Nearly a year after voters approved adult use of recreational marijuana, Oakland County resident Kevin John Carlson continues to fight a possession/intent to deliver case, which he believes stems from a search warrant that should never have been granted.
Carlson, 30, was charged in early 2018 after police searched his Bloomfield Township home and reportedly found marijuana and other evidence — months prior to cannabis being legalized in Michigan. At the time Carlson was a registered marijuana patient and caregiver, legally allowed to have a certain amount of cannabis.
The magistrate who issued the search warrant — based on police reportedly smelling marijuana outside the home — was wrong to do so because it wasn’t based on probable cause, Carlson claimed.
Thinking of Starting a Cannabis or Hemp Business?
When it comes to cannabis and hemp business. Komorn Law is the law firm you need with local as well as international networks and assets when your business needs to go global.
Contact our office to find out more information.
The court further found that the 2008 Michigan Medical Marihuana Act didn’t shield Carlson from the search, stating “the police were not obligated to determine, before obtaining a search warrant, the legality of the marijuana-related activities inside the defendant’s home and whether the defendant’s activities complied with the MMMA.”
However, Carlson’s defense attorney Michael Komorn said the judges failed to address if current Michigan marijuana law can be applied retroactively and are wrong in not considering its relevancy, as well as the state reclassification of medical marijuana as a Schedule II drug — permitted for some use. Carlson’s case is next headed to the Michigan Supreme Court for consideration, which earlier had remanded it to the Court of Appeals.
“This case is important for Fourth Amendment issues (regarding protection against unreasonable search and seizure) for constitutional reasons,” Komorn said, “and for the citizens of Michigan…just because somebody is doing something suspicious, that’s not enough for probable cause.”
