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The Carruthers ruling is outdated and not relevant, Rockind said.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.
Two days ago, the Michigan court of Appeals heard oral arguments for several cases involving registered caregivers who allegedly sold marijuana to undercover police agents posing as certified patients. These highly anticipated cases stem from a 2010 operation which shut down Ferndale dispensary, Clinical Relief.
Tonight on Green Trees Radio we will speak with Stuart Friedman, one of the defense attorneys for People V Clinical Relief. We will discuss the relevance and context of this particular case and how it may effect future litigation.
The defendants, who were accused of running an illegal dispensary, filed a motion to dismiss all charges based on the common law rule of lenity. They argued that at the time of arrest, the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) was ambiguous in regards to patient-to-patient sales of marijuana. The circuit court agreed with the defendants’ claim and dismissed all of the charges. Their case was challenged by the prosecutor and now has made it’s way to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Michigan Court of Appeals – Recreational Cannabis Use and Probation Recently, another pivotal case, People v. Lopez-Hernandez, was decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals At Komorn Law, we are dedicated to protecting the rights of our clients and staying at the...
A federal circuit judge writes that Detroit’s vehicle seizure scheme “is simply a money-making venture—one most often used to extort money from those who can least afford it.” A panel of federal appellate judges ruled that Detroit’s practice of...
A federal appeals court has ruled that the ban preventing people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that the historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification did not justify disarming individuals based on past drug usage.
The decision is the latest in a series of successful challenges to the long-standing federal prohibition, which is actively being contested in various court cases across the country.
A three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Wednesday to toss the conviction of Patrick Daniels, a Mississippi man arrested and sentenced to prison for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana. The panel found that Daniels’ conviction was inconsistent with the “history and tradition” of gun regulation.
“In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the unanimouspanel inUS v. Daniels.
“Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. As applied to Daniels, then, § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.”
RESTORE YOUR GUN RIGHTS – CALL OUR OFFICE – KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550
Kimberly Golden Gore, an attorney for Daniels, similarly said during an oral argument in June that her client was “serving 46 months in a federal facility for having less than half a gram of marijuana, and two firearms that otherwise would have been legal,” arguing that “historical tradition simply doesn’t support that kind of permanent and total restriction on his Second Amendment rights.”
This ruling potentially invalidates the firearms ban for any person who is an “unlawful user” of any illicit drug, not just marijuana.
DISCLAIMER In a legal environment that continues to evolve, it is essential to stay informed and seek guidance from knowledgeable professionals. Before acting on any information you find on the internet, this website, any linked website, any referring website or any verbal or written information consult a licensed attorney. Contact Komorn Law today to discuss your case and learn how we can assist you in navigating the complexities of Michigan’s laws. Consult an Attorney – Remember you’re on the internet.
DISCLAIMER In a legal environment that continues to evolve, it is essential to stay informed and seek guidance from knowledgeable professionals. Before acting on any information you find on the internet, this website, any linked website, any referring website or any verbal or written information consult a licensed attorney. Contact Komorn Law today to discuss your case and learn how we can assist you in navigating the complexities of Michigan’s laws. Consult an Attorney – Remember you’re on the internet.
