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
PONTIAC, Mich. – The Michigan appeals court is criticizing an Oakland County judge for sending a 70-year-old man to prison after he insisted he was too poor to make consistent payments to a crime victim.
In a 2-1 decision, the court said Judge Martha Anderson failed a key step: She yanked Ghazi Marji’s probation and sent him to prison in 2015 without trying to confirm that he was truthful about his weak finances. Marji, a former trucker, was 70 at the time.
The appeals court says the prosecutor and probation department never presented firm facts about Marji’s assets. Judge Elizabeth Gleicher says prosecutors need more than “smoke and mirrors” to lock up someone.
Marji had paid $8,000 toward $23,000 owed to an assault victim. He spent a year in prison.
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.
Westland — Marijuana and pizza may be a popular combination, but the state Court of Appeals ruled last week it isn’t enough to warrant police seizure of property.
The state appellate court overturned the forfeiture of a car after ruling the driver didn’t use the vehicle to buy marijuana found by police, but instead received the weed as a tip for delivering a pizza.
The 2-1 decision came down Thursday, a day after House Bill 4499, part of a seven-bill package seeking to reform the state’s forfeiture laws, was passed by the Michigan Senate, 38-0. The Michigan House of Representatives in June approved the measure 104-5.
The Westland case began with an April 2013 traffic stop, during which Westland police officer Robert Fruit found a gram of marijuana on the driver, Linda Ross.
“Linda worked as a delivery driver and had received the marijuana as a tip earlier in the day after delivering a pizza to a customer,” the State Court of Appeals decision said.
The 2007 Ford Focus was seized under civil forfeiture laws that allow authorities to confiscate property that’s used to commit crimes. Ross’ father, Steven Ross, hired attorney William Maze, who specializes in forfeiture cases, to fight the case.
“At a forfeiture trial, Fruit testified that Linda told him, upon her arrest, that she purchased the marijuana from a customer to whom she had delivered a pizza,” the appellate court decision said.
“However, Linda testified, and the trial court found credible, that she received the marijuana as a tip for delivering pizza and that she did not intend to go to the customer’s house in order to purchase the marijuana.”
Maze said: “The question in this case was, did she use the car to purchase marijuana? If not, then they can’t seize the car. Possession of a drug isn’t enough.”
While Wayne Circuit Judge Robert Colombo agreed with Maze’s contention that mere possession of marijuana isn’t enough to warrant a seizure, the judge ruled Ross’ vehicle was used for the purpose of receiving the drug, and, thus, subject to forfeiture.
Appellate judges Michael F. Gadola and Jane M. Beckering overturned the lower court’s decision, with Judge Kathleen Jenson dissenting.
“Despite Linda’s testimony that she sometimes received marijuana as a tip from various customers, there was no evidence that she expected to receive it on this particular occasion, that this particular customer had given her marijuana before, or that she was motivated to go to the customer’s house by anything other than a delivery call,” the appeals court said.
“According to plaintiff and the trial court’s perspective, the fact that ‘the car was used to receive marijuana’ because marijuana was placed into it established — on its own — that Linda used the vehicle for the purpose of receiving marijuana. By that logic, a vehicle would be subject to forfeiture in all cases of mere possession.”
Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Maria Miller said: “We are in the process of determining whether we will appeal this or not.”
However, that figure is likely low, since 56 agencies failed to respond to a Government Asset Forfeiture Report Form. Of the agencies that did respond, 332 reported asset forfeitures and 298 reported none.
Police are not required to file an annual report with the state detailing their forfeitures, although the proposed laws, which are awaiting Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature, would make it mandatory.
Bill 4499 would increase the burden of proof required to forfeit property in drug and public nuisance cases. Instead of the current threshold of “preponderance of the evidence,” the law would require “clear and convincing” evidence that the forfeited property was used to commit a crime.”
