Last night’s episode of VICELAND’s Weediquette focused on how police forces in Michigan are using civil asset forfeiture to target legally run medicinal marijuana businesses in the state.
Weediquette host Krishna Andavolu – about his reflections after filming the episode; an edited and condensed version of his comments are below.
In Michigan, medical marijuana is legal—but last year, arrest rates were on the rise. Why? It seems like marijuana legalization is meant to at least take the drug out of the realm of the criminal justice system, but while doing research for this season of Weediquette, we found out that there’s still a strong incentive for police officers to go after legal marijuana growers in Michigan. The doctrine that the incentive is based off of is called civil asset forfeiture—which means that if a cop busts you, he or she can take your stuff in addition to throwing you in jail and charging you.
Even though medical marijuana growers have cards that say that they’re legally allowed to grow, civil asset forfeiture incentivizes police departments in Michigan to pursue really small technical violations
—For instance, if there’s a lock on a door that isn’t secure enough, or a key to a room in your grow house or dispensary is left on a counter when it should’ve been in a safe space. So law enforcement targets medical marijuana growers, finds enough evidence to justify a raid, takes all the growers’ stuff, and then makes an excuse for it after the fact.
It’s tough for Michigan cops. The state’s economy is pretty bad, and a lot of their police departments aren’t funded particularly well—so the police are using the doctrine of civil asset forfeiture to target mom-and-pop businesses. One of those businesses was run by the Shattucks, a family we visited who decided to go into the medical marijuana business because they saw people using it and thought it would be a good business to try for a couple of years to raise some capital to go into real estate. They were after the American dream, small business ownership.
However, the St. Clair County drug task force got wind of what they were doing, raided their grow facility, dispensary, and home, and took more than $80,000 worth of their goods. Losing the money and goods was bad enough—but their kids were also at home when the SWAT team came through the door, so their nine-year-old daughter is the one who saw the door broken down and men with guns rushing in.
You could look at the Shattucks and say, “I’m sure they were doing something wrong.” But a SWAT team seems like a disproportionate reaction. It’s an issue of how you implement medical marijuana legalization, but also of what we ask for in our community policing. What’s the relationship between those who are being policed and the police themselves? How do you balance making sure that the marketplace is legitimate while also respecting the people who are already operating legitimately in the marketplace? The Shattucks did everything they could to show the cops that they were doing the right thing—they met with the police department and showed the cops all their paperwork—but that didn’t stop the police from going after them two months later.
Another family we talked to, the Fishers, were in a hearing about a similar criminal case against them, and under cross-examination, the police officer who conducted the raid was asked if he questioned the family about whether they had medical marijuana cards—and he said no. There aren’t lawmakers who are trying to crack down on this stuff, so in a lot of cases drug task forces have no legislative oversight, meaning it’s up to individual cases in court to set any sort of precedent.
On Weediquette, we cover a lot of different stories—stories about medicine and recreational drug use—and this story is about how pot has always made it easy for law enforcement to go after vulnerable communities. We’re on a trajectory where medical marijuana and marijuana in general is going to become legal—it feels inevitable and that the war on drugs will also inevitable fade away—but stories like this bring to light that there’s a lot to still fight for.
Trying to understand why prosecutors in St. Clair County, Michigan, suddenly decided to drop their case against Ginnifer Hency, a medical marijuana patient and caregiver, and return the property that police seized from her home, I obtained several court documents from Shyler Engel, her appellate attorney.
The documents clarify why prosecutors decided to charge her in the first place, why a judge dismissed the charges, and why the prosecutors appealed that decision. But their avowed reason for withdrawing that appeal—a recent ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court interpreting the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)—makes even less sense in light of these details.
Hency was caught up in a raid of the DNA Wellness Center in Kimball Township by the St. Clair County Drug Task Force on July 28, 2014. Police found six ounces of marijuana in her backpack, which was well within the 15-ounce legal limit for her and the five patients she assists.
But a sheriff’s deputy reported that Hency told him she planned to swap the marijuana with another registered caregiver, Dale Shattuck, for the same amount of a different strain that was more suitable for her patients. The alleged plan for a swap that never actually happened was the basis for accusing her of possession with intent to deliver, since the MMMA does not explicity allow caregiver-to-caregiver transfers of marijuana.
On May 18, after four days of hearings, District Judge David Nicholson dismissed the charges against Hency, concluding that any violation of the law was “de minimis”:
There is sufficient evidence to believe that [Hency] intended to deliver the six ounces of marijuana she had in her backpack…in exchange for a like amount to be delivered to her by Dale Shattuck. There is no evidence that would be admissible against Dale Shattuck that he knew of Hency’s intentions or that he participated in any plan to make such a swap. The court is of the opinion that the violation is de minimis. The sequence would be as follows: Two people each have legal possession of six ounces of marijuana. They trade those amounts so that each now possesses six ounces of marijuana, an amount that would be legally held based on caregiver cards each held and the patient cards assigned to each of them. While arguably the act of exchanging the amounts held would constitute a delivery, the court is of the opinion that under these conditions the mutual delivery was not a change in position such as there would be in an exchange of an amount of marijuana for money or any other tangible asset.
On June 19, St. Clair County Senior Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Amy Stover appealed Nicholson’s decision, arguing that it was an “abuse of discretion.” Engel and Michael Komorn, Hency’s trial lawyer, responded on July 7, arguing that Stover was applying the wrong standard of review. Nicholson’s decision should be reversed only if it was “clear error,” they said, and it wasn’t:
The record reflects that [Hency], if she had even made the statement regarding the exchange, was going to exchange the strain of marijuana for a different strain of marijuana for her registered qualifying patients. Accordingly, she was engaged in medical use under the Act, and her actions were protected. Should the MMMA not specifically permit a delivery or transfer to a non registered and qualifying patient, but it was for the benefit of the registered qualifying patients, then that violation of the MMMA is de minimis.
In her August 4 motion to withdraw her office’s appeal, Stover cited the Michigan Supreme Court’s July 27 decision in People v. Hartwick and People v. Tuttle. But it’s not clear how that decision affected the prosecution’s chances of winning its appeal or prevailing at trial. The ruling dealt with three main issues: a patient/caregiver’s right to a pretrial immunity hearing, the impact of prohibited conduct on the legal status of marijuana-related activities that would otherwise be permitted, and the affirmative defense that is available to unregistered as well as registered patients and caregivers. But the court did not change the criteria for immunity, which are spelled out in the MMMA, and it did not address the legality of caregiver-to-caregiver transfers.
Engel summarizes the sequence of events this way:
District Court judge offers cryptic opinion throwing out Hency’s case. Prosecutor appeals.
I write a reply. Prosecutor doesn’t respond to my brief on appeal. Prosecutor dismisses case first court date after my brief is filed. Between the time my reply is filed and the first date on appeal, Michigan Supreme Court publishes Hartwick/Tuttle. Prosecutor says it compels dismissal. No way.
Stover said her office was reassessing about 20 cases in light of Hartwick/Tuttle. If Hency’s case is any indication, the connection between the reassessment and the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision is pretty tenuous. It seems more likely that the negative publicity surrounding profit-driven raids of medical marijuana patients, which has led to serious talk of forfeiture reform in the state legislature, has encouraged local officials to de-escalate their crackdown.
Ginnifer Hency says that police raid led investigators to seize a couple of guns, a small amount of cash and cell phones with a lot of medical marijuana.
And also something very personal.
“My medicine for my patients, why a ladder, why my vibrator, I don’t know either,” Hency said during a Michigan House Committee meeting.
And that last part is creating quite the buzz – a story now gone viral and raising questions about Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws
“They’ve had my stuff for 10 months now,” she said.
Ginnifer and her husband Dean Hency say it all happened when their home was raided last July. They both are licensed medical marijuana patients and caregivers. They claim to be targeted by St. Clair County’s drug task force.
It began when Ginnifer says she walked into a medical marijuana licensing facility as it was being raided.
“They asked me how much medicine I had in my backpack,” she said. “I said six ounces then they said to get a warrant for our house.”
The havoc they wreaked,” Dean said, “they just threw stuff around. Just dirt dumped all over the place.”
“We were in complete compliance with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act and they destroyed my house,” Ginnifer said.
But St. Clair County Sheriff Tim Donnellon says they were not, and added that officers did not take her vibrator and would never have a reason to.
He says aside from that allegation, the task force’s actions were justified and par for the course.
Even so, a judge dismissed the criminal charge of possession with intent to distribute against Ginnifer Hency two weeks ago.
But here’s what she says happened when she went to the prosecutor’s office to get her property back.
“Lisa Wiznowski who is the assistant prosecuting attorney said ‘I can still beat you in civil court, I can still take your stuff.'”
Michael Komorn is the Hencys’ lawyer.
“This is bully tactics,” he said. “We have your property we couldn’t get any charges to stick, we’re just going to keep it. drag it out.
“Here’s a person who they took her property and they couldn’t even make the charges stick let alone get a conviction. So if there’s an example of why there needs to be reform it’s this.”
“They left my (equipment) I used to grow ‘drugs’ – they left that,” Hency said when she testified. “Now that is what the state forfeiture laws are made for.”
The St. Clair County Prosecutor’s Office has about a week to appeal a visiting judge’s decision to drop those charges against Ginnifer Hency.
That civil case regarding her property still pending.
The sheriff, Tim Donnellon, says the drug taskforce has been in place for 30 years and has a 99 percent conviction rate. He says there was nothing unusual about this case except for Hency’s testimony about her vibrator which he claims is false.
In July of 2014, the St. Clair County Drug Task Force (DTF) raided the home and business of Annette and Dale Shattuck, a couple who owned a medical marijuana dispensary in Kimball, Michigan.
The Shattucks were at their dispensary, DNA Wellness Center, when DTF agents arrested them, the Washington Post reported. Meanwhile, their four young children were playing at home under the supervision of their grandmother.
“DTF busted in the door that morning, a no-knock, battering ram entry,” reads a briefing filed by the Shattuck’s attorney “During the dynamic entry, armed DTF officers wearing ski masks separated the children from their grandmother at gunpoint, shouting at her to get the dog under control or they would shoot it. The deputies kept the children lined up on the couch at gunpoint, refusing even to remove their masks to help calm the kids, including two three-year-old toddlers.”
[Note: The Shattuck’s Attorney is Michael Komorn. – A well known and highly experienced lawyer for Michigan medical marijuana cases].
A sheriff for the task force told the Washington Post that these claims were a “misrepresentation,” saying there was “no way in hell” officers would point their weapons at children. He did, however, acknowledge that it’s standard practice for officers to draw their weapons in such raids.
Perhaps no story illustrates the confusion surrounding medical marijuana’s legal status better than that of the Shattucks—a couple who went extra lengths to ensure their compliance with state laws.
The Shattucks obtained the necessary permits and licenses from their local planning commission. The landlord of the building where the dispensary was housed gave his permission in the lease. Bill Orr, the chairman of the commission, thanked the Shattucks for “following the ordinance and taking the necessary steps to open the business within Kimball Township in the manner required,” according to court documents.
Annette, a registered caregiver with the state, personally called the DTF and requested an inspection of DNA Wellness to insure that the business complied with state law. But instead of conducting an inspection, the task force decided to send confidential informants into the dispensary to make purchases, which they then used as probable cause for a raid.
Annette and Bill were charged with felony possession with intent to distribute and possession with intent to manufacture marijuana.
The Shattucks’ plight is one of many that show how confusing, patchy medical marijuana laws harm businesses and upend lives. Businesses and caregivers in MMJ-legal states are subject to conflicting signals from different government entities. Even though the federal government does not allow federal funds to be used against cannabis companies operating legally under state laws, the state laws themselves are murky and open to interpretation.
Michigan’s legislature needs to enact clearer laws regulating the cannabis industry—the current law does not address the legality of dispensaries and does not allow for marijuana to be sold from them. The ambiguous rules are not just a problem for those in the marijuana industry:
“The Michigan Supreme Court has spent countless hours adjudicating a total of eight cases involving medical marijuana since the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act was passed in 2008,” reports Downtown magazine.
Supreme Court justices and local governments have pressed the state’s legislature to do something to clarify the laws. But attempts to do so have been stagnant: A trio of medical marijuana bills that have been approved by the House are now languishing in a Senate committee. One of them would establish a licensing system for retailers, growers and distributors.
Meanwhile, 53 percent of voters say they would approve a ballot initiative to completely legalize and tax marijuana, according to a recent poll.
While voters want the plant to be legal and regulated, lawmakers seem not to be prioritizing the issue, putting patients, caregivers and business owners at the mercy of an arbitrary system.
A judge recently threw out the charges against the Shattucks, ruling that the government can’t prosecute you for a “crime” that another arm of the government approved. But unfortunately for the family, the consequences still linger.
Their 10-year-old daughter has been in counseling for more than a year to deal with the trauma as a result of the raid. The DTF has not returned all of their property, and the property that has been returned is damaged. The couple continues to struggle with the burden of legal fees and finding work—though charges have been dropped.
In the absence of federal progress on marijuana policy, states with any sort of legal cannabis, have a duty to responsibly regulate the industry. Whether they have passed useless CBD legislation or have voter referendums, too many states are sitting idly by as local jurisdictions and individuals try to navigate the haphazard laws, sometimes—as in the case of the Shattuck family—with ruinous results.
Ginnifer Hency says that police raid led investigators to seize a couple of guns, a small amount of cash and cell phones with a lot of medical marijuana.
And also something very personal…
