July 27, 2018 – The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the Ann Arbor and Clio school districts have a right to ban guns from their schools
In a very much watched case that deals a blow to gun rights advocates who argued state law prohibits schools from enacting those policies.
Both districts had adopted the policies that barred the possession of guns on school property or at a school-sponsored event.
They each were sued by different groups. One was Michigan Gun Owners with parent Ulysses Wong, sued the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Michigan Open Carry with parent Kenneth Herman filed suit against the Clio Area Schools.
On Friday July 27, 2018, The 4-3 ruling upheld a 2016 ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals which came to the same conclusion.
Jim Makowski, the attorney for Michigan Gun Owners and Wong, said the decision saddens him because he believes it will do nothing to improve school safety.
“Now criminals can be confident that most school districts are not going to allow firearms on property,” Makowski said. “Now we’ve just created a whole bunch of soft targets that are not going to be protected by an individual with a firearm.”
“Safety is our first and our primary duty, even before our critical mission of teaching and learning,” said Ann Arbor Public Schools Superintendent Jeanice Swift:.
That’s why the district, and its board, pushed the policy.
The Michigan Supreme Court has reversed a state appeals court decision, issuing a ruling Wednesday that a single photo identification of a man suspected of robbing and shooting another man at gunpoint in Detroit wasn’t sufficient.
It’s a case that was argued last week before hundreds of students at Cass Tech High School in Detroit, as part of court’s Community Connections program that takes its proceedings on the road to high schools and colleges across the state.
It was the first time the high court held its proceedings at a Detroit school.
The case involved Elisah Thomas, 20, who was charged in a 2014 robbery and shooting on the city’s west side. Thomas has denied being involved in the incident, and told the Free Press Wednesday that he’s happy to be able to put the whole matter behind him.
“It was a rough time of my life that I’m glad to have over,” said Thomas, who was 17 and a high school senior at Oak Park High School at the time of his arrest. “This system can break you.”
Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office, said Wednesday that “there has not been a decision,” on whether to file a notice to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The key issue in the case: Whether the identification of Thomas raises due process concerns. After the victim, Dwight Dukes, was robbed and shot, police officers canvassed the area looking for a suspect. They came across Thomas, who said he had left his home to get a meal from a nearby coney island restaurant.
The police officer took his picture with a cell phone. Within a hour of the shooting, the officer was showing the single cell phone photo to the victim as he was being wheeled down a hospital hallway, asking him “Was this the guy who shot you?”
Lawyers for Thomas argued that the process was unnecessarily suggestive. A Wayne County Circuit judge agreed in February 2015, throwing out the identification and dismissing the charges. But the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the circuit judge in December 2016.
“Due process concerns arise when law enforcement officers use an identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary,” the court said in a written ruling.
“The parties do not dispute the facts relating to the identification: the victim viewed the assailant’s partially obscured face for no more than seven seconds on a dark city street with no streetlights while a gun was pointed at him. The description the victim gave to police officers was generic and could have described many young men in the area; moreover the victim’s description of the assailant changed between his first interview and his follow-up interview at the hospital.
“Accordingly, the trial court determined that the single photograph identification was sufficiently unreliable and that it should be suppressed. We agree with the trial court’s assessment of reliability based on the relevant totality of the circumstances.”
Thomas faced multiple charges, including one count of assault with intent to murder and one count of armed robbery. But the high court ruling means the charges against Thomas have been dismissed.
Thomas said the quick ruling – after oral arguments were held a week ago – indicates the members of the court “saw all of the flaws” of the case.
“They never even gave me a gunshot residue test,” Thomas said, adding that if they had, he would have never been charged.
“They didn’t have anything. They didn’t have any evidence against me.”
Thomas, who was taking community college classes in Lansing after the charges against him were originally dismissed in 2015, has dreams of being an entrepreneur and plans to return to college to get a degree in business administration.
But he worries about people who aren’t as fortunate as he was. He said he worked multiple jobs to raise enough money to pay his attorneys.
“I really feel for anyone who falls into this kind of situation,” he said. “I had the money to pay an attorney … A lot of people don’t.”
Contact Lori Higgins: 313-222-6651, lhiggins@freepress.com or @LoriAHiggins
LANSING, MI 7/30/15 — In a decision that could have a far-reaching impact on current and future cases going through the court system, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s sentencing guidelines that mandate prison terms are unconstitutional, and that judges should use them only in an advisory capacity.
In a 5-2 decision, the court struck down parts of Michigan law around sentencing guidelines and made sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory.
One of the biggest aspects of Wednesday’s ruling is the elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing as determined by sentencing guidelines. Instead of sentencing guidelines determining a minimum length of how long a defendant must stay in prison, it will be up to Michigan judges to decide the minimum amount of a prison sentence range.
“A scheme of mandatory minimum sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment if it constrains the discretion of the sentencing court by compelling an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict alone,” wrote Justice Bridget Mary McCormack in the majority’s opinion.
The ruling set off a range of reactions, with many prosecutors expressing outrage, while many judges hailed the decision as long overdue.
Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper predicted the ruling would throw the judicial system into chaos for a while.
“This is going to result in a great deal of disparity in sentencing,” Cooper said. “It’s going to make a mess on both sides of the aisle and that’s not fair to anyone.”
But Oakland County Judge Jim Alexander said that guidelines are supposed to be a road map and not a hard and fast mandate.
“We’re going to have to get used to it. We’re going to have more discretion,” he said. “You can’t get total consistency when you’re dealing with human beings.”
There are more people incarcerated than our neighboring states and it’s costing $2 billion a year.
“Michigan’s sentencing guidelines do so to the extent that the floor of the guidelines range compels a court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict.”
Sentencing guidelines are a series of variables — made up of the offense for which a defendant is found guilty and the defendant’s past — that help determine the range of time a defendant could serve in prison.
McCormack was joined by Chief Justice Robert P. Young Jr. and Justices Mary Beth Kelly, David Viviano and Richard Bernstein in the majority opinion. Justices Brian Zahra and Stephen J, Markman dissented.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday Jun 15, 2015, that Employers’ zero-tolerance drug policies trump Colorado’s medical marijuana laws.
In a 6-0 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings that businesses can fire employees for the use of medical marijuana even if it’s off-duty.
Colorado became the first state to provide guidance on a gray area of the law. With the ruling, which was a blow to some medical marijuana patients and a sigh of relief to employers.
The decision came nine months after the state’s highest court heard oral arguments in Brandon Coats’ case against Dish Network.
Coats was rendered a quadriplegic by a car accident He had a medical marijuana card and consumed pot off-duty to control leg spasms. He was fired in 2010 after failing a random drug test.
Coats, who was a customer service representative for Dish, challenged the Douglas County satellite TV company’s zero-tolerance drug policy, claiming that his use was legal under state law. His firing had been upheld in both trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals.
When the case went to the state Supreme Court, legal observers said the case could have significant implications for employers across Colorado. They noted that the ruling also could be precedent-setting as Colorado and other states wrangle with adapting laws to a nascent industry that is illegal under federal law.
At the crux of the issue was whether the use of medical marijuana — which is in compliance with Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Amendment — was”lawful” under the state’s Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute.
That term, the justices said, refers to activities lawful under both state and federal law.
“Therefore, employees who engage in an activity, such as medical marijuana use, that is permitted by state law but unlawful under federal law are not protected by the statute,” Justice Allison H. Eid wrote in the opinion.
“The Court’s opinion seems to suggest the voter-approved initiative should be decided by jurors on what is criminal and what is medical.”
Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Compassionate Apothecary in Mount Pleasant (McQueen v. State of Michigan), sending many patients scrambling, fearing their access to medicinal marihuana will be severely restricted, with Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette interpreting the decision as widespread authority to shut down all dispensaries.
While the decision could be viewed that way, the Supreme Court was much more pragmatic in its decision, essentially telling communities, “It’s your choice.” The ruling, issued earlier this month, allows prosecutors to shut down dispensaries as a public nuisance, but not as an illegal drug operation. The decision seems to lean toward taking a civil approach instead of filing criminal charges, allowing attorneys and county prosecutors to have a local option of how they want to address dispensaries.
What this means to dispensaries is that registered patients are still protected from arrest when acquiring cannabis, but the provider, or dispensary, is subject to arrest and prosecution, regardless of whether or not money is exchanged. The Court’s opinion seems to suggest the voter-approved initiative should be decided by jurors on what is criminal and what is medical.
While it would be difficult for a city to say that a dispensary is now a nuisance when it has functioned for several years providing safe access to the community, at least one city, Flint, is intent on doing so.
In communities where dispensaries are working, what is the incentive to shut them down? Many have thrived and provide compassionate services to the sick, without incident and operating within municipal guidelines.
It is important to remember that Compassionate Apothecary was shut down not because of criminal charges or illegal sales, but deemed a public nuisance, and its owners were not and have not been charged with any crimes.
Essentially, the Supreme Court’s ruling puts the decision on medical marijuana back where it belongs — in the hands of the people. In dispensary cases, owners/operators now have the option of a jury trial, to let residents of the surrounding community decide whether or not to accept the business or view it as criminal behavior. Despite this, for dispensary operators who want to avoid liabilities, it is not advisable to stay open.
The wildcard in this ruling is whether and to what extent Michigan’s law enforcement community will pursue closing dispensaries, and if they seek to shut down or criminally charge those facilities. Until this happens, dispensary operators who remain open should be prepared to defend themselves in nuisance or criminal cases.
As new legislation is discussed in Michigan relating to legalizing dispensaries, it is important to remember the intent of the MMMA — to provide a safe, uninterrupted supply of medical marijuana to patients. While the dispensary model can be successful, and was in several Michigan communities, the safest advice would be to encourage patients and caregivers to return to the self-sustaining cottage industry model while seeing how the battle plays out in Lansing.
