The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment Protections
The recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the application of the exclusionary rule, particularly within the realm of civil enforcement proceedings. The Court held that the exclusionary rule, traditionally applied in criminal cases to deter police misconduct, does not extend to civil cases involving local zoning and nuisance ordinances.
This decision unequivocally reduces Fourth Amendment protections against government surveillance
This decision unequivocally reduces Fourth Amendment protections against government surveillance, raising concerns about privacy rights in an era of advanced technological surveillance methods such as drones.
This ruling highlights a broader trend of diminishing constitutional safeguards, emphasizing the slippery slope that ensues when fundamental rights are gradually eroded.
The case involved Long Lake Township using a drone to take aerial photographs and videos of the Maxons’ property to document alleged zoning violations. The Maxons moved to suppress this evidence, claiming it was obtained through an illegal search.
Although the trial court denied the motion and the appellate court initially sided with the Maxons, the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately decided that the exclusionary rule does not apply in this civil context.
The Court’s analysis focused on balancing the costs and benefits of applying the exclusionary rule, concluding that the societal costs outweighed any potential deterrence of future misconduct.
This decision not only reflects the narrowing scope of Fourth Amendment protections but also raises critical questions about the extent to which citizens’ privacy rights are safeguarded in an era of pervasive surveillance technologies.
The Fourth Amendment: A Historical Perspective
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Historically, the Fourth Amendment has been a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, aimed at protecting citizens from arbitrary government intrusions. Over the years, various landmark cases have shaped its interpretation:
Katz v. United States (1967): The Supreme Court established that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and introduced the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test.
United States v. Jones (2012): The Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Carpenter v. United States (2018): The Court ruled that accessing historical cell phone location records constitutes a search, and thus, a warrant is required.
These cases underscore the evolving nature of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, especially in the face of new technologies that enable more intrusive forms of surveillance.
The Exclusionary Rule: Purpose and Application
The exclusionary rule, established in Weeks v. United States (1914) and applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), mandates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a court of law. The primary purpose of this rule is to deter police misconduct and to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings by excluding illegally obtained evidence.
However, its application has been primarily limited to criminal cases. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to extend the exclusionary rule to civil cases, as evidenced by decisions in cases like United States v. Janis (1976), where the Court held that the rule does not apply to civil tax proceedings.
Long Lake Township v. Maxon: Case Analysis
Facts:
Long Lake Township filed a complaint against Todd and Heather Maxon, alleging violations of zoning ordinances and nuisance laws by storing junk cars on their property.
Unable to view most of the Maxons’ property from the street, the township hired a drone operator to take aerial photographs and videos.
The Maxons argued that the drone surveillance constituted an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment and moved to suppress the evidence.
Procedural History:
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, stating the drone surveillance did not constitute a search.
The Court of Appeals initially reversed this decision, holding that the drone surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and remanded the case to determine whether the exclusionary rule should apply.
On remand, the Court of Appeals held that the exclusionary rule did not apply, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
Legal Analysis
Fourth Amendment Protections:
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, typically requiring a warrant supported by probable cause.
Historically, key cases like Katz v. United States and United States v. Jones have expanded the interpretation of what constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
Exclusionary Rule:
Established in Weeks v. United States and applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being used in court.
Its primary purpose is to deter unlawful police conduct and uphold judicial integrity.
Application to Civil Cases:
The Supreme Court has generally limited the exclusionary rule to criminal cases, with few exceptions such as civil asset forfeiture.
In United States v. Janis and Immigration & Naturalization Serv v. Lopez-Mendoza, the Court declined to apply the exclusionary rule to civil tax and deportation proceedings, emphasizing the minimal deterrent effect and substantial social costs.
Michigan Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Court applied a balancing test, weighing the costs and benefits of applying the exclusionary rule in this civil context.
Costs:
Difficulty in enforcing zoning ordinances without the drone evidence.
Delay in addressing ongoing violations could harm community interests.
Exclusion would hinder the township’s ability to maintain compliance with local laws.
Benefits:
Potential deterrence of intrusive government surveillance.
However, minimal deterrence expected since the exclusionary rule primarily deters police misconduct, not actions by municipal officials in civil contexts.
The case did not involve criminal penalties, reducing the relevance of the exclusionary rule.
Distinguishing Factors:
The Court differentiated this case from civil asset forfeiture and blood draw cases, noting that the former are quasi-criminal and involve substantial intrusions, respectively.
The drone surveillance targeted the Maxons’ yard, an area with less privacy than a home or body, further diminishing the justification for exclusion.
Conclusion
The ruling in Long Lake Township v. Maxon marks a significant development in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, particularly concerning the balance between individual privacy rights and government interests in civil enforcement. While the decision may streamline the enforcement of local ordinances, it raises critical questions about the erosion of constitutional protections in the face of advancing surveillance technologies. As drone usage becomes more prevalent, the legal community must grapple with these complex issues to ensure that fundamental privacy rights are not unduly compromised.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between technological advancements and constitutional safeguards, underscoring the need for vigilant judicial oversight and robust legal advocacy to protect individual liberties.
What all that means in one long sentence: The Court held that the exclusionary rule, traditionally applied in criminal cases to deter police misconduct, does not extend to civil cases involving local zoning and nuisance ordinances.
At Komorn Law, we specialize in navigating the complex landscape of constitutional law. This recent Supreme Court decision illustrates the nuanced legal analyses and strategic thinking that we bring to our practice, ensuring that our clients receive informed and effective representation.
Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.
The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Understanding Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan Compounding charges refer to the illegal act of accepting or agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for not prosecuting a crime. In Michigan, this is considered a serious offense, and the law specifically prohibits...
"Harris unveils new proposals targeting Black men as she looks to shore up Democratic coalition" CNNAmid the ongoing national issues, Vice President Kamala Harris introduced new initiatives on Monday aimed at addressing the needs of Black men as she works to bolster...
The decision underscored the principle that only activities that are essential and directly related to an employee's primary job responsibilities are subject to compensation. In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Starbucks received a...
The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...
The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law CasesChallenges to Federal Gun Laws the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Updated July 8, 2024 Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the...
Do Passengers have 4th Amendment Rights?Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in CarsBackground Mead was a passenger in a car and had just met the driver, who offered him a ride. When the police stopped the vehicle and ordered both...
The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday shot down the state attorney general’s high-profile effort to criminally prosecute seven former public officials for their role in the Flint water crisis.
In a series of orders, the court left in place lower court dismissals of the charges, which were thrown out after an earlier Supreme Court ruling found that a prosecution team appointed by Attorney General Dana Nessel had improperly relied on a one-person grand jury to bring charges in 2021.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, appointed by Nessel as co-lead of the state’s prosecution team along with Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud, had used the unusual tactic, in which prosecutors presented evidence in secret to a single judge to secure charges against multiple former public officials.
The Flint Water Crisis was a public health crisis that started in 2014 after the drinking water for the city of Flint, Michigan was contaminated with lead and possibly Legionella bacteria. In April 2014, during a financial crisis, state-appointed emergency manager Darnell Earley changed Flint’s water source from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (sourced from Lake Huron and the Detroit River) to the Flint River. Residents complained about the taste, smell, and appearance of the water, and many raised concerns about its safety.
However, state and local officials repeatedly assured residents that the water was safe to drink. It was not until 2015, after months of protests and pressure from activists and public health experts, that the state finally admitted that the water was contaminated with lead.
The Flint Water Crisis had a devastating impact on the city’s residents, particularly children. Lead poisoning is especially harmful to children, and can cause a range of health problems, including learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and reduced IQ. An estimated 6,000 to 12,000 children were exposed to lead-contaminated water during the crisis.
The Flint Water Crisis is a story of government negligence and environmental injustice. The city’s decision to switch to the Flint River was made in an effort to save money, but it came at a great cost to the city’s residents. The crisis also exposed the deep racial and economic inequality in Flint, as the city’s predominantly Black and low-income residents were disproportionately affected by the contamination.
Flint Water Crisis FAQs
What caused the Flint Water Crisis?
The Flint Water Crisis was caused by a combination of factors, including:
The city’s decision to switch to the Flint River as its water source. The Flint River is more corrosive than the Detroit water system, and this caused the city’s lead pipes to corrode and leach lead into the water.
The state’s failure to properly treat the Flint River water. The Flint River water is more acidic than the Detroit water system, and this required the state to add corrosion inhibitors to the water to prevent lead from leaching into the pipes. However, the state failed to add enough corrosion inhibitors, which allowed the lead to leach into the water.
The state’s failure to listen to residents’ concerns about the water quality. Residents complained about the taste, smell, and appearance of the water from the beginning, but the state repeatedly assured them that the water was safe to drink.
Who was affected by the Flint Water Crisis?
The Flint Water Crisis affected all residents of Flint, but it was particularly harmful to children. Lead poisoning is especially harmful to children, and can cause a range of health problems, including learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and reduced IQ. An estimated 6,000 to 12,000 children were exposed to lead-contaminated water during the crisis.
What has been done to address the Flint Water Crisis?
The state has taken a number of steps to address the Flint Water Crisis, including:
Switching Flint back to the Detroit water system.
Replacing lead pipes in Flint homes.
Providing bottled water and water filters to residents.
Providing medical care and educational support to children who were exposed to lead-contaminated water.
Thinking about going hunting? Not if you are a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm in Michigan.In Michigan, certain individuals are legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Being caught with a firearm if you fall under this category can...
Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization is a crime.Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization can lead to serious criminal charges. Michigan law has strict regulations regarding firearms, and violating...
Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records DisputeTeachers Union and School District at Odds Over Data AccessThe Michigan Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding whether public school teachers' class materials are subject to the...
Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan.In Michigan, the laws surrounding firearms are strict, especially when it comes to felony firearm possession. If you’re charged with a felony and found to be in possession of a firearm during the crime, the penalties can be...
Charge with involuntary manslaughter for stopping thief.PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN V. HASSAN WALID AIYASHCase Summary: This case revolves around a gas station attendant who was charged with involuntary manslaughter after a patron was fatally shot inside the...
Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance in MichiganIn Michigan, being caught with illegal drugs can lead to serious consequences. The state has strict laws on drug possession, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance is one of the most common charges....
Childless Divorce in Michigan Property Disputes and False AccusationsDivorce can be a challenging process, especially when there are significant disagreements over property and accusations flying between the parties. In Michigan, even childless divorces can involve...
Do Passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure?Passengers in a vehicle are afforded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, though the scope of these rights varies based on the specific circumstances...
Stop resisting!Defending against resisting and obstruction arrest in Michigan is a serious matter and requires a well-prepared legal strategy. These are bonus charges you get if you don't comply like a limp biscuit. They will stay on your record and everytime you have...
Move along or you'll be arrested for Obstruction of "Justice".In Michigan, obstruction is a crime that involves interfering with law enforcement or other officials when they are trying to carry out their duties. Obstruction can cover a wide range of actions, including...
A message from Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack
Welcome to the Michigan Supreme Court.
My colleagues and I are privileged to serve the people of the state of Michigan. Our role in Michigan’s system of government demands that we interpret the law dispassionately, ensure that justice is available to everyone, remain responsive to the needs of our communities, and resolve disputes efficiently. We take these responsibilities seriously.
To those ends, our work is guided by four fundamental principles.
INDEPENDENCE. Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the judicial branch is nonpartisan. This means that politics must not inform our work. Our judicial decisions must be based instead on neutral application of the law. ACCESSIBILITY. Justice must be available to everyone, not just to those who can afford it. We must work diligently to ensure that our courts are open to all. This means we will continue to search for new ways to remove barriers to our judicial system.
ENGAGEMENT. The judiciary must also be adaptive to the needs of those it serves, and attuned to the problems and concerns of the communities that most depend on our work. This means that judges must be willing to engage with civic organizations and community leaders to ensure that we are responsive to the needs of those we serve.
EFFICIENCY. The judiciary also must be careful stewards of public resources. This means we must provide the best possible service to the individuals and businesses that appear before us. We must not lose sight of the time and money at stake in any judicial proceeding. We will continue to find ways to serve the public as efficiently as practicable.
These fundamental principles inform the opinions and orders we issue in cases that come before us, the administrative rules that govern how Michigan courts operate, and our management of the state’s trial courts.
While we are proud of the work the Michigan Supreme Court does, we must always aim to do better. Going forward, we will continue to look for ways to serve you better. Michigan’s judiciary will do all we can to serve the people of our great state.
ANDREW BRISBO – Marijuana Regulatory Agency Topics
(In no particular order)
-Michael’s Rant -Blockchain Voting- Is it the New Future
-Delta 8 THC- how is it different from Delta 9?
-The US spends twice as much on Law Enforcement as it does on Welfare
-Recreational Cannabis Market faces tight supply, few Municipal opt in’s -Marijuana Regulatory Agency Implements New Topic-Based Administrative Rule Sets
If you are thinking about getting into the Cannabis Business @planetgreentreestv has been a source of legal information and discussion about medical and recreational use for over a decade. Get up and get out of the basement and tune in to hear about the latest in cannabis legal issues and related relevant topics PGT is broadcast on FB and You Tube
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
Justices: Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh
Reporter of Decisions: Kathryn L. Loomis
Docket No. 158311. Argued on application for leave to appeal October 3, 2019. Decided April 27, 2020.
Syllabus
Christie DeRuiter, a registered qualifying medical marijuana patient and a registered primary caregiver to qualifying patients, brought an action in the Kent Circuit Court against Byron Township, alleging that the township’s zoning ordinance which required that a primary caregiver obtain a permit before cultivating medical marijuana and that the caregiver cultivate the marijuana within a dwelling or garage in a residentially zoned area within the township as part of a regulated home occupation at a full-time residence directly conflicted with – and – was therefore preempted by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (the MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.
DeRuiter cultivated marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility at a commercially zoned property she rented in the township; she did not obtain a permit from the township before cultivating the medical marijuana as a primary caregiver.
At the township’s direction, DeRuiter’s landlord ordered her to stop cultivating medical marijuana at the property or face legal action.
When the township attempted to enforce its zoning ordinance, DeRuiter filed the instant action, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the ordinance’s legality; the township countersued, seeking a declaration that the ordinance did not conflict with the MMMA.
Both parties moved for summary disposition, and the court, Paul J. Sullivan, J., granted summary disposition in favor of DeRuiter, holding that the ordinance directly conflicted with the MMMA and that it was therefore preempted by the act.
The Court of Appeals, HOEKSTRA, P.J., and MURPHY and MARKEY, JJ., affirmed the trial court order, concluding that the MMMA preempted defendant’s home-occupation zoning ordinance because the ordinance directly conflicted with the MMMA by prohibiting what the MMMA permitted and because the ordinance improperly imposed regulations and penalties upon persons who engage in the MMMA-compliant medical use of marijuana. 325 Mich App 275 (2018).
Byron Township applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. 503 Mich 942 (2019).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:
Under the conflict-preemption doctrine, the MMMA DOES NOT nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq., as long as
(1) the municipality does not prohibit or penalize the cultivation of medical marijuana and (2) the municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable inconsistent with regulations established by state law.
MCL 333.26424(b)(2) states that primary caregivers and qualifying patients must keep their plants in an enclosed, locked facility in order for those individuals to be entitled to the MMMA protections in MCL 333.26424(a) and (b).
Because an enclosed, locked facility may be found in various locations on various types of property, the township’s ordinance limiting where medical marijuana must be cultivated within the locality did not directly conflict with the MMMA’s requirement that marijuana plants be kept in an enclosed, locked facility.
The township’s ordinance requiring primary caregivers to obtain a permit and pay a fee before using a building or structure within the township to cultivate medical marijuana also did not directly conflict with the MMMA because the ordinance did not effectively prohibit the medical use of marijuana.
Generally, local governments may control and regulate matters of local concern when that power is conferred by the state.
However, state law may preempt a local regulation either expressly or by implication. Implied preemption can occur when the state has occupied the entire field of regulation in a certain area (field preemption) or when a local regulation directly conflicts with state law (conflict preemption).
A direct conflict exists when the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits; there is no conflict between state and local law when a locality enacts regulations that are not unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law so long as the state regulatory scheme does not occupy the field.
That is, while a local ordinance is preempted when it bans an activity that is authorized and regulated by state law, a local governmental unit may add to the conditions in a statute as long as the additional requirements do not contradict the requirements set forth in the statute.
A court must review both the statute and the local ordinance to determine whether conflict preemption applies.
MCL 333.26424(a) and (b) provide that qualifying patients and primary caregivers are immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the MMMA.
In turn, MCL 333.26424(b)(2) provides that primary caregivers and qualifying patients must keep their plants in an enclosed, locked facility in order to qualify for the immunity.
This requirement sets forth the type of structure marijuana plants must be kept and grown in for a patient or a caregiver to be entitled to the MMMA protections in MCL 333.26424(a) and (b), but the provision does not address where marijuana may be grown.
Under Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (2014), a local ordinance conflicts with the MMMA when the ordinance results in a complete prohibition of the medical use of marijuana; however, The MMMA does not foreclose all local regulation of marijuana.
In that regard, the act does not nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the MZEA as long as (1) the municipality does not prohibit or penalize the cultivation of medical marijuana and (2) the municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law.
Because an enclosed, locked facility may be found in various locations on various types of property, a local regulation limiting where medical marijuana must be cultivated within a locality does not conflict with the statutory requirement that marijuana plants be kept in an enclosed, locked facility.
In this case, the township’s ordinance allowed for the medical use of marijuana by a registered primary caregiver but placed limitations on where the caregiver could cultivate marijuana within the township.
The ordinance’s geographical restriction added to and complemented the limitations imposed by the MMMA; it did not directly conflict with the MMMA.
While the ordinance went further in its regulation than the MMMA, the township appropriately used its authority under the MZEA to craft an ordinance that did not directly conflict with the MMMA’s provision requiring that marijuana be cultivated in an enclosed, locked facility. The township also had authority under the MZEA to require zoning permits and permit fees for the use of buildings and structures within its jurisdiction.
The township’s ordinance requiring primary caregivers to obtain a permit and pay a fee before using a building or structure within the township to cultivate medical marijuana did not directly conflict with the MMMA because the ordinance did not effectively prohibit the medical use of marijuana, and DeRuiter did not argue that the requirements for obtaining a permit were so unreasonable as to create a conflict.
To the extent that DeRuiter argued that the immunity provisions of the MMMA contributed to a blanket prohibition on local governments regulating the medical use of marijuana with respect to time, place, and manner of such use, that argument sounded in field preemption; but neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals reached the issue of field preemption, and DeRuiter conceded that her appeal did not concern the issue of field preemption.
The Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of DeRuiter.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
If you are medical marijuana patient or caregiver facing any type of legal action contact attorney Michael Komorn. The Komorn Law firm has a long history of fighting for the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
Under a November 1, 2010 amendment to the city code, Wyoming adopted a new zoning ordinance: “Uses not expressly permitted under this article are prohibited in all districts. Uses that are contrary to federal law, state law or local ordinance are prohibited.” “Uses contrary to federal law” include the manufacture or possession of marijuana, so it is a violation of the ordinance for a city resident to raise or possess marijuana, the city asserts. Violators are subject to injunctions and civil sanctions, including fines.
John Ter Beek, a Wyoming city resident, sued the city, arguing that the ordinance is invalid under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421 et seq. Ter Beek asserted that he is a qualified medical marijuana patient under the MMMA who grows and uses marijuana in his home. By prohibiting the use, manufacture, or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes, the city ordinance is in direct conflict with the MMMA, he contended.
In its answer to Ter Beek’s lawsuit, the city admitted that “the cultivation, possession and distribution of marihuana are subject to the zoning code of Wyoming.” But, the city argued, the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801 et seq., preempts § 4(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(a); since the city ordinance incorporates the federal law by reference, the MMMA cannot preempt the ordinance, the city asserted.
The trial court ruled in favor of the city and dismissed Ter Beek’s complaint, but in a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ordinance is invalid under the MMMA and that the CSA does not preempt Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
Under 21 USC 841(a)(1), it is “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance . . . .” Under 21 USC 812(c)(10), marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance; thus, manufacturing or possessing marijuana is generally prohibited under federal law. “Consequently, these provisions of the CSA when read together with defendant’s zoning ordinance, which makes any violation of federal law an unpermitted use of one’s property, cause any medical use of marijuana pursuant to the MMMA on any property within the city of Wyoming to be a violation of defendant’s zoning ordinance,” the Court of Appeals explained.
“In contrast, the MMMA permits medical use as defined in MCL 333.26423(e), which includes use, possession, cultivation, delivery, and transfer. Further, the plain language of MCL 333.26424(a)provides immunity for a qualifying patient—which plaintiff is acknowledged to be—from being ‘subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege’ ….
We conclude that the civil injunctive relief that could be used to prohibit any medical use of marijuana within the city would constitute a ‘penalty in any manner’ as proscribed by MCL 333.26424(a).”
A city ordinance that purports to prohibit what a state statute permits is void, the appellate court said.
Moreover, the MMMA is not preempted by federal drug laws, the panel declared.
Under Article 6, cl. 2 of the U.S Constitution, Congress has the power to preempt state law. “While there are three types of federal preemption, the only type of preemption at issue in this case is conflict preemption,” in which a state statute is in direct conflict with a federal law, the Court of Appeals stated.
Conflict preemption does not apply in this case, the Court of Appeals held. “[I]t cannot be disputed that state medical-marijuana laws do not and cannot supersede federal laws criminalizing the possession of marijuana,” the panel acknowledged.
But the MMMA is not in conflict with the CSA because the state law will not affect the federal law or its enforcement, the Court of Appeals reasoned. “MCL 333.26422(c) acknowledges that ‘[a]lthough federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law.’
Additionally, MCL 333.26422(b) recognizes that 99 out of every 100 marijuana-based arrests in the United States are made under state law.
Accordingly, the statute declares that ‘changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.’ Id. (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the MMMA itself recognizes the federal policy regarding marijuana and acknowledges that state law will not affect the federal law.”
The panel continued, “[C]onstruing MCL 333.26424(a) to grant immunity only from state prosecution and other penalties avoids the absurd result that the MMMA purportedly preempts federal prosecutions, and avoids conflict with the CSA.
“Moreover, the MMMA’s decriminalization of the medical use of marijuana is not contrary to the CSA’s provisions punishing all medical uses of marijuana. The CSA provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in MCL 333.26424(a) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law…. This, while Congress can criminalize all uses of medical marijuana, it cannot require the states to do the same.”
The city appealed, and in an order dated April 3, 2013, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The Court directed the parties to address “(1) whether the defendant city’s zoning code ordinance, which prohibits any use that is contrary to federal law, state law, or local ordinance, is subject to state preemption by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.; and (2) if so, whether the MMMA is subject to federal preemption by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC 801 et seq., on either impossibility or obstacle conflict preemption grounds. See 21 USC 903.”
Michigan Supreme Court
In a unanimous opinion by Justice MCCORMACK, the Supreme Court held: The federal controlled substances act does not preempt § 4(a) of the MMMA, but § 4(a) preempts the ordinance because the ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA
Docket No. 145816. Argued October 10, 2013 (Calendar No. 8). Decided February 6, 2014.
