The Michigan appeals court again has reversed a decision and reinstated charges against a man who was accused of running illegal medical marijuana dispensaries in the state’s Thumb region.
The court says James Amsdill knew the legality of marijuana sales was unclear and was also aware that state police didn’t view his Blue Water Compassion Center as legal. The court says, “Prosecution is more than fair under the circumstances.”
A judge in St. Clair County twice dismissed the case, the last time on grounds of entrapment. The case was filed in 2013, long before Michigan lawmakers created a system to allow certain marijuana dispensaries to operate legally.
Licenses could be issued by spring.
Copyright 2017 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
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
LANSING, MI – The legislature is considering a bill that would limit medical marijuana growing licenses to 1,500 plants per location, something that’s the exact opposite of what the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has recommended as it crafts regulations for medical marijuana facilities.
The legislature last year passed a bill regulating medical marijuana facilities, including growing operations. Three types of growing licenses are allowed:
The Class A license allows a grow of up to 500 medical marijuana plants.
The Class B license allows a grow of up to 1,000 medical marijuana plants.
The Class C license allows a grow of up to 1,500 medical marijuana plants.
But LARA, which was left in charge of many of the details in implementing medical marijuana facilities regulations, signaled last month that it would allow even bigger grows by letting companies “stack” the largest licenses and grow many times 1,500 plants in one location.
Lobbyists try to shape Michigan’s medical marijuana rules before they’re made
Emails obtained by MLive and the Michigan Campaign Finance Network show a pattern of influence.
“It is the intent of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation to allow a potential licensee to apply for – and be granted – multiple (“stacked”) class C grow licenses in a single location,” wrote the department in a Sept. 28 press release.
That, said Rep. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake, is “beyond what I think many legislators intended.”
He is the sponsor of House Bill 5189, which would limit medical marijuana growers from holding more than one license at a single facility. He also chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which took testimony on the bill Tuesday morning.
“Having super-grows could potentially monopolize the market and may not be the direction that we would want to go immediately. Only time will tell who the good actors are and if it is reasonable to allow unlimited stacking of licenses per location,” Runestad told the committee.
Rep. Tim Greimel, D-Auburn Hills, questioned whether this bill would really quell monopolistic tendencies. It would still allow the same person to get multiple Class C licenses at different locations, he pointed out.
“That doesn’t reduce the likelihood of monopolistic control over licenses any more than having them in one location, does it?” Greimel asked.
Under the bill, local governments have to “opt in” if they want to license medical marijuana facilities. Two representatives from local communities had different takes on the bill in the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning.
Small towns have big say on future of Michigan’s medical marijuana industry
Businesses are pushing local governments to allow medical marijuana within their boundaries.
Thetford Township Trustee Eric Gunnels said he supported the bill.
“I do think that we should be cautious, that we don’t allow, like you said, monopolies, monopolistic ventures to consolidate the market into the hands of a few,” Gunnels said.
But Bangor Township Supervisor Glenn Rowley said his area had a shrinking revenue stream and large industrial properties medical marijuana grows would bring to life. They already have a few large companies requesting local permits for multiple Class C grows. He opposes the bill.
“We want everyone to succeed,” Rowley said, adding he hoped they made a pile of money so big you need a Sherpa to get to the top of it.
Runestad said there was more testimony he couldn’t get to before the committee was scheduled to end. At this point, though, he thinks there are the votes to get it out of committee and is planning to take it up again at the committee’s next meeting.
With rules forthcoming from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Michigan State University Extension is offering training for local government on next steps in local regulation of medical marijuana facilities.
On September 21, 2016, Governor Snyder signed three new laws that clarify and add to the state’s voter-approved Michigan Medical Marihuana Act from 2008. The new laws give local governments the authority to regulate the number and location of commercial medical marijuana facilities, allow marijuana-infused products and create a “seed-to-sale” tracking system. The bills are now PA 281, 282, and 283 of 2016.
Public Act 281, the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA), creates a licensing and regulatory structure for five types of medical marijuana facilities: growers, processors, provisioning centers, secure transporters and safety compliance facilities. The act authorizes applications for state operating licenses beginning December 15, 2017.
That date is rapidly approaching and more and more Michigan local governments are discussing whether to allow medical marijuana facilities within their jurisdiction or not. To keep such facilities out, local governments need not take any action. To allow one or more facility type, local governments must pass an ordinance authorizing the facility type(s).
The MMFLA is absent particular details with respect to the required operations of medical marijuana facilities and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) is charged with making rules to further regulate the five facility types. In particular, the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation is responsible for the oversight of medical marijuana in Michigan. In September the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation began releasing advisory bulletins for medical marijuana facilities.
In addition to providing prospective facility operators with the rules by which they must operate, the bulletins also provide local governments insights as to aspects of medical marijuana facilities that local ordinances can and cannot regulate.
The fall 2017 webinar will assume a base-level of understanding of the national and state context of medical marijuana, the overall regulatory framework in Michigan and local government roles in planning and zoning for uses of land.
The “Next Steps in Local Regulation of Medical Marijuana Facilities Webinar” will be delivered live at three different dates and times allowing participants to choose the option that works best: November 30, 2017, 6-8pm, December 4, 12:30-2:30pm and December 11, 6-8pm. The webinar will review Michigan’s medical marijuana facilities laws, summarize options for local government regulation, highlight ordinances that municipalities are adopting and compare approaches and detail state authority and the latest rules facilities must follow.
Those interested in the “Next Steps in Local Regulation of Medical Marijuana Facilities Webinar” may wish to first view a webinar recording of the winter/spring MSU Extension training – “Regulating Medical Marijuana Facilities: A Webinar for Local Government” presented on March 30, 2017. Information on how to access the webinar recording is available at http://msue.msu.edu/mmfla along with educational materials and resources from the earlier training.
Setting up ridiculously difficult requirements for licensing eligibility prioritizes the high profits of a few over industry efficiency, true competition, and patient/consumer rights.
State-sanctioned medical marijuana operational licenses are increasingly becoming a “pay-to-play, greatest barrier to entry” model. In this sort of system, there is usually some combination of the following, all geared towards minimizing the number of licensed cannabis businesses and towards making sure all those who get such licenses are very well-funded:
A difficult and time consuming license application process;
High application fees;
An unreasonably short application window; and
High minimum funding requirements.
To varying extents, Florida, Illinois, New York, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Nevada all have this sort of legalization regime.
Florida. In Florida, only five agricultural nurseries that have been in existence for at least the last thirty years were even eligible to be licensed as dispensing organizations under the state’s extremely limited medical marijuana program. From the few nurseries that qualified, the state prioritized financials in its scoring process and required all of the nurseries to post a $5 million dollar performance bond. In other words, if you weren’t a large and well-funded nursery that has been around for 30-plus years, forget about it. These five nurseries have nearly unfettered access to Florida’s population of 20 million and there’s a chance these five nurseries could end up being the sole providers of medical cannabis under Florida’s impending medical marijuana ballot initiative.
Illinois. Illinois allows only 21 cultivation centers and 60 dispensaries to serve all 13 million people in the state. Illinois set up a point system for judging cannabis licensing applicants based on their proposed security plans, their expertise in growing marijuana, and their plans for patient education. Cultivation centers were required to pay $200,000 for an initial license and have at least $500,000 in liquid assets, in addition to a non-refundable $25,000 application fee. Dispensaries were required to pay $30,000 for a license and have $400,000 in liquid assets, in addition to a non-refundable $5,000 application fee.
New York. Start-up costs for running a medical cannabis company in New York were estimated at around $25 million. The state required a $10,000 non-refundable application fee, plus a $200,000 refundable registration fee for each application. Those seeking a cannabis license also had to show they had the real estate necessary to produce cannabis or be able to post a $2 million bond. Only five operators are allowed to run up to 20 dispensaries throughout the state, and applicants had to produce a litany of documents for the state’s Department of Health that described, in detail, the applicant’s manufacturing processes, transporting, distributing, sale and dispensing policies or procedures. Not as exclusive as Florida, but that’s 20 dispensaries for 20 million people.
Hawaii. Hawaii kicked off its new MMJ legalization regime with a five-year residency requirement and the requirement that its MMJ companies be majority-owned by Hawaiians. Hawaii has some of the toughest, most protectionist cannabis regulations and barriers to market entry in the country. It is set to have only 16 dispensaries in the state, and business applicants also needed to show $1,000,000 “for each license applied for,” and “not less than $100,000 for each retail dispensing location,” all of which had to be under the control of the applicant for no less than 90 days prior to the date of application. There was also a $5,000 non-refundable application fee for each license. Applicants awarded with licenses had to pay $75,000 for each license within a week of approval. Dispensary licensees must also pay an annual renewal fee of $50,000.
Minnesota. Minnesota has an extremely limited medical cannabis program. First, only two operators serve the entire state for cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution. The two operators each operate four dispensaries in the state, for a total of eight. The two operators were selected after the state reviewed their personal histories and capabilities with respect to cultivation, manufacturing, and patient services — these folks even had to commit to having a licensed pharmacist on staff to distribute the cannabis (which makes little sense since cannabis cannot be legally prescribed). And, of course, the state also assessed their financial stability and business plans. One of the operators, Leafline, reportedly raised $12.4 million in investment from 113 investors. All of this for a state that, at the time, claimed to have only 5,000 registered qualifying patients.
Nevada. In Nevada, running a marijuana business is like running a casino — it’s capital-intensive and only a select few get to participate. Nevada requires local control of its cannabis businesses and its license applicants needed to show no less than $250,000 in liquidity. They also had to produce volumes of documents showing detailed floor plans, security, personnel manuals, and even advertising and marketing plans, all of which were scored against a strict point system. In addition, the application fee was a non-refundable $5,000, and the license issuance fee (per license) is $30,000.
All of the above states have created massive barriers to entering into their medical marijuana industries. On the flip side, all four states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska) that legalized recreational marijuana do not have nearly the barriers to entry as these medical states.
Though it makes sense for states to want to closely hew to the priorities set forth in the 2013 Cole memo, setting up ridiculously difficult requirements for licensing eligibility prioritizes the high profits of a few over industry efficiency, true competition, and patient/consumer rights. The medical marijuana states have set up uneven playing fields that give the already wealthy near monopoly power over medical cannabis. How is this a good system for anyone but the few who have bestowed with the spoils?
I can only hope that Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska will eventually serve as models in in showing how letting the marketplace choose cannabis winners and losers is preferable to patronage systems with high barriers to licensing. So far, these recreational-legal states are proving that market entry equality and the priorities set forth in the Cole memo can be squared.
