Low-income court defendants across the country have found themselves in a never-ending cycle of fines, jail, probation and debt.
To punish him for high school truancy in 1999, Tennessee officials told him he would not be able to legally drive until he turned 21. He drove anyway, incurring two tickets and racking up more than $1,000 in fines and fees.
Like other low-income defendants in similar situations across the country, Gibbs couldn’t pay and ended up serving jail time and probation. That incurred another cost: a monthly supervision fee to a private probation company.
Rather than risk another arrest, Gibbs, now 38, decided to quit driving, which he said makes it nearly impossible to work. He said he spent several years living in a motel room with his mother, his disabled father and his sister before they all became homeless. In August, the family found housing in a dilapidated trailer, miles from the nearest town or food source.
“Honestly, I feel like I’m being punished for being poor,” Gibbs said.
Charged with a Felony or Misdemeanor? – Contact Komorn Law at 248-357-3550 for a free case evaluation.
For years, state and city officials in the U.S. — unwilling to raise taxes — have steadily increased their reliance on court fines and fees to balance budgets. Poor defendants who can’t pay are jailed, clogging local lockups with people who in many cases have not been convicted of any crime and putting others on a probation that doesn’t end until all debts are erased.
According to some cannabis attorneys patients and caregivers as well as cultivators in Michigan can’t process their plants without breaking the law as a result of a Court of Appeals decision.
During the drying process between when a marijuana plant is harvested and completely dried for use (AKA -wet marijuana), that time is not covered by the state law, according to a Michigan Court of Appeals decision ruling on July 19, 2018.
The appeals court case — People v. Vanessa Mansour — arises from a police raid at Mansour’s Troy home. There they found marijuana plants and marijuana buds in different stages of wet and drying. They also found dried marijuana buds.
Mansour was a medical marijuana patient at the time.
Mansour’s defense argued that the marijuana that was drying was not usable and therefore qualified her for immunity under state law. They argued the drying marijuana should not be considered as authorities made up their charges.
“To say that the legislature makes it legal to possess growing plants and to possess a limited amount of finished product — but that in between, everybody is just illegal — that’s the interpretation that the Court of Appeals has hoisted on everybody,” Neil Rockind said.
The Carruthers ruling is outdated and not relevant, Rockind said.
Court’s interpretation of § 4 of the MMMA in People v Carruthers, 301 Mich App 590, 609; 837 NW2d 16 (2013), was controlling, and that the holding of Carruthers required the trial court to consider the total amount of marijuana possessed by defendant, not just the total amount of usable marijuana.
Rockind said it conflicts with state law and with People vs. Manuel, which the Court of Appeals previously decided. The Michigan Supreme Court has already had to refer a medical marijuana case back to the Court of Appeals due to the Manuel ruling, Rockind said.
In Manuel, the defendant was “both a qualifying patient and a primary caregiver for five patients, so he was allowed . . . to possess up to 15 ounces, or approximately 425.24 grams, of usable marijuana under the MMMA.” Manuel, 319 Mich App at 300. The marijuana he possessed was well in excess of that amount, however. The trial court held that “the marijuana . . . was unusable because it was in ‘various stages of drying.’ ” Id. at 122. It therefore ruled “that the defendant was entitled to § 4 immunity and dismissed the charges against him.”
But the COA referred to the second prong of Carruthers analysis stating.
Importantly, however, neither the prosecution nor the defendant in Manuel cited to Carruthers. Nor, perhaps largely for that reason, did this Court in Manuel cite to Carruthers.
And, consequently, neither the parties nor this Court in Manuel ever reached the second prong of the Carruthers analysis:
In short, the question of whether a possessor of marijuana possesses an allowed quantity of usable marijuana is only the beginning of the relevant inquiry under
4. A further pertinent and necessary inquiry, for purposes of a § 4 analysis, is whether that person possesses any quantity of marijuana that does not constitute usable marijuana under the term-of-art definition of the MMMA. If so, and without regard to the quantity of usable marijuana possessed, the person then does not possess “an amount of marihuana that does not exceed . . . 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana . . . .” MCL 333.26424 (a) and (b)(1) (emphasis added).
Instead, he or she then possesses an amount of marijuana that is in excess of the permitted amount of usable marijuana. In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana under the applicable definitions. Carruthers, 301 Mich App at 610.
Rockind said he plans to take the case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Michigan voters will soon be asked to consider a ballot proposal Nov. 8, 2018 that would make recreational marijuana legal in the state.
Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.
It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who said she tried to buy a firearm for self-defense in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card. The gun store refused, citing the federal rule banning the sale of firearms to illegal drug users.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
Wilson said she was not a marijuana user, but obtained the card in part as an expression of support for marijuana legalization.
She challenged guidance issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2011 that said gun sellers should assume people with medical marijuana cards use the drug and not sell them firearms.
It’s illegal for a licensed firearm dealer to sell a gun to an Oregon medical or recreational marijuana consumer, said Portland lawyer Leland Berger. He noted that the ruling is focused on sales and doesn’t affect medical marijuana consumers who already have guns.
The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said it was reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder was more likely to use the drug.
The court also said Congress had reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”
“The notion that cannabis consumers are violent people is absurd,” Berger said, calling the notion that classifying medical card holders who use marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions as violent people is “even more absurd.”
Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, a nonprofit that works to reform marijuana laws, called on Congress to “amend cannabis’ criminal status in a way that comports with both public and scientific opinion, as well as its rapidly changing legal status under state laws.”
“Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as do other citizens,” he said in a statement published on the nonprofit’s website.
Wilson’s attorney, Chaz Rainey, said there needs to be more consistency in the application of the Second Amendment. He planned to appeal the decision and his options include submitting the appeal to the same panel of judges that issued the ruling, a larger panel of the circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,” he said.
The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson, including her argument that her gun rights were being stripped without due process.
Armentano said the idea that marijuana users were more prone to violence is a fallacy.
“Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as other citizens,” he said.
Alex Kreit, a marijuana law expert at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said the ruling was significant — but may not be the last time the 9th Circuit addresses medical marijuana and gun rights.
“It seems like the court did not foreclose the possibility of a challenge by actual medical marijuana users that they shouldn’t be lumped with other drug users in terms of concerns about violence,” he said.
A state court has broken up one of the biggest theft rings in Michigan.
The state Supreme Court should let the ruling stand and the Legislature should enshrine it in law.
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that a key provision of the civil forfeiture law violates the due process rights of defendants.
It is a welcome decision and long overdue. State and local law enforcement agencies use civil forfeiture to steal the property of people who not only are never convicted of a crime, but often are never even charged with one.
It is a perversion of justice that should have never passed constitutional muster.
The appellate court ruled in the case of Shantrese Kinnon, who was arrested along with her husband in Kent County on drug charges.
After searching the couple’s home, police seized several pieces of property, including an SUV, a pickup, a motorcycle, laptop computer and $400 in cash.
That’s become standard operating procedure for drug arrests. Officers move through a home like burglars, grabbing everything of significant value under the pretense they might have been purchased with the illegal gains from narcotics trafficking.
But the Kinnons were never convicted of the charges for which they were arrested, nor for any other crime.
And yet when Shantrese Kinnon challenged the property seizures and tried to get her vehicles and other valuables returned, she couldn’t because she was unable to post the required 10 percent bond.
In her case, that amounted to $2,000, which she didn’t have.
In most forfeiture cases, even if the person whose property was taken can post the bond, getting their stuff back can still cost hundreds or thousands of dollars because it most often requires hiring an attorney and paying other fees.
So in effect they are being punished without being convicted. Often, defendants choose to let police have their belongings rather than go through the long and expensive process of getting it back.
It’s a lucrative scheme for law enforcement agencies. A report from the Michigan State Police found that in 2014 forfeitures netted police departments $24 million.
And they get to keep it all. For most departments, revenue from property seizures makes up a significant part of their budgets.
That creates a perverse incentive for agencies to grab as much property as they can, and do everything possible to hang onto it, even bargaining with defendants to drop charges in exchange for their seized assets.
Forfeiture is legalized theft, and should not be part of a legal system that purports to value justice.
If a defendant is convicted of a crime and prosecutors can make the case that the proceeds of the illegal activity were used to purchase property, an argument can be made for seizure. But that should come only after conviction.
Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, has introduced a bill to eliminate the bond requirement on forfeiture challenges. That’s a good first step.
The Legislature should pass broader reforms that get police entirely out of the business of stealing other people’s property.
11:25 p.m. EDT August 23, 2016
If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana recommended to you as a medical marijuana patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, contact Komorn Law and ensure your rights are protected. Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation at 800-656-3557.
Federal Judge Applies GPS Ruling To Drug Dog Traffic Stop
By Michael Komorn
Last week, a judge with the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia applied the precedent to the common police practice of “permeation” where a police officer enters a suspect’s vehicle without warrant or consent to facilitate a drug dog sniff of the car’s exterior.
“The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” Justice Scalia wrote for the unanimous court. “We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”
This finding was reiterated with a decision by the Supreme Court in March, again authorized by Justice Scalia, ruling that a police officer could not use a drug dog on the porch of a home without a warrant.
These recent decisions came to the forefront when Marcus Wyn Taylor was pulled over after making an allegedly unsafe turn to his home in a Charleston, West Virginia public housing project at 6pm on October 24, 2012. Charleston Police Corporal Owen Morris suspected Taylor of being a drug dealer because he had recognized the man sat on his porch “at all hours of the day and night.”
The officers approached the car and noted that Taylor seemed nervous. Taylor asked if he could speak to his lawyer, but the officers refused. When Taylor opened the glove compartment to retrieve his license and registration, Detective Daniels caught a glimpse of an unknown amount of cash.
Taylor was ordered out of the Buick, and he asked again to speak to his lawyer while refusing to consent to a search of the car. Taylor was handcuffed for “aggressive behavior.” A drug dog was called in, as about twenty local residents gathered to watch the spectacle.
“One must take into consideration as well Mr. Moore’s appearance on the scene and his uncooperativeness, and a growing crowd from which at least a couple of hostile utterances were heard,” Judge Copenhaver ruled. “The stop was not prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete its mission under the circumstances faced by the officers.”
Although no actual drugs were found, there was a FN Five-seveN semi-auto pistol under the driver’s seat and $93,157 in the trunk. Taylor was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Had the dog not alerted, Taylor would have been sent on his way. The judge found the entry into the Buick to be a constitutional violation.
“As in Jones and Jardines, law enforcement physically occupied private property — the Buick — for the purpose of obtaining information — the otherwise undetectable, or less easily detected, odors of controlled substances — found therein,” Judge Copenhaver ruled. “Probable cause was lacking for that unreasonable search. The search thus transgressed the Fourth Amendment.”
If you or someone you know is facing felony charges in Michigan,, call an expert at 800-656-3557 and get the defense you need.
