7/31/15 – This month there was a full moon on July 1 and tonight, the last day of July, there’s another.
A blue moon occurs roughly once every 2.7 years,” according to Space.com
A blue moon, at least according to the modern definition of the term, has nothing to do with color. It simply means a second full moon in the same calendar month.
As NASA explains “Most blue moons appear pale gray and white, just like the moon you’ve seen on any other night.”
A blue moon doesn’t happen very often. The last time was in August 2012 and the next time will be January 2018, so “once in a blue moon” is a phrase still worthy of a rare occurrence..
Even so, “on rare occasions, the moon can turn [the color] blue,” according to NASA . “A truly blue moon usually requires a volcanic eruption. Back in 1883, for example, people saw blue moons almost every night after the Indonesian volcano Krakatoa exploded with a force of a 100-megaton nuclear bomb.”
LANSING, MI 7/30/15 — In a decision that could have a far-reaching impact on current and future cases going through the court system, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s sentencing guidelines that mandate prison terms are unconstitutional, and that judges should use them only in an advisory capacity.
In a 5-2 decision, the court struck down parts of Michigan law around sentencing guidelines and made sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory.
One of the biggest aspects of Wednesday’s ruling is the elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing as determined by sentencing guidelines. Instead of sentencing guidelines determining a minimum length of how long a defendant must stay in prison, it will be up to Michigan judges to decide the minimum amount of a prison sentence range.
“A scheme of mandatory minimum sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment if it constrains the discretion of the sentencing court by compelling an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict alone,” wrote Justice Bridget Mary McCormack in the majority’s opinion.
The ruling set off a range of reactions, with many prosecutors expressing outrage, while many judges hailed the decision as long overdue.
Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper predicted the ruling would throw the judicial system into chaos for a while.
“This is going to result in a great deal of disparity in sentencing,” Cooper said. “It’s going to make a mess on both sides of the aisle and that’s not fair to anyone.”
But Oakland County Judge Jim Alexander said that guidelines are supposed to be a road map and not a hard and fast mandate.
“We’re going to have to get used to it. We’re going to have more discretion,” he said. “You can’t get total consistency when you’re dealing with human beings.”
There are more people incarcerated than our neighboring states and it’s costing $2 billion a year.
“Michigan’s sentencing guidelines do so to the extent that the floor of the guidelines range compels a court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict.”
Sentencing guidelines are a series of variables — made up of the offense for which a defendant is found guilty and the defendant’s past — that help determine the range of time a defendant could serve in prison.
McCormack was joined by Chief Justice Robert P. Young Jr. and Justices Mary Beth Kelly, David Viviano and Richard Bernstein in the majority opinion. Justices Brian Zahra and Stephen J, Markman dissented.
7/20/15 – Michigan law enforcement has thrown down the legal gauntlet against at least three medical cannabis dispensaries this month, including two in the Detroit metro area and one in a small town several hours northwest of the city.
In Detroit proper, the dispensary Detroit Medz was raided on July 14, with police seizing a gun and “drugs” and making an arrest, according to Mlive.com.
In Canton, a suburb west of Detroit, three residents who operate a dispensary that was raided in March were charged with felony crimes last week, including conspiracy to deliver marijuana.
In Shelby Township, far to the northwest of Detroit, local and federal law enforcement agents raided the dispensary Advance Medical Supply on July 10. Police conducted at least four searches and seized three vehicles and at least 10 pounds of cannabis.
The raids and criminal charges come just a few months after eight other dispensaries were raided in northern Michigan. They could be a response by the law enforcement community to a resurgence in the state’s MMJ industry.
Some of the raids may have been sparked by dispensaries not verifying the Michigan residency of customers, Mlive.com reported. But given the gray legal area that dispensaries operate in, how law enforcement deals with such businesses is often left to local discretion.
State police raided eight medical cannabis dispensaries in northern Michigan this week, serving 16 search warrants and seizing an untold number of cannabis plants.
Not a single arrest was made, however, even though law enforcement officials said the eight dispensaries are “suspected of selling marijuana illegally.” Police also seized processed marijuana products and “other evidence” from the homes and businesses that were searched.
The dispensaries were all in Otsego County, some in the town of Gaylord, which is more than three hours north of Detroit. Whether or not any criminal charges will be filed will be up to the county prosecutor.
The medical cannabis industry in Michigan has long been in limbo. The state’s Supreme Court ruled two years ago that dispensaries are illegal, but as many as 250 dispensaries still exist in a quasi-legal status, with some getting protection from local communities that approve of MMJ.
It remains to be seen if the eight dispensaries that were raided will reopen. In some other states that have experienced similar raids, targeted dispensaries actually were able to open their doors again.
Dashcam video released this week from a traffic stop shows how a confrontation between a Texas woman and the arresting officer escalated.
Given the circumstances in the aforementioned Sandra Bland case, we wanted to find out what is allowed and not allowed during a traffic stop in Michigan.
Civil rights attorney Julia Kelly says the first thing is to have a valid license, registration, and proof of insurance in your car. “Are you required to give it to them? Yes, no questions asked. Driving in Michigan is a privilege, not a right.”
The officer will likely leave you in your car and check your ID. But, if he or she asks you to get out of the car, Kelly says, you should comply. “If he asks you a lawful command to get out, you should obey those commands to get out of vehicle.”
We also asked former Flint police officer and Grand Rapids Community College assistant professor Jermaine Reese what’s expected of an officer. The driver might be smoking a cigarette, angry that they got a ticket, or using profanity.
“They can do that. They can. The biggest thing is to remain professional. No matter what they choose to call you. I’ve been called everything but a child of God, but your responsibility is that you remain professional.”
In the end, most would agree that there is a level of respect expected from both the driver and the officer. It’s better to argue the legality of the situation in court, rather than have it escalate at the scene.
Question: Do I have to comply if ordered to leave a public area by a police officer?
Answer: If you disobey a police officer’s order to leave, you may be arrested. But is the order legal? It depends on why the officer is asking. If you are disrupting traffic, on private property without permission, or otherwise breaking the law, then the order is legal. But if the officer is requesting that you leave a public space because he or she disagrees with your message, the order is not legal.
There are a multitude of laws regulating public roadways that ensure pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic. If you break those, police can order you to leave the roadway, but you can congregate legally on the sidewalk.
Q: Can I record video of police?
A: It is legal to openly record on-duty police officers in public spaces. Some state laws may prohibit filming anyone in a public space without their consent, but there is doubt about whether those laws are constitutional. However, an officer may arrest you if you are obstructing an investigation.
Q: Can an officer search me on the street with no warrant when I am not under arrest?
A: There are limited circumstances under which an officer can search someone without a warrant who is not under arrest. They are:
Voluntary consent. If an officer asks you for permission to search you or your possessions and you voluntarily say yes, the officer has the right to do so.
Reasonable suspicion. If police have reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in criminal activity, they may stop you briefly. If they have reasonable suspicion that you may be carrying a weapon, they may pat you down for weapons. However, they may not conduct a full search unless they have probable cause to arrest you.
There are other exceptions for when police can search a home or a car and its passengers.
Q: How can a curfew trump my right to assemble and protest?
A: The government has the right to impose curfews in certain emergency situations to protect the lives, safety and property of citizens. However, it is unconstitutional if the curfew is imposed only to prevent a peaceable assembly.
Q: If I’m walking in public and an officer asks to speak to me, do I have to stop?
A: This is considered a voluntary encounter. The officer has the same right to request that you speak to him as any other person would, but you do not have to answer, nor do you have to stop. Ask the officer if you are free to go. If police have reasonable suspicion to believe you are engaged in a crime, they may detain you briefly to investigate.
Sources: Paul D. Butler, professor at Georgetown Law; Daniel J. Haus, attorney; Roger Goldman, professor emeritus at Saint Louis University School of Law; Orin S. Kerr, professor at the George Washington University Law School; Kenneth White, attorney
Activists are screaming mad at the conduct of officials representing Governor Rick Snyder’s administration during a hearing today to determine if autism should be added to the list of illness that qualify a patient to use medical marijuana in Michigan. The petition, submitted in 2014, contains a summary of 75 peer-reviewed articles on autism and 800 pages of reference material. ”When the panel sat down today, what they had was pieces of the document,” said Southfield attorney Michael Komorn. Pieces apparently selected by the Attorney General’s office, according to statements made on the record by Board officials. What was missing? “The Summary, with the 75 peer-reviewed studies, and the 800 pages of clinical research on autism and cannabis,” Komorn said. Advocates sued the government in Ingham County Circuit Court to force the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) to consider a petition for that purpose submitted in 2014 by Lisa Smith, whose son Noah has autism and other illnesses. Petitions are debated by the Medial Marihuana Review Panel (the Board) under rules established in 2008 by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). A previous petition to add autism to the MMMA was rejected at a Board hearing back in 2013. “We litigated for a year,” to get the Smith petition accepted, Komorn said. The State was represented by the Office of the Attorney General, Bill Schuette. The language of the MMMA requires that each petition properly submitted must be considered by the Board. Schuette’s and LARA’s response was the opposite: we already ruled on that illness and no subsequent petition will be considered. “The Court decided theirs was a wrong interpretation. We won; they had to give us a new hearing on the petition submitted.” A hearing on the Smith petition was held in May of this year. On July 1 a whole new Board was created, per rule changes made in January 2015 by LARA over the objections of citizens and Senators. Some of the members of the new panel had not heard the testimony on the Smith petition taken by the Board weeks earlier. “When the Board assembled today we were expecting a vote yea or nay on the petition,” Komorn related. “Before we were able to begin the conversation it was brought to the attention of the Board as a whole by (Board member) David Brogren that this very comprehensive document with supporting papers was not given in its entirety to the Board, and that the Board should consider the entire package before voting.”The science was scrubbed from the document given to the Board for consideration, Komorn said.“When the Circuit Court made an order that the petition be considered, they meant the whole petition,” Komorn growled. ”(The Court) didn’t change the material submitted, it required the Board to consider the petition filed with the Court.” Of a greater concern is the reason cited for the edited version of the petition being presented. Along with a new Board comes a new leader, and the newly-appointed Board made selecting a new Chair their first priority. When the confusion regarding the petitions was exposed, her reaction was not one that inspired confidence among the hearing’s attendees. “The statement she made on the record was very distressing, that this information was given to the board by the Attorney General, not the Court,” Komorn said. “The Attorney General’s role was referenced by (the Chair), who said, in response to Brogren, this is what was sent to us by the Court via the Attorney General.” “The representative kept referring to the fact that this document is what the Attorney General’s office gave us,” said Jamie Lowell of Ypsilanti’s 3rd Coast Medical Marijuana Dispensary, who attended the hearing. Brogren mentioned on the record that he had given the Board the petition in its entirety two weeks ago. Even after the issue was exposed, Komorn said the Chair seemed more concerned with spin control than she was with establishing proper process.Komorn explained that “she kept insisting that the Board had all the information they needed to make a decision on autism and medical marijuana,” he said, “without seeing any of the science behind it.” Brogren’s objections to considering the issue without all the facts swayed the result and stayed the Board from voting. They will reconvene at a later date to make a final determination on the Smith petition, after receiving the entire document. In addition to being a criminal defense attorney, Komorn is the host of an Internet-base radio program broadcasting weekly for more than four years. The Planet Green Trees Radio Show (PGT) has followed the progress of the autism petition from the start, prior to 2012’s initial rejection. Shows #255 and #257 covered the topic with interviews and behind-the-scenes looks at the tribulations experienced by those advocates who sought a positive result at the July 20 hearing. One of those interviewed by the PGT staff: Dr. Harry Chugani, chief of pediatric neurology at Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit “There was a major flaw in the process of how information was being given to the Board members,” Komorn stated. He challenged the notion that the Attorney General, a noted medical marijuana detractor and a major opponent of the MMMA in 2008, should be filtering information approved by the Court for use by a state agency. “Mind you, the AG had to be sued to bring this information to the Board in the first place,” Komorn emphasized. “Why is it OK for the Director of this Board to rely on them for the information used to make the determination of autism’s validity for inclusion on the medical marijuana program?” As a barometer of governmental efficiency, Komorn gave the Board’s actions today two thumbs down. “This Board is not operating in a way that anyone in the public would appreciate… this behavior should do nothing but bring concern from citizens… I don’t think that anyone that walked out of that room has one bit of confidence in the integrity of the process.” “I’d like to believe in the possibility of a fair hearing, but after experiencing the Attorney General in action over the years I can’t help but believe today’s behavior, creating unnecessary confusion and restriction, is intentionally designed to lead to a negative outcome,” Lowell observed. “I really hope I am wrong.”
Source: The Compassion Chronicles by Rick Thompson at 6:15 AM on July 21, 2015
