On November 8th, 2008, by a majority of 63 percent, the citizens of the State of Michigan voted into law the constitutional initiative, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, ratified into law December 4, 2008, herein referred to as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421 et seq. (the “MMMA”).
The voters of the State of Michigan, who at that time had no reason to believe a need to prevent misconstruction, misinterpretation, or abuse of its intent, upon this day declare that certain basic rights afforded all the citizens of Michigan are not being recognized for the medical marihuana community, to the extent that the following rights must be decreed, declared, recognized, and adopted, as the
Michigan Medical Marihuana Patient Bill of Rights
All patients possess the following rights, without limitation:
There shall be a presumption that registered patients and their caregivers are in compliance with the MMMA.
The right to be treated reasonably, with dignity and respect, by law enforcement and the government, and by the medical community and private business in general. “Reasonable” should be based in part upon the best available medicine and science, and not upon emotion or politics.
The right to be protected against arrest, prosecution, or any penalty.
The right to be free from searches, seizures, and forfeiture.
The right to equal protection under the law.
The right to privacy, of any and all information related to patient or caregiver status.
The right to the best medical care, and to the best medication in the proper delivery form, to treat their condition, disease, or debilitation.
The right to safe, immediate access to a continuous supply of medication to treat their condition, disease, or debilitation, and the right to a choice of where to obtain that medication.
The right to equal employment.
The right to equal and fair housing.
The right to be protected from denial of custody or visitation of a child.
The right to speak, the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel.
The right to civil remedies and punitive damages against those who violate any of these rights.
The right to prosecute those who violate the protections of the MMMA.
The right to protection under the Victim Rights Act of Michigan.
Everyday, I get calls to my office from medical marijuana patients and caregivers who have been raided or pulled over by police. Often times, these individuals are not arrested, and little if any paperwork is left behind by the various Narcotics Enforcement Teams.
Not only will these agencies leave little to no paperwork, but they’ll leave you with much less than what you owned prior to their visit. Everything from cars, laptops, grow equipment, cell phones, even family heir-looms; If there is marijuana in your house or car, there’s a good chance that the police will seize your personal property.
In fact, the police can seize what they want without charging you with a crime. Such was the case with Tarik Dehko, a grocer from Flint, Michigan. When he went to check his bank account, he instantly thought he had been the victim of fraud, as all of his $35,000 had been taken. When he contacted his bank, the answer he got was much worse: the Federal Government had seized all of his money out of his business account, simply because they didn’t like the way he was making deposits. Tarik had never been notified, and has not been charged with a crime, yet the federal government was permitted to take his money.
Anyone at all familiar with the forfeiture process knows that the police use it as a way to generate revenue for their own department by making the owner do buy backs, or selling the items at auction. Today’s forfeiture laws are cash cows for police, and it is not surprising that we see police driving fancier cars, motorcycles, or even horses. They are armed more like army rangers than civilian law enforcers, and open new departments or acquire SWAT teams with all the surplus money generated through this process.
But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I have been able to successfully reacquire the items seized from many of my clients without them having to pay the police agencies who stole them. Before you cut a big check to your local sheriffs department, contact Komorn Law and get what is rightfully yours returned to you.
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 with over 26,000 members, which advocates for medical marijuana patients, and caregiver rights. Michael is also the host of Planet Green Trees Radio, a marijuana reform based show, which is broadcast every Thursday night 8-10 pm EST. Follow Komorn on Twitter.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches by the government. That means that absent an emergency situation or other legal exception, a police officer must have a search warrant before conducting a search of your person or property.
How a Search Warrant is Obtained
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be specific and reasonable. That means that a judge will only approve a search warrant if law enforcement is specific as to the items and location it wishes to search. Law enforcement must also prove that probable cause exists that a specific item is located in a specific place.
Whether the warrant gets issued or not is up to the judge’s review. If a judge finds that law enforcement has met its burden of probable cause and has included enough specificity in the request for the warrant, then the judge will issue the search warrant.
The suspect is not present during this proceeding and is not given an opportunity to present his or her argument against the issuance of a warrant. However, in later proceedings the suspect may argue that a search warrant was improperly granted.
When a Search Warrant is Not Necessary
There are a few situations when law enforcement is exempt from obtaining a search warrant. Those situations include:
Consent: Law enforcement can request to enter a person’s home or search a person’s belongings. If the person consents to the search and gives law enforcement permission to conduct the search then a warrant is unnecessary.
Plain View Doctrine: Law enforcement does not need a search warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight. For example, if an officer is walking down the street and sees a person with drugs in the park then the officer may arrest that person and keep the drugs as evidence even though a search warrant was not obtained. This exception exists because individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in plain view.
Emergency Situation: If the police are in pursuit of a felon and follow that alleged felon into a home or other private area – then they do not need a warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight when they enter the building.
For example, a police officer may witness a robbery or a crime and begin to pursue the criminal to make an arrest. If the criminal flees and takes refuge in a private residence then the police may follow him and they do not need a search warrant to enter the home nor to collect evidence that is in plain sight or within the reach of the alleged criminal.
Police may also enter a residence without a warrant if they hear a person screaming for help or have reason to believe that a person or property is in imminent danger and that harm would result in the time it would take to obtain a search warrant.
Search Incident to Arrest: Police officers may search the body and immediate surroundings of a person whom they take into custody. The courts have allowed this exception to the search warrant rule in order to protect police officers from people who may have concealed weapons.
Search warrants are the government’s way of balancing an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights with the societal interest in limiting crime and protecting the public. Therefore, the general rule is that a search warrant must be obtained before the police conduct a search but exceptions to that rule exist to protect police officers and society from harm.
There are some declassified Oval Office tapes from 1971-1972 that reveal the foundation of marijuana criminalization is misinformation, culture war and prejudice.
The Shafer Commission was appointed by President Nixon and conducted one of the most comprehensive examination and assessment of marijuana performed by the US government. The Oval Office tapes highlight the discrepancy between Nixon’s personal agenda and the commission’s recommendations.
Here are a few excerpts from a CSDP.org research report.
“The most important recommendation of the Commission was the decriminalization of possession and non-profit transfer of marijuana. Decriminalization meant there should be no punishment – criminal or civil – under state or federal law. The day before the Commission released its report President Nixon told Bob Haldeman: “We need, and I use the word ‘all out war,’ or all fronts . . . have to attack on all fronts.” The conversation went on to plan a speech about why Nixon opposed marijuana legalization and doing “a drug thing every week” during the 1972 presidential election year.”
“One year after Nixon’s “all out war” marijuana arrests jumped over 100,000 to 420,700 people. Since the Commission recommended marijuana offenses not be a crime nearly 15 million people have been arrested.”
“The impact of the marijuana laws has grown. In fact in recent years the FBI has reported a record number of marijuana arrests – last year 734,497 were arrested for marijuana, 80 percent for possession. From 1972-2000, 13,265,105 were Americans arrested on marijuana charges, countless families have been destroyed by marijuana enforcement. To what end? The marijuana laws have not prevented nearly 80 million Americans from trying marijuana.”
There are many articles, websites and lots more in depth information that one can read and learn a lot. Below are couple links for more info.
ARC: Annual Rate of Change
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Program
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 with over 26,000 members, which advocates for medical marijuana patients, and caregiver rights. Michael is also the host of Planet Green Trees Radio, a marijuana reform based show, which is broadcast every Thursday night 8-10 pm EST. Follow Komorn on Twitter.
