People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Michigan has made headlines for legalizing recreational marijuana, but this doesn’t mean all marijuana-related activities are now legal.

The case of People of the State of Michigan v. Julia Kathleen Soto is a crucial example that helps us understand the limits of Michigan’s marijuana laws, especially when it comes to large amounts of the substance.

This case has traveled through different levels of the Michigan court system, from local courts all the way up to the state’s highest court, to figure out how the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) applies to serious drug charges.

The Lower Courts: Berrien Circuit Court

The story of People v. Soto began on October 26, 2022, when Michigan State Police received a tip about a large shipment of marijuana, around 85 pounds, heading to southwest Michigan from Illinois. The police worked with the driver, who delivered the marijuana to Julia Kathleen Soto’s home in Niles, Michigan. After surrounding the house, officers arrested a man named Chad Boylen outside, and Soto eventually came out.

During a quick check of the house, officers saw a lot of marijuana inside. They then got a search warrant and seized about 20 pounds of marijuana, mostly from what was believed to be Soto’s bedroom, along with over $10,000 in cash. These large amounts suggested that the marijuana was not just for personal use but for selling.

Because of the significant quantities involved, Soto was charged with serious crimes, known as felonies: possession with intent to deliver between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana, and maintaining a drug house.

Soto’s legal team argued in the Circuit Court that the evidence against her should be thrown out because it was gathered through an unconstitutional search. They also argued that the MRTMA, Michigan’s marijuana legalization law, should prevent her from being charged with a felony for these marijuana offenses.

Issue: Did the police conduct an unconstitutional search, and does the MRTMA prevent felony charges for large-scale marijuana possession with intent to deliver?

Result: The Circuit Court said no to both arguments. It denied Soto’s motions, meaning the case would move forward.

The Michigan Court of Appeals

After the Circuit Court’s decision, Soto’s case went to the Michigan Court of Appeals twice.

First Appeal

First Appeal (Docket No. 365822): Soto first asked the Court of Appeals to review the Circuit Court’s decision about the unconstitutional search.
Issue: Was the evidence seized illegally, and should it be suppressed?

Result: On September 11, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied her request, stating she “failed to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review”. This meant the search issue would not be reviewed at that time.

Second Appeal

Second Appeal (Docket No. 370138): Soto then appealed the Circuit Court’s decision regarding the MRTMA. This time, the Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case.

Issue: Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) prevent someone from being charged with a felony for possessing 5 to 45 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to deliver it?

Result: On October 7, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion. The Court decided that the MRTMA does not protect individuals from felony charges for possessing large amounts of marijuana with the intent to deliver.

The Court looked closely at the exact words of the MRTMA. It noted that while the law mentions “possession with intent to deliver” for smaller amounts (which are treated as civil infractions or misdemeanors), it specifically leaves out this phrase when talking about much larger quantities.

The Court reasoned that this omission was a deliberate choice by the voters who approved the MRTMA. They concluded that dealing in large amounts of marijuana for money, outside of the state’s regulated system, is still a serious crime under Michigan’s Public Health Code.

Therefore, the Court sent the case back to the Circuit Court for Soto to face trial on the original felony charges.

The Michigan Supreme Court

The People v. Julia Kathleen Soto case has reached the highest court in Michigan.

Issue: Will the Michigan Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals’ decision and potentially change the interpretation of the MRTMA regarding large-scale marijuana offenses?

Result: The case, identified as Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 167834, is currently “Pending on Application”. This means that Soto has asked the Supreme Court to hear her appeal, and the Court is deciding whether to take the case. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision, the ruling from the Court of Appeals stands.  

UPDATE 7-11-2025 DENIED

Seeking Legal Defense

The People v. Julia Kathleen Soto case highlights the complex nature of marijuana laws in Michigan. Even with legalization, the legal landscape is full of nuances, especially concerning the amounts of marijuana involved and the intent behind possessing it. If you or someone you know faces charges related to marijuana or other controlled substances, understanding your rights and the specific laws that apply is critical. Legal defense services, such as those offered by Komorn Law, specialize in navigating these intricate legal challenges, providing expert guidance and representation to protect your interests.

More Posts

We fight for our clients throughout the State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (248) 858-0344
• Address: 1200 N Telegraph Rd, Department 404, Pontiac, MI 48341-0404
• Website: Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (586) 469-5150
• Address: 40 N. Main Street, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
• Website: Macomb County 16th Judicial Circuit Court

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

• Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
• Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
• Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
• Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
• Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
• Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
• Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

• Telephone Number: (231) 922-4701
• Address: 328 Washington Street, Suite 300, Traverse City, MI 49684
• Website: Traverse City 13h Circuit Court

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (734) 240-7020
• Address: 106 E First Street, Monroe, MI 48161
• Website: Monroe County 38th Circuit Court