GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – Big questions are still looming over the controversial Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division marijuana reporting policy change: it’s accused of ambiguous crime lab reporting leading to misdemeanor pot charges trumped for synthetic-THC felonies.
Tuesday MSP-FSD officials responded to FOX 17’s investigation: officials stated they stand by their policy change, but they failed to address some of our biggest questions.
Last month, FOX 17 was the first to show you emails accusing the crime labs of falsely reporting marijuana extracts, leading to trumped up felony charges of synthetic pot possession. Tuesday, state police officials released a seven-paragraph statement which explains their 2013 policy change to write “origin unknown” on lab reports where they said they cannot determine if samples are marijuana or man-made THC (mainly in the case where pot plant material is not present).
However, their statement does not address the concerns FOX 17 revealed in uncovered emails from MSP-FSD’s own crime lab employees who wrote to their peers that they do have the science to prove where pot extracts, like edibles and hash, come from.
Here is the MSP statement in full released to FOX 17 on Nov. 17:
“In 2013, the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division (MSP-FSD) changed its policy regarding how marihuana and THC are reported in an effort to standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.
With the influx of synthetic drugs into our laboratory system it became necessary to ensure reporting standards were in place across all labs. As is common practice in this division, involved laboratory managers were given the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes and provide their insight before a final decision was made by laboratory command.
After this discussion period, the decision was made to begin using the phrase “origin unknown” for samples in which it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. It should be pointed out that “origin unknown” does not mean the sample is synthetic THC; it only means the lab did not determine the origin and the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.
For example, if a sample is submitted to the lab that is clearly from a plant-based source, the results will indicate the sample is marihuana. If it is not clear that the submitted sample is from a plant-based source because it is an extract, residue or another compound with no visible plant matter, then the report will indicate whether or not THC — the illegal component of the sample — is present, but the source of the THC will not be identified (“origin unknown”) because the source cannot be scientifically established.
This reporting procedure was further clarified in July 2015 with the amended phrase of “The origin of delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol may be from a plant (marihuana) or a synthetic source.”
The MSP-FSD takes full responsibility for this policy change and stands behind its decision, as being in the best interest of science. The allegation that politics or other influence played a role in this policy change is wholly untrue.
As is the circumstance in all criminal cases, the ultimate charging decision rests with the prosecuting authority that makes their decision based upon all the relevant evidence in a case, of which the laboratory report is but one factor.”
Note that in the first paragraph, state police officials write that their 2013 marijuana and THC reporting change was made in an effort to “standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.”
Officials explain that the crime lab was testing an influx of synthetic drugs. Then, as FOX 17 has been reporting, after a discussion, MSP officials changed policy to write “origin unknown” on lab reports for samples officials said are impossible for their lab employees to determine where the THC originates.
Yet again, writing “origin unknown” on lab reports is a resonating point of contention, attorney Michael Komorn, medical marijuana activists, and even crime lab scientists themselves disagree. This is even evidenced within months of uncovered email chains between MSP-FSD employees where crime lab scientists and directors wrote they can prove where marijuana extracts come from based on science and tests available in the crime labs.
But MSP’s argument appears to remain that because there is no pot plant visible in samples like hash and edibles, their labs cannot determine if the THC is natural or man-made: again, the difference between a misdemeanor and felony.
Ultimately MSP officials wrote, “MSP-FSD takes full responsibility for this policy change and stands behind its decision, as being in the best interest of science.”
As of Tuesday, MSP officials decline on-camera interviews with FOX 17, including an interview with MSP-FSD Director, Captain Greg Michaud.
Although it is up to the prosecutor to file charges, this crime lab reporting change has severely affected people’s lives, including the father in Spring Lake Max Lorincz who is charged with felony possession of synthetic-THC for having butane hash oil.
Lorincz has lost custody of his son since September 2014 as a result, and he is due back in Ottawa County Court Friday. Lorincz and his family have started a GoFundMe page to raise money to continue fighting their case and comply with court’s orders: including money for transportation to drive to drug tests and counseling all because he is a medical marijuana card-carrying patient.
Stay with FOX 17 for the latest on this investigation.
POSTED 6:03 PM, NOVEMBER 17, 2015, BY DANA CHICKLAS
OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – The evidentiary hearing originally set for Nov. 5 has been dropped in the case involving a medical marijuana patient charged with a disputed felony for synthetic THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
The Ottawa County Assistant Prosecutor filed motions to quash, or suppress, the defense’s subpoenas, and adjourned the Nov. 5 hearing until a later date. Essentially this move buys the prosecution more time before explaining this issue of possible politicking in Michigan State Police Forensic Science crime labs’ marijuana reporting.
Since February, FOX 17 has covered this case involving the defendant, Max Lorincz, a Spring Lake father charged with a felony for having medical marijuana. His attorneys with Komorn Law PLLC argue Lorincz’s “smear” amount of butane hash oil is covered under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act as “usable marijuana,” or specifically the “mixture of preparation” of the marijuana plant.
Since last week FOX 17 is leading statewide coverage of a major development in the case: the defense’s claim that state police crime labs are misreporting marijuana test results. This results in ambiguous crime lab reports leading to felonies charged, despite no credible proof beyond a reasonable doubt of what the substance actually is.
The prosecution filed a motion to quash the defense subpoenas in rebuttal to the defense’s motion to quash Lorincz’s bindover and well as their motion to show cause to produce evidence and testify against incriminating emails that spell out a debate among law enforcement, scientists, and prosecutors associated with the Attorney General’s office in reporting marijuana forensically.
Earlier, the defense’s motion to show cause subpoenaed 13 people to appear in court this Thursday: 11 MSP crime lab employees, one West Michigan Enforcement Team member, and the one prosecutor with the AG’s office. The defense had ordered the named people to show lab reports, communications, and marijuana related forfeitures, all of which would produce important testimony.
However, Assistant Prosecutor Karen Miedema in her motion to quash subpoenas argued whether these people should even testify, and wrote that this would take too much time: citing Lorincz’s preliminary exam last spring, which took three hours to hear two witnesses.
Although Miedema filed this motion Oct. 30, the defense told FOX 17 they just received a phone call Tuesday adjourning Thursday’s evidentiary hearing. The defense plans to file further motions and call for a hearing likely in December.
FOX 17 reached out to the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s office and has not heard back.
Tune into FOX 17 News at 10 p.m. Thursday for an in-depth story into the developing allegations in this case.
OTTAWA COUNTY, MI – An attorney claims prosecutors pressured state police crime labs to change the way THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is reported in an effort to circumvent Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
Michael Komorn alleges scientists were told to report an unknown origin for THC contained in oil, wax or perhaps a brownie if no visible plant material was present. The THC would then be declared a synthetic substance rather than marijuana – turning a misdemeanor pot charge to a two-year felony.
“The crime lab is systematically biased towards falsely reporting Schedule 1 synthetic THC, a felony, instead of plant-based marijuana, a misdemeanor, ” Komorn, a Southfield attorney known for handling medical marijuana cases, told The Grand Rapids Press and MLive.
In the case of Max Lorincz, a 35-year-old Spring Lake man with a medical marijuana card, the change could turn him into a felon, Komorn said.
Lorincz’s troubles started in September 2014 after calling 911 for medical assistance for his wife. A police officer responded and spotted a small amount – “a smudge,” Komorn said – of hash oil.
Ottawa County prosecutors charged him in January with marijuana possession, a misdemeanor. He refused to plead guilty because he was a valid medical marijuana user. The charge was dropped in February, only to be replaced by the felony synthetic THC charge.
Komorn used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain numerous emails from state police crime lab workers, some raising concern about the way they had to report THC cases. Others testified in court about the new policy of denying evidence of THC coming from a marijuana plant if no material is found.
He contends that the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and state Attorney General Bill Schuette, an opponent of medical marijuana, influenced state police policy.
“It is scandalous, scandalous. How can you trust the state lab when they are influenced by politicians?” he said.
State police said in a statement: “The ultimate decision on what to charge an individual with rests with the prosecutor. The role of the laboratory is to determine whether marihuana or THC are present. Michigan state police laboratory policy was changed to include the statement “origin unknown” when it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. This change makes it clear that the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.”
Ottawa County Prosecutor Ronald Frantz could not be reached for comment.
A hearing in Lorincz’s case is set for Nov. 9 in Ottawa County Circuit Court.
In an email Komorn obtained from authorities, a state police crime lab supervisor, Kyle Hoskins, said examiners need to see plant material because they would have no idea how it was produced unless they watched its production. He noted the debate and asked the opinion of Ken Stecker of the Prosecuting Attorney Association of Michigan, who reportedly responded: “That is my opinion, THC is a schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from. I hope that helps. Ken.”
Lt. James Pierson, director of the Grand Rapids laboratory, said that police are finding a “significant amount of THC wax and oil,” which he said are not covered by the medical marijuana law.
If police seize wax or oil from a medical marijuana patient, and the lab test identifies the substance as marijuana, rather than delta-1-THC, there is no probable cause to arrest, Pierson said in an email referenced by Komorn in court filings.
He said he learned that if a “speck” of plant material is in the oil, the test will come back as marijuana.
“Is there any way to get this changed? Our prosecutors are willing to argue that one speck of marijuana does not turn the larger quantity of oil/wax into marijuana,” Pierson wrote.
Bradley Choate, supervisor of the Controlled Substances Unit in Lansing, disagreed with the changes. He said analysts are left with two choices when finding THC: identify it as marijuana, which is a misdemeanor for possession, or a synthetic equivalent of THC, which is a felony if possessed.
“There is not a third choice,” Choate wrote. “The question then becomes is the THC from a natural source, i.e., marihuana, or a synthetic source. The presence of other cannabinoids indicates that the substance is from a natural source. I don’t know of any other way to determine that THC was synthesized unless a lab was found and the pre cursor substances to make THC were present.”
He said prosecutors rely on their reports in filing charges. A report that says delta-1-THC with no explanation would lead a prosecutor to think the substance was synthetic.
“This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual. For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the Division and the Department.”
As forensic scientists, Choate said they had to apply science to the law.
“I have a problem with the procedure manual stating that a conclusion of marihuana cannot be stated in the report. … The conclusion is incorrect because the resins are Marihuana. Apparently analysts in our system (are) hung up on the fact that to identify marihuana they need to see plant material.”
Choate said that “Guiding Principles” training says “that ‘Conclusions are based on the evidence and the reference material relevant to the evidence, not on extraneous information, political pressure, or other outside influences.”
“When we made the previous changes I made it very apparent that I did not agree with it. One of my concerns was that by reporting out THC instead of marijuana it would lead Prosecutors charging people with synthetic THC. This appears to be what the agency wants. The question I would pose to all of our analysts is how they would answer questions on the stand.
“In the scenario described how would they answer the question that absent the plant material speck, in their opinion is the rest of the wax material marihuana or not and in their opinion is the THC identified synthetic or natural? Again the legal definition of marihuana includes the resinous extract which contains cannabinoids and we can identify those cannabinoids.”
Last month, as the Michigan Senate debated a host of reforms to the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, the Michigan State Police released its Asset Forfeiture Report, the annual publication required by state law that details Michigan’s drug-related forfeiture activities.
The report aggregates data from 629 local police departments, sheriff’s departments, and multijurisdictional task forces, plus the Michigan State Police. Civil forfeiture is a policy that enables law enforcement authorities to seize property or currency if they suspect it is involved in, or is the result of, a crime.
Americans Have Few Protections in Civil Proceedings. Forfeiture proceedings are civil, not criminal, property owners are afforded few due process protections!!
Since forfeiture proceedings are civil, not criminal, property owners are afforded few due process protections. With no presumption of innocence or right to an attorney, innocent property owners fighting the seizure of their homes and life savings face a legal landscape skewed against them in nearly every way possible.
According to Michigan’s forfeiture report, in 2014, state law enforcement agencies seized and forfeited $23.9 million’s worth of cash and property. That sum includes more than $14 million’s worth of assets forfeited under state law, and an additional $8 million provided to Michigan law enforcement agencies via the federal equitable sharing program.
The real total value of forfeited property is likely higher, since only drug-related forfeitures have to be reported.
Taking into account the cost of running forfeiture operations, Michigan law enforcement netted a cool $20.4 million in revenue, every penny of which they can spend without political oversight and with little accountability—conditions that are ripe for abuse.
Believe it or not, the 12 pages that constitute this year’s forfeiture report are the most detailed look Michiganders and their elected lawmakers get into the world of civil forfeiture.
Here are some of the highlights:
• 8,558 cases—80 percent of all forfeiture cases in Michigan—were so-called “administrative forfeitures,” meaning that they never saw the inside of a courtroom. Instead, a law enforcement agency—often the agency that made the initial seizure and stands to gain financially from the forfeiture, acts as judge, prosecutor, and jury all in one.
• The number-one forfeiture target in Michigan is cash. Michigan law enforcement agencies seized $11.1 million in cold hard cash last year, which accounts for 79 percent of the value of all seized assets and property that were forfeited under state law. Cash presents a particularly inviting target for law enforcement agents. Most bills in circulation are tainted with narcotics, making drug-dog “alerts”—a frequent justification for cash seizures—exceedingly likely, even if the owner has nothing whatsoever to do with the drug trade.
• “Conveyances”—vehicles and vessels allegedly used to transport drugs or drug proceeds—were the second-largest category of forfeited item. Michigan forfeited 2,212 vehicles and four vessels last year, for a total value to law enforcement of $1.9 million. Detroit police in particular have faced sharp criticism for their propensity to seize vehicles on highly dubious grounds. In 2008, 44 vehicles were seized from the patrons of the Detroit Contemporary Art Institute’s “Funk Night,” because the museum had failed to obtain a liquor license. Each patron had to pay $900 to get his car back, and a judge later ruled the seizures unconstitutional.
• Twelve percent of forfeiture funds were used to cover the cost of personnel and overtime, placing individual members of the law enforcement community directly and personally reliant on forfeiture for their livelihoods, a significant conflict of interest.
A Margarita Machine?
Forty-four point six percent of forfeiture revenues were used for equipment purchases. While much, if not most, of this category may be above-board (bulletproof gear or body cameras, for example), law enforcement agencies around the country have faced criticism for using forfeiture funds to buy all manner of “equipment” ranging from the outlandish (helicopters and armored personnel carriers) to the absurd (margarita machines).
Law enforcement agencies should be generously funded and fully equipped, but the opacity of forfeiture-related purchases makes it impossible to separate the good from the bad.
The report raises as many questions as it purports to answer.
How many property seizures were accompanied by criminal charges and convictions? How much additional forfeiture revenues were generated in cases unrelated to drugs? What equipment is law enforcement buying with its untraced millions? Why are personnel directly financed by forfeiture funds, given the obvious conflict of interest? And why did 56 agencies not file any documentation whatsoever?
Reform is Badly Needed
Fortunately, answers to these questions may be forthcoming. Last week, the Michigan state Senate unanimously passed a modest reform package that greatly enhances the reporting requirements for law enforcement.
If Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Mich., signs the seven-bill package, Michiganders will finally get to see exactly how often civil forfeiture is accompanied by criminal charges and convictions, and exactly how forfeiture funds are being spent.
The reform package also raises the evidentiary standard in forfeiture cases from a “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing,” a much more fitting standard, given that what is often at stake are people’s homes and life savings.
Aug 5, 2015 – After a year long battle, Michigan Attorney Michael Komorn and his staff have chalked up another positive conclusion for a client caught up in the medical marijuana and forfeiture debacle.
Some may consider it a win, but this slow ruination of a family like so many other Michiganders… should most likely have never occurred.
What’s left to do after this… is to put the shattered pieces back together, emotionally, physically and financially. Then hope the children can go on and forget this ever happened.
The story’s beginning of the end starts here… Read on and you will find out how it began.
The Beginning of the End: Prosecutors drop marijuana charges against Michigan mom.
Prosecutors have dropped marijuana charges and will return items seized from a woman in the wake of a Michigan Supreme Court ruling last week.
“I’m elated that this part is over,” said Ginnifer Hency. “…It’s been a long year.”
St. Clair County Prosecutor Michael Wendling said about 18 cases were on hold while prosecution and defense waited on the Supreme Court decision.
“We reevaluated the files that we had pending and at least five were no longer viable in light of the Supreme Court decision,” Wendling said.
“I think that’s an analysis that prosecutors across the state are undertaking.”
The Supreme Court ruling last week clarified when caregivers and users can use their medical marijuana certification as a defense or immunity if charged with a marijuana-related crime. It was the court’s ninth medical marijuana ruling since voters approved the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act in 2008.
“We would have to have specific evidence on those items in order to overcome that burden now that we did not have to show before,” Wendling said.
Wendling said any unresolved civil forfeiture cases connected to those five dismissed cases also will be dismissed, and items seized will be returned.
The Free Press in February reported that police seized more than $24 million in assets from Michiganders in 2013. In many cases the citizens were never charged but lost their property anyway.
Komorn said Hency was arrested and her home raided in July 2014. The medical marijuana caregiver was charged in December 2014 with possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
According to appeal documents from the prosecution, Hency told a Drug Task Force member she had six ounces of marijuana in a locked bag that she intended to exchange for a different strain with another caregiver and give the marijuana to her patients.
Her case was dismissed by visiting District Judge David Nicholson in May after Nicholson found that no crime had occurred.
The prosecutor’s office appealed in circuit court. Oral arguments on the appeal were supposed to be heard by Circuit Judge Michael West Wednesday.
“But that does not eliminate the horror of what they’ve had to deal with the last year,” Komorn said.
“It didn’t come easy. We’ve had to fight for a year.”
Komorn said Hency’s family was devastated by the July 2014 raid on their home and Hency has had trouble finding employment because of the pending narcotics charge.
Hency said authorities seized several items, including a Chevy Impala, two iPhones, an iPad and a ladder, when they raided her home in 2014. The mother of four, who has multiple sclerosis, told Forbes Magazine that they even took her sex toy.
Hency said she appreciated the prosecutor’s decision to dismiss the case “in the interest of justice.” But she said she feels her case isn’t completely finished.
“When I get my stuff back I will consider it over,” Hency said.
From the beginning of the end to when it started
(you should start at the bottom and work your way back up to here)
