Just some of our victories
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More…
6-30-18 United States v Neece – Federal Case Dismissed
MM cardholder Neece was charged with possession of a controlled substance, 36 CFR 261.53(e) for possessing three joints in his kayak.
The feds alleged his possession in a national forest in violation of the MMMA because someone was seen smoking a joint.
Defendant moved to dismiss under the rider to the Consolidated Appropriations Act (f/k/a Rohrabacher-Farr or Rohrabacher-Blumenauer).
The court dismissed the case, citing McIntosh. The court held that strict compliance must be established to be dismissed. Had the officers seen Neece smoking in public, in violation of the MMMA 333.26427(b)(3), the court would not have dismissed the case.
A big hearty congratulations to Michael Komorn and the Komorn Law team for this victory. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first Michigan MM case to dismissed in federal court for violating the rider.
6-3-14 People vs V – Section 8 Dismissal
Client was charged with improper transport of marijuana in a vehicle. 750.474 but his medical marijuana card expired and and he needed a section 8 defense to remove this conviction from his record. Defendant would be immune from prosecution if he can prove prima facie evidence and a preponderance of evidence of medical use.
The court heard arguments and dismissed the charge of improperly transporting usable marijuana. Court ruled that defendant was immune based on Section 8
Charges were dropped on 6-3-14
08-12-2013 People vs D
Marijuana Criminal Defense
Client charged with marijuana possession in Montrose MI. Client was assigned a court appointed lawyer and encouraged to plead guilty and accept 3 months of probation. Client hired Michael Komorn for representation and withdrew the plea.
The charge was dismissed.
2-24-2013 People vs N
Medical Marijuana patient charged with 3 counts of Delivery / Manufacture of Marijuana.
Prove defendant was immune from prosecution because of a medical marijuana defense. 333.7401(2)(d)(3) and MCL 333.26424, 333.26428.
Defendant hired Michael Komorn
The defendant was immune from prosecution and that the charges shall be dismissed without prejudice. The prosecutor and court dismissed all three charges on 2-24-2013
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
Nessel signals shift in policy with dismissal of marijuana charges
Four people charged with marijuana crimes by Republican former Attorney General Bill Schuette will have their charges dismissed by Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel. “Weak cases and changing laws” were cited as some of the reasons for the dismissals in two of...
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...
Other Articles
Forfeiture Law: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark Rulings
Forfeiture Law in Focus: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark RulingsThe landscape of forfeiture law has been significantly shaped by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. These rulings, in the cases of United States v...
When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation?
US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You? In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment
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...
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow 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...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...
What are Miranda 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...
What is the Exclusionary Rule?
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...
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...
