.

The agreement mandates that Detroit police will evaluate cases involving facial recognition technology from 2017 to 2023. Authorities will promptly notify a prosecutor if an arrest occurs without verifiable evidence.

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

Policy Changes and Safeguards

The fallout from Williams’s arrest prompted significant policy changes within the Detroit Police Department:

No Arrests Based Solely on Facial Recognition: Detroit police can no longer make arrests or conduct photo lineups based solely on facial recognition results. Instead, they must combine facial recognition leads with traditional investigative methods to verify suspects’ involvement in a crime.

Enhanced Training: Officers now undergo additional facial recognition training to improve accuracy and responsible use of the technology.

Transparency: The department must disclose when facial recognition technology was used to make an arrest. Additionally, they must acknowledge the technology’s limitations and potential for misidentification.

Civil Liberties: These changes aim to prevent future misidentifications and protect civil liberties. Deputy Chief Franklin Hayes emphasized that facial recognition remains a valuable tool for both solving cases and exonerating innocent individual.

A Concerning Trend

Since then, several other cases of wrongful arrests stemming from facial recognition technology have been uncovered, shedding light on a concerning trend.

Some cities have banned the technology altogether, while others lack comprehensive policies.

In the ever-changing landscape of technological advancements, finding the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights is paramount. The recent Robert Williams case serves as a poignant reminder that safeguarding civil liberties should always be the top priority in the realm of law enforcement technology.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate

Recent

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Jul 3, 2024 | Blog, Know Your Rights, Your Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 368736

Decided: June 27, 2024
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ.

Introduction

In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an important issue related to search and seizure rights.

Background
Javarian Chandler found himself in legal trouble when he was on probation. As a condition of his probation, he had to comply with certain requirements, including submitting to searches of his person, property, and computer without the need for a search warrant. “Defendant’s Acknowledgment” section found on the SCAO, Form MC 243 (Sept 2022), p. 3:

But was this constitutional?

What Happened?

On May 17, 2023, Chandler was among the probationers and parolees on Officer Thomas’ compliance check list. This marked the first encounter between Officer Thomas and Chandler.

Officer Thomas and three Detroit Police officers visited the house listed on Chandler’s paperwork, owned by Chandler’s cousin. When Chandler’s cousin and mother answered the door, they initially denied Chandler’s presence. However, after Officer Thomas explained that a search was required due to Chandler’s parole, Chandler’s cousin allowed entry.

In Chandler’s room, officers discovered a loaded handgun. Despite being prohibited from owning weapons, Chandler was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, and two counts of possession of a firearm during a felony, as a fourth-offense habitual offender. Chandler unsuccessfully sought to suppress the weapon found during the search, leading to an interlocutory appeal following the trial court’s denial of his motion.

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

The Search and Legal Question

The search in question took place in Chandler’s bedroom, conducted by Detroit police officers and a probation agent as part of Chandler’s conditions of probation. The critical issue was whether a warrantless search of a probationer’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.

Did such a search require reasonable suspicion or an express waiver by the probationer?

Chandler’s cousin, who lived in the same house, granted consent for the search. However, defense counsel argued that Chandler’s cousin lacked the authority to authorize the search of Chandler’s bedroom. Additionally, they contended that Chandler’s cousin did not consent freely or voluntarily.

Court’s Ruling

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a warrantless search of a probationer’s property without reasonable suspicion or an express waiver is unconstitutional. In essence, probationers retain Fourth Amendment rights, even while under specific conditions during their probation.

Implications

This decision underscores the delicate balance between law enforcement’s need to monitor probationers and an individual’s right to privacy. By upholding Fourth Amendment protections, the court ensures justice while respecting individual liberties.

Contact Komorn Law

If you have legal questions or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to our experienced attorneys at Komorn Law. You can call us at (248) 357-2550 or visit our website at KomornLaw.com for personalized legal guidance.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

Recent

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

What are Miranda Rights?

Jul 3, 2024 | Educational, Your Rights

What are Miranda Rights?

Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem from a 1966 Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona 1.

Here’s the backstory: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a 24-year-old with a police record, was accused of kidnapping, raping, and robbing an 18-year-old woman in Phoenix, Arizona. During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. However, his lawyers argued that he hadn’t been clearly informed of his rights to have a lawyer and against self-incrimination.

The court agreed, and the Miranda Rights were born. Now, when law enforcement detains suspects, they must recite these rights to ensure awareness of the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination. It forever changed U.S. criminal procedure, emphasizing fairness and protecting individuals’ rights.

At what point do the police have to read me my miranda rights?

Police must read you your Miranda rights as soon as they plan to interrogate you while you are in custody. Being in custody means that you are not free to leave at any point that you wish.

If you are free to leave or not in custody, police do not need to read you your rights before asking you questions. Remember, these rights protect your right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.

Want to know what this all means in one sentence? Click Here

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

One notable case involving Miranda Rights is Missouri v. Seibert. Here’s what happened:

Background: Respondent Seibert was arrested after her son, afflicted with cerebral palsy, died in a fire. She was present when her sons and friends discussed burning their mobile home to conceal the circumstances of her son’s death.

An unrelated mentally ill 18-year-old named Donald was left to die in the fire. The police arrested Seibert but did not read her Miranda rights initially.

The Interrogation: At the police station, Officer Hanrahan questioned Seibert for 30 to 40 minutes without providing Miranda warnings. He obtained a confession related to the plan for Donald to die in the fire. After a 20-minute break, Hanrahan returned, gave her the Miranda warnings, and obtained a signed waiver. He then resumed questioning, confronting Seibert with her pre-warning statements.

Legal Outcome: Seibert moved to suppress both her pre-warning and post-warning statements. The District Court admitted the post-warning statement but suppressed the pre-warning one. Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Supreme Court Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision. Justice Souter concluded that Seibert’s post-warning statements were inadmissible because the midstream recitation of warnings after interrogation and an unwarned confession couldn’t comply with Miranda’s constitutional warning requirement.

What the Miranda Rule means in one long sentence: This rule states before you are interrogated or you’re questioned by police, they have to read you your miranda rights only if you are not free to leave.

At Komorn Law, we specialize in navigating the complex landscape of constitutional law. This recent Supreme Court decisions illustrates the nuanced legal analyses and strategic thinking that we bring to our practice, ensuring that our clients receive informed and effective representation.

Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

Recent

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

Jul 2, 2024 | Educational, Your Rights

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure, which violates the Fourth Amendment. Here’s a concise breakdown:

What It Does: The Exclusionary Rule ensures that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. If the police or other law enforcement agents violate a person’s constitutional rights during a search or seizure, any evidence they collect as a result is considered tainted and inadmissible in court.

Origins: The rule was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. This decision clarified that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure (i.e., without a valid warrant or probable cause) cannot be used against the accused.
Exceptions: While the Exclusionary Rule is a powerful safeguard, there are exceptions:
Good Faith Exception: Evidence may not be excluded if officers reasonably relied on an invalid search warrant or binding appellate precedent.

Independent Source Doctrine: If evidence initially obtained unlawfully is later obtained through a valid search or seizure, it may become admissible.

The Exclusionary Rule aims to protect individuals’ constitutional rights and maintain the integrity of the justice system. It discourages law enforcement from obtaining evidence illegally.

What are some real-life examples of the Exclusionary Rule?
How does this rule impact criminal investigations?
Are there any controversies surrounding the Exclusionary Rule?

Want to know what this all means in one sentence? Click Here

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

The Exclusionary Rule significantly impacts criminal investigations in the following ways:

Deterrence: Law enforcement officers are deterred from conducting unlawful searches or seizures because they know that any evidence obtained illegally will be excluded from court proceedings. This encourages adherence to constitutional rights and proper procedures.

Evidence Suppression: If evidence is collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment (e.g., without a valid warrant or probable cause), it cannot be used against the accused. This can weaken the prosecution’s case and may lead to acquittals or reduced charges.

Police Practices: The Exclusionary Rule influences police practices by emphasizing the importance of respecting citizens’ rights. Officers receive training on lawful search and seizure methods to avoid violating constitutional protections.

Case Outcomes: When evidence is excluded due to the rule, cases may collapse or result in plea bargains. It affects trial dynamics and can impact the overall outcome of criminal proceedings.

What happens if evidence is accidentally obtained unlawfully?

If evidence is “accidentally” obtained unlawfully, it still falls under the Exclusionary Rule. The rule doesn’t distinguish between intentional or accidental violations of constitutional rights. If law enforcement inadvertently violates a person’s Fourth Amendment rights during a search or seizure, any evidence collected as a result would be considered tainted and inadmissible in court. The goal is to maintain the integrity of the justice system and protect individuals’ rights.

Here are some examples of accidentally obtained evidence

Unauthorized Searches: Law enforcement conducts searches without a proper warrant or lacks sufficient justification. For instance, entering a home without consent or a valid reason.

Deceitful Practices: Police gather evidence through deceptive means, such as misleading suspects during interrogations or using false pretenses to obtain information.

Coerced Confessions: Extracting confessions through coercion or intimidation violates a defendant’s rights and renders the evidence tainted.

Invasion of Privacy Rights: Collecting evidence by invading an individual’s privacy, like unauthorized wiretapping or surveillance, falls under this category.

The Exclusionary Rule: Purpose and Application

The exclusionary rule, established in Weeks v. United States (1914) and applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), mandates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a court of law. The primary purpose of this rule is to deter police misconduct and to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings by excluding illegally obtained evidence.

However, its application has been primarily limited to criminal cases. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to extend the exclusionary rule to civil cases, as evidenced by decisions in cases like United States v. Janis (1976), where the Court held that the rule does not apply to civil tax proceedings.

Government Use of Drones to Obtain Evidence

See 2024 Michigan Supreme Court Case – Long Lake Township v. Maxon: Where a drone was used to obtain evidence and was challenged was allowed to be used and why.

What the Exclusionary Rule means in one long sentence: This rule states that if law enforcement officials obtain evidence through illegal means—like an unlawful search or seizure—the evidence generally cannot be used in a criminal trial against the person whose rights were violated.

Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: Motor vehicles; sale on Sunday unlawful

MCL – Section 435.251

In Michigan, it’s still technically illegal to sell a car on a Sunday, under Section 435.251 of the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL). This peculiar law harkens back to historical blue laws, which restricted certain activities on Sundays for religious reasons. Despite changes in societal norms and the separation of church and state, this statute remains on the books, though rarely enforced.

Recent

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

May 30, 2024 | Your Rights

Borders and Cannabis and Money

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.

If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit?

They don’t so they will punish you if you get caught.

It’s simple. It’s about the money. That is the only reason it is now legal.

Cannabis Legalization in Canada

On October 17, 2018, Canada made a significant policy shift by legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The Cannabis Act came into effect, allowing Canadians to possess and use cannabis for non-medical purposes. However, there are still some important considerations:

Possession and Use: Canadians can legally possess and consume weed, subject to restrictions on the amount and how it was purchased. This includes various forms of cannabis, such as dried flower, edibles, extracts, and topicals.

Transportation Across the Border: Despite legalization within Canada, it remains strictly prohibited to transport cannabis across the Canadian border. This applies whether you’re entering Canada from another country or leaving Canada for another destination.

The ban includes all forms of cannabis products, even if you’re authorized to use it for medical purposes.

It’s essential to understand that this law applies even if cannabis is legal in both the source and destination countries.

You’re Not Welcome Here in Canada

Inadmissibility Due to Cannabis Conviction: If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and there aren’t that many. If you have a prior arrest or cannabis conviction, there’s a chance you may be turned away at the Canadian border. A DUI? Just stay home.

If you really must go. Seeking legal advice from an immigration expert is advisable in such cases.

Cannabis Legalization in Michigan

Michigan, too, has embraced cannabis legalization. However, there are nuances to be aware of:

Legalization Status: As of now, it’s no longer against the law to own or grow marijuana in Michigan. However, retail stores didn’t open until 2021. Michigan citizens can legally cultivate up to 12 cannabis plants, compared to the limit of four in Ontario, Canada.
Crossing the Border: Despite both Michigan and Canada legalizing cannabis, it’s still illegal for those in Michigan to buy cannabis in Canada and cross the border with marijuana. This issue affects Americans living near the border who might be tempted to take advantage of Canada’s nationwide legalization.

Conclusion

While cannabis enthusiasts can enjoy legal weed in both Canada and Michigan, crossing the border with it remains a complex matter. Whether you’re traveling north or south, leave your cannabis behind to avoid legal complications. Remember, the laws differ between countries, and what’s permissible in one place might not be in another. Stay informed and enjoy responsibly!

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult legal professionals for specific guidance.

Learn more

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

Prohibited person possessing firearm

Thinking about going hunting? Not if you are a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm in Michigan.In Michigan, certain individuals are legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Being caught with a firearm if you fall under this category can...

Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance in Michigan

Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance in MichiganIn Michigan, being caught with illegal drugs can lead to serious consequences. The state has strict laws on drug possession, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance is one of the most common charges....

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

From Canada.ca The official website of the Government of Canada

Drugs, alcohol and travel

It is illegal to take cannabis – including products containing cannabis, such as edible cannabis, cannabis extracts and cannabis topicals, and all products containing CBD – across the Canadian border, whether you are entering or leaving the country:

No matter how much cannabis you have with you.
Even if you use cannabis for medical purposes in any form, including cannabidiol (CBD), unless authorized by Health Canada.
Even if you are travelling to or from a municipality, state or country where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized.

At your destination

If you travel to other countries, including the United States, with any amount of cannabis in your possession, you could:

be charged with a criminal offence (This applies to all countries, whether cannabis is legal there or not.)
be denied entry at your destination if you have previously used cannabis or any substance prohibited by local laws
be denied entry to other countries in the future

It is your responsibility to learn about the laws, including the legal status of cannabis use and possession, in your destination country.

If you are travelling for business related to the cannabis industry, contact the foreign government office in Canada of the country you plan to visit.

For more information, consult our Travel Advice and Advisories.

Returning to Canada

It is illegal to enter Canada with cannabis, unless you have a prescription for a medication containing cannabis authorized by Health Canada.

If you are entering Canada and have cannabis with you in any form, you must declare it to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Not declaring cannabis in your possession at the Canadian border is a serious criminal offence. You could be arrested and prosecuted.

This information is taken directly from the Canadian Gov website section Drugs, alcohol and travel.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.

(b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your Driver License and Motor Vehicle Information privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data...

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your criminal history privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...