Another Circuit Court Victory – Suppressed Evidence Leads to Dismissal

Another Circuit Court Victory – Suppressed Evidence Leads to Dismissal

Summary: Komorn Law has won another case in Circuit Court. The Judge suppressed the 26 pounds  of marijuana of evidence seized following a traffic stop and then lead to the dismissal of the case. The police conducted an unlawful  inventory  search,  contrary to the police department’s established procedures.

Michael  A.  Komorn  and  Alyssa  L. McCormick  won  suppression  of evidence  in  the  56A Judicial District  Court  on  an  inventory  search / People v.  Toohey  (438  Mich.  265;  475 N.W.  2d  16 (1991)) issue.

Circuit  Court  Opinion of  the  Month: Unlawful  Inventory  Search The  Honorable  Julie  A.  O’Neill,  of  the  56A Judicial  District  Court,  in  May  suppressed  evidence seized following  a  traffic  stop and then  dismissed the case.

Judge  O’Neill  found that  police  conducted an unlawful  inventory  search,  contrary  to  the  police department’s  established procedures,  and,  pursuant to  People v.  Toohey,  438  Mich.  265;  475 N.W.2d  16 (1991),  the  improperly  seized  evidence  had  to  be suppressed.

Once  the  evidence  was  suppressed,  there was  no  evidence  to  support  bindover  to  circuit  court, so  the  case  was dismissed. The defendant  was  stopped  by  Potterville Police Chief  Barry  for  speeding  and  improper  use  of  a  turn signal.  The  defendant  did  not  have  on  his  person  his driver’s  license,  but  subsequent  investigation revealed that  the  defendant  was  properly  licensed and had no  outstanding  warrants.

Chief Barry,  upon approaching  the  pickup  truck,  saw  a black  plastic trash  bag  on  the  passenger  seat;  the  Chief,  who  later testified  he  could  smell  marijuana,  asked  the  driver multiple  times  about  the  contents  of  the  bag;  the defendant  replied that  it  was  trash.

The defendant also replied  that  he  had  some  marijuana wax  in  his possession.  Backup arrived, and the  defendant  was told  to  exit  the  vehicle;  he  complied  and  then  locked it.  He consented to a search of his person but declined a request by  police  to  search  the  truck.

The driver  was  handcuffed and placed into  the  Chief’s vehicle.  Officers  looked through  the  windows  of the pickup and noticed another  plastic  trash  bag  in  the behind  the  seats,  as  well as  a smaller  plastic  bag with  a leafy,  green  substance  visible.

The  Chief called  a prosecutor,  who  advised that  an  arrest  could be  made  for  the  misdemeanor  of not  having  a  license in  his  possession.  The driver  was  arrested.  Later, 6 Criminal  Defense Newsletter   June  2021 during  a  search  of the  pickup truck,  just  over  26 pounds  of marijuana  was  found.

The  defendant  challenged the  arrest  as  illegal because,  he  argued,  he  constructively  possessed his license.  His  wife  was  able  to  text  a  photo  of  the license,  which  Chief  Barry  was  able  to  observe.

Judge  O’Neill rejected  that  argument  and  held  that the  statute,  M.C.L.  257.311,  expressly  requires a driver  to have an  operator’s  license “in  his  or  her immediate  possession  at  all times.”

The  defendant  also  challenged the  inventory search  as  illegal,  and  Judge  O’Neill,  as  noted  above, agreed.  The Toohey  case  requires  that  inventory searches  be conducted “in  accordance  with established  departmental  procedures  …  and  must Reports  and  Studies not  be  used  as  a pretext  for  criminal investigation.”

Judge O’Neill  rejected  the  prosecution  arguments, which  included  that  police  had  probable  cause  to search  due  to  either  plain-view  or  the automobile exception.

The  defendant  was  represented by  Michael  A. Komorn;  the  opinion  in  People  v.  Michael Anthony Gonzalez,  56A  Judicial District  Court  No.  20-111-FY.

Patients can use medical marijuana while on probation in Michigan, appeals court rules

Patients can use medical marijuana while on probation in Michigan, appeals court rules

AP) — Judges can’t prevent people from using medical marijuana while on probation for a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals said.

Anyone holding a state-issued medical marijuana card is immune to possible penalties, the appeals court said, 3-0.

The court, however, cautioned that the decision does not apply to the recreational use of marijuana, which was approved by voters in 2018.

Michael Thue was barred from using medical marijuana while on probation for a year in a road rage incident in the Traverse City area. A District Court judge said the marijuana ban was the policy of Circuit Court judges in Grand Traverse County.

Circuit Judge Thomas Power declined to hear an appeal.

The appeals court said Power made the wrong call, based on a line of decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court and the language of the medical marijuana law.

The law “preempts or supersedes ordinances and statutes that conflict” with it, said judges Mark Cavanagh, Deborah Servitto and Thomas Cameron.

The Attorney

Medical marijuana patients have had their doctor recommended use of cannabis while on probation in limbo for a long time.

Lead trial attorney and advocate for marijuana law reform Michael Komorn and his dedicated team of attorneys (specifically Ally McCormick) secured a victory in the Michigan Court of Appeals for Medical Marijuana Patients

As many battles for marijuana patientscaregivers and business clients represented by the Komorn Law Firm loom in the background – a decision has been made to set the tone for future cases involving those on probation.

News Articles

Court Cases During The Early Medical Marijuana Years

Court Cases During The Early Medical Marijuana Years

Municipal reforms

First a brief look at the history of medical marijuana and legalization thanks to Wikipedia

Prior to statewide legalization, many cities in Michigan decriminalized cannabis or made enforcement of cannabis laws the lowest priority. Among the cities to enact such reforms were: Ann Arbor (1972), Kalamazoo (2012), Detroit (2012), Flint (2012), Grand Rapids (2012), Ypsilanti (2012), Ferndale (2013), Jackson (2013), Lansing (2013), Hazel Park (2014), Oak Park (2014), Berkley (2014), Huntington Woods (2014), Mount Pleasant (2014), Pleasant Ridge (2014), Port Huron (2014), Saginaw (2014), East Lansing (2015), Keego Harbor (2015), and Portage (2015).[2]

Ann Arbor

Main article: Cannabis laws in Ann Arbor, Michigan

Since the 1970s the college town of Ann Arbor has enacted some of the most lenient laws on cannabis possession in the United States. These include a 1972 city council ordinance, a 1974 voter referendum making possession of small amounts a civil infraction subject to a small fine, and a 2004 referendum on the medical use of cannabis. Since state law took precedence over municipal law, the far-stricter state cannabis laws were still enforced on University of Michigan property.

Medical legalization (2008)

Main article: Michigan Compassionate Care Initiative

In November 2008, the Michigan Compassionate Care Initiative (appearing on the ballot as Proposal 1) was approved by Michigan voters.[3] The measure allowed patients with a physician’s recommendation to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis for treatment of certain qualifying medical conditions.[4] Although it did not explicitly allow dispensaries to operate,[5] it did allow patients or their caregivers to cultivate up to 12 cannabis plants.[4] The measure faced opposition from law enforcement officials and drug czar John P. Walters,[6] but it was ultimately approved by a 63–37 margin, making Michigan the 13th state to legalize medical use and the first Midwestern state to do so.[7]

In February 2013, the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that the 2008 initiative did not allow for the operation of medical cannabis dispensaries in the state. An estimated 75 to 100 dispensaries were operating under this legal gray area at the time.[8]

In September 2016, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a package of bills that among other reforms: (a) allowed the operation and regulation of medical cannabis dispensaries; (b) set a taxation rate of 3% on medical cannabis; and (c) allowed the use of non-smokable forms such as topicals and edibles.[9][10][11]

Recreational legalization (2018)

Main article: Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act

In November 2017, legalization proponents submitted 365,000 signatures to put a cannabis legalization measure on the 2018 ballot.[12] In April 2018, it was certified that supporters had turned in the requisite number of valid signatures.[13] In June 2018, state lawmakers declined the option to pass the measure themselves, sending it to the November ballot.[14] On November 6, 2018, Michigan voters approved Proposal 1 by a 56–44 margin, making Michigan the 10th state (and first in the Midwest) to legalize cannabis for recreational use.[15]

The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act allows persons age 21 and over to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis in public, up to 10 ounces at home, and cultivate up to 12 plants at home.[16] It also sets up a system for the state-licensed cultivation and distribution of cannabis, with sales subject to a 10% excise tax (in addition to the state’s 6% sales tax).[15] The law went into effect on December 6, 2018,[17] and the first dispensaries opened to the public on December 1, 2019.[18]

Source for above information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Michigan

Court Cases During The Early Medical Marijuana Years That Helped Shape The Current Laws in Michigan

or…. Victims of The System.

Michigan COA and MSC Cases:

Important Court Cases in Marijuana

People-v-Adams-282638..pdf
People-v-Agro-305725.pdf
People-v-Agro-320927.pdf
People-v-Allen-324710.pdf
People-v-Alzehery-335632.pdf
People-v-Amsdill-334572.OPN_.pdf
People-v-Amsdill-Sochacki-317875.pdf
People-v-Anderson-300641-concurring.pdf
People-v-Anderson-300641-on-Remand.pdf
People-v-Anderson-300641.pdf
People-v-Auernhammer-322800.pdf
People-v-Barash-324545.pdf
People-v-Bendele-334677.pdf
People-v-Blesch-314646.pdf
People-v-Blesch-concur-in-part-dissent-in-part-314646.pdf
People-v-Bosca-317633.pdf
People-v-Brown-303371.pdf
People-v-Bylsma-302762.pdf
People-v-Bylsma-Overholt-317904.pdf
People-v-Bylsma-S144120.pdf
People-v-Campbell-291345.pdf
People-v-Carlton-321630.pdf
People-v-Carlton-concurrence-dissent-321630.pdf
People-v-Carroll-297541.pdf
People-v-Carruthers-309987.pdf
People-v-Carruthers-319991.pdf
People-v-Christner-309076.pdf
People-v-Cook-MSC-155570-order-granting-leave-in-COA-336467.pdf
People-v-Danto-et-al-302986.pdf
People-v-Dehko-305041.pdf
People-v-Donaghy-322677.pdf
People-v-Feezel-S138031.pdf
People-v-Ferguson-326709-326725.pdf
People-v-France-309822.pdf
People-v-Frederick-323642.pdf
People-v-Frederick-VanDoorne-MSC-153115.pdf
People-v-Gebhardt-306516.pdf
People-v-Gillette-334099.pdf
People-v-Gonzalez-327859.pdf
People-v-Goodwin-320591.pdf
People-v-Grant-316487.pdf
People-v-Green-308133.pdf
People-v-Hannan-329579.pdf
People-v-Hartwick-312308.pdf
People-v-Hartwick-332391.pdf
People-v-Hartwick-and-Tuttle-S148444.pdf
People-v-Heminger-316959.pdf
People-v-Hensley-331089.pdf
People-v-Hinzman-308909.pdf
People-v-Hinzman-309351.pdf
People-v-Howard-312267.pdf
People-v-Jackson-331074.pdf
People-v-Jaszczolt-S155377.pdf
People-v-Johnson-326504.pdf
People-v-Johnson-et-al-308104L.pdf
People-v-Jones-312065.pdf
People-v-Keller-304022.pdf
People-v-Kiel-301427.pdf
People-v-King-294682.pdf
People-v-Kocevar-329150.pdf
People-v-Kocevar-dissent-329150.pdf
People-v-Kolanek-295125.pdf
People-v-Kolanek-S142695.pdf
People-v-Koon-301443.pdf
People-v-Koon-S145259.pdf
People-v-Latz-328274.pdf
People-v-Lee-307318.pdf
People-v-Leonard-313345.pdf
People-v-Lewis-3173177.pdf
People-v-Lewis-330107.pdf
People-v-Lois-Butler-Jackson-315591.pdf
People-v-Lois-Butler-Jackson-concurring-315591.pdf
People-v-Lois-Butler-Jackson-partial-dissent-and-concurring-.pdf
People-v-Macleod-326950.pdf
People-v-Magyari-327798..pdf
People-v-Malik-293397.pdf
People-v-Manuel-331408.pdf
People-v-Mazur-317447.pdf
People-v-Mazur-S149290.pdf
People-v-McCleese-307079.pdf
People-v-Mendoza-328109.pdf
People-v-Miller-322555.pdf
People-v-Misko-323885.pdf
People-v-Moran-336847.pdf
People-v-Nicholson-306496.pdf
People-v-OConnor-312843.pdf
People-v-Olger-309559.pdf
People-v-Orlando-303644.pdf
People-v-Ousley-330502.pdf
People-v-Peters-288219.pdf
People-v-Placencia-321585.pdf
People-v-Pointer-302795-October-11-2012.pdf
People-v-Pointer-on-remand-302795-October-1-2013.pdf
People-v-Randall-318740.pdf
People-v-Redden-295809-concurring-opinion.pdf
People-v-Redden-295809.pdf
People-v-Reed-296686.pdf
People-v-Reed-Shaw-333118-333119.pdf
People-v-Rivera-Stackpoole-307315.pdf
People-v-Rocafort-321804-on-remand.pdf
People-v-Rocafort-321804.pdf
People-v-Rocafort-dissent-321804.pdf
People-v-Rocafort-dissent-on-remand-321804.pdf
People-v-Rocafort-S153254.pdf
People-v-Rose-326206.pdf
People-v-Rose-331021.pdf
People-v-Salerno-307087.pdf
People-v-Selman-333484.pdf
People-v-Sherwood-321558.pdf
People-v-Slack-334583.pdf
People-v-Sommer-319184.pdf
People-v-Spencer-304422.pdf
People-v-Spencer-concurring-opinion-304422.pdf
People-v-Tackman-et.-al.-330654.pdf
People-v-Trzos-334666.pdf
People-v-Tuttle-312364.pdf
People-v-Vanderbutts-299347.pdf
People-v-VanSickle-309555.pdf
People-v-Ventura-327289.pdf
People-v-Walburg-295497.pdf
People-v-Watkins-301771.pdf
People-v-Watkins-302558.pdf
People-v-Witt-332940.pdf
People-v-Zaid-320197.pdf
Roe-v-Bloomfield-Township-308906.pdf
State-of-Michigan-v-McQueen-S143824.pdf
State-of-Michigan-v-McQueen-Taylor-and-Compassionate-Apothe.pdf
Ter-Beek-v-Wyoming-306240.pdf
Ter-Beek-v-Wyoming-S145816.pdf
US-v-McIntosh-et.-al.-15-10117.pdf
US-v-Neece-FBEH005C-EDMI.pdf
York-v-Miller-335344.pdf

Public Acts modifying the MMMA:

2012-PA-0460.pdf
2012-PA-0512.pdf
2012-PA-0514.pdf
2015-HNB-4629.pdf
2015-SCB-0072.pdf
2015-SFA-0141-E.pdf
2015-SNB-0072.pdf
2015-SNB-0141.pdf
2016-PA-0281.pdf
2016-PA-0282.pdf
2016-PA-0283.pdf
2016-PA-350.pdf

Many things have changed and Marijuana legalization was voted by the people of Michigan in 2018.
For Current information go to the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) website

CRIMINAL DEFENSE
For over 27 years Komorn Law has been a trusted adviser providing results-focused legal counsel to its clients in all areas of criminal defense. From the first encounter with law enforcement to districts courts all the way to the supreme court. We are advocates of our clients’ rights in cases involving marijuana, drugged driving, DUI, criminal charges, as well as many other case types.

CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSING AND LEGAL COUNSEL
If you are starting or have an established Cannabis Business in Michigan. Komorn Law has the legal team you will need.  With a 100% success rate in licensing our firm offers legal counsel services with connections and assets in the world’s leading and most refined cannabis industry network. 

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

2021 BMMR cannabis CBD corruption. prosecutors dispensary Driving DUI forfeiture gun rights hemp komornlaw lara law enforcement abuse laws Legalization marijuana Medical Marijuana Michigan michigan laws michigan news MMFLA MRA news police politics science usa news us supreme court Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.

Michigan Court Costs Are Unconstitutional?

Michigan Court Costs Are Unconstitutional?

So when you’re convicted of a crime, or a traffic ticket, you have to pay a bunch of costs. Did you know that many of those costs go back into the local court’s operating budget? So when that judge orders you to be a good convict and pay your court fees, you’re...