The Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) has announced a landmark settlement, permanently banning three former law enforcement officials from participating in Michigan's cannabis market. The agreement mandates the immediate closure of Viridis Laboratories and its sister facility, Viridis North, after years of regulatory disputes over allegations of fraudulent testing.

The majority owners of the labs—former Michigan State Police forensic director Greg Michaud, forensic scientist Todd Welch, and former toxicologist Dr. Michele Glinn—have been prohibited for life from holding any role in the state’s cannabis industry. This decisive action concludes a protracted legal and administrative battle, affirming the CRA's authority to enforce scientific integrity and consumer protection within the market.

A Pattern of Non-Compliance and Regulatory Conflict

Since its founding in 2018, Viridis Laboratories—which once claimed its founders' law enforcement backgrounds provided superior credibility—drew intense scrutiny from regulators and competitors. The labs were accused of employing unapproved testing methods, inflating THC levels, and downplaying the presence of harmful contaminants, directly undermining the state's rigorous safety standards.

The conflict escalated in 2021 when the CRA ordered the largest recall in Michigan history, removing an estimated $229 million worth of products from shelves due to unreliable test results from Viridis. A subsequent administrative law judge's ruling in March found that the company repeatedly violated state rules by failing to follow its own protocols, misidentifying mold, and maintaining inadequate records. Despite these findings, Viridis continued to operate while challenging the CRA in court, with its lawsuits being repeatedly dismissed.

The Precedent Set by the Settlement

The settlement marks a critical moment for regulatory oversight in Michigan's cannabis industry. By admitting to all violations detailed in six formal complaints and dropping its remaining legal challenges, Viridis has acknowledged a "sustained, deliberate pattern of noncompliance" that, according to CRA Executive Director Brian Hanna, "shook confidence in the entire regulated cannabis system."

This resolution sends a clear message that scientific integrity is the non-negotiable foundation of the cannabis market. For legal professionals and industry stakeholders, this case highlights the severe consequences of regulatory non-compliance and the importance of adhering to stringent safety protocols. As the industry continues to evolve, this settlement will serve as a powerful precedent for future enforcement actions, emphasizing that ethics and transparency are paramount to a business's continued operation and legal standing.

Aggressive Defense in any Courtroom

For anyone facing charges -  Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC brings extensive experience in criminal defense in any Michigan court, including Federal Court. Call the office to to hire us. 248-357-2550

More Posts

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We represent clients throughout the

State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (248) 858-0344
• Address: 1200 N Telegraph Rd, Department 404, Pontiac, MI 48341-0404
• Website: Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (586) 469-5150
• Address: 40 N. Main Street, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
• Website: Macomb County 16th Judicial Circuit Court

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

• Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
• Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
• Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
• Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
• Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
• Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
• Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

• Telephone Number: (231) 922-4701
• Address: 328 Washington Street, Suite 300, Traverse City, MI 49684
• Website: Traverse City 13h Circuit Court

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (734) 240-7020
• Address: 106 E First Street, Monroe, MI 48161
• Website: Monroe County 38th Circuit Court

Michigan Court of Appeals reiterated that there are no exceptions to the one-year deadline for filing lawsuits against the state of Michigan.

Summary

In a decision issued on July 30, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals reiterated that there are no exceptions to the one-year deadline for filing lawsuits against the state of Michigan. This ruling potentially impacts plaintiffs who filed claims outside this timeframe, even if previous conflicting court decisions suggested otherwise.

Background

Suing a governmental entity, including the state, often involves specific procedural rules and shorter statutes of limitations compared to lawsuits against private parties. These rules are designed to protect public funds and ensure timely notice of claims. For some time, there had been conflicting interpretations within the Michigan courts regarding exceptions to the standard one-year period for bringing claims against the state. This created uncertainty for both plaintiffs and their legal counsel.

Details

• Date of Decision: July 30, 2025.

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals.

• Key Ruling: No exceptions exist to the one-year deadline for suing the state of Michigan.

• Impact: This decision clarifies the strict adherence to the one-year deadline, potentially leading to the dismissal of cases that were filed outside this window but during periods of conflicting legal guidance. It underscores the critical importance of prompt action when pursuing claims against the state.

• Future Implications: Attorney Jon Marko, representing affected plaintiffs, has indicated plans to appeal this decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, where the issue originated two years prior.

Aggressive Defense in any Courtroom

For anyone facing charges -  Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC brings extensive experience in criminal defense in any Michigan court, including Federal Court. Call the office to to hire us. 248-357-2550

Source Links:

• Michigan Public: https://www.michiganpublic.org/criminal-justice-legal-system/2025-07-30/appellate-court-panel-finds-no-exceptions-to-ruling-about-suing-the-state

More Posts

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We represent clients throughout the

State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (248) 858-0344
• Address: 1200 N Telegraph Rd, Department 404, Pontiac, MI 48341-0404
• Website: Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (586) 469-5150
• Address: 40 N. Main Street, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
• Website: Macomb County 16th Judicial Circuit Court

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

• Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
• Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
• Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
• Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
• Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
• Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
• Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

• Telephone Number: (231) 922-4701
• Address: 328 Washington Street, Suite 300, Traverse City, MI 49684
• Website: Traverse City 13h Circuit Court

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (734) 240-7020
• Address: 106 E First Street, Monroe, MI 48161
• Website: Monroe County 38th Circuit Court

Should public employees retain the right to stop supporting a union, regardless of a prior written membership agreement, as guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

In a concerning trend for individual worker rights, lower courts are reportedly ignoring a key U.S. Supreme Court decision, Janus v. AFSCME, to continue enforcing mandatory union payments from public employees. This issue, highlighted in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on July 24, 2025, by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that states and unions are circumventing the 2018 Janus ruling, which declared it unconstitutional to compel public employees to pay union fees without their clear and affirmative consent. The brief urges the Supreme Court to step in and ensure its precedent is respected, protecting the First Amendment rights of millions of public workers.

Background on Public Sector Union Payments and the Janus Decision

For decades, many public employees in states without "Right-to-Work" laws were required to pay "agency fees" or "fair share fees" to a public sector union as a condition of employment, even if they chose not to be full union members. These fees were intended to cover the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures from which non-members benefited. This practice was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which reasoned that requiring these payments prevented "free riders" who benefited from union representation without contributing to its costs.

However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (AFSCME). In a 5-4 ruling, the Court overturned Abood, holding that requiring public employees to pay agency fees violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The Janus Court stated that "neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember's wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." This meant that public employees could no longer be forced to financially support a union as a condition of employment.

Finish this Article then Comeback and Read

Michigan's Freedom to Work Law Killed in 2024

Lower Courts and States Sidestep Supreme Court Mandate

Despite the clear mandate from Janus, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy contend that at least 17 states and numerous unions are implementing tactics to undermine the ruling. These tactics often involve restrictive "opt-out" windows, sometimes as narrow as 10-15 days per year or even once per multi-year contract, during which employees can stop payroll deductions for union dues. If an employee misses this window, they can be forced to continue paying for years, even after resigning union membership.

Even more concerning, several U.S. Circuit Courts have ruled that governments and unions can continue deducting dues without "clear and compelling evidence" of an employee's knowing and voluntary waiver of their First Amendment right to opt out. Instead, these courts have allowed union contract fine print and procedural hurdles to effectively trap employees in payment obligations. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, has been criticized for ruling that states can seize union dues based solely on a union's assertion of consent, even if that claim is false, and that unions themselves are not "state actors" bound by constitutional limits despite directing government payroll deductions. This, the brief argues, directly contradicts the spirit and letter of the Janus decision.

Key details of the ongoing issue:

• Supreme Court Precedent: Janus v. AFSCME (2018) ruled that public employees cannot be forced to pay union fees without affirmative consent.

• Alleged Violations: States and unions are using restrictive "opt-out" windows and relying on weak consent standards to continue collecting fees.

• Lower Court Rulings: Six U.S. Circuit Courts have allowed unions and governments to keep deducting dues without clear evidence of employee consent.

• Specific Example: The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Wright v. SEIU Local 503 stated that states could seize dues based on a union's assertion of consent, even if unverified.

• Organizations Challenging: National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief on July 24, 2025, urging Supreme Court intervention.

• Impact on Employees: Millions of public employees may be forced to pay for union speech they oppose due to missed narrow opt-out windows or insufficient consent standards.

Aggressive Defense in any Courtroom

For anyone facing charges -  Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC brings extensive experience in criminal defense in any Michigan court, including Federal Court. Call the office to to hire us. 248-357-2550

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• What was the main outcome of Janus v. AFSCME? The Janus decision ruled that public sector employees cannot be forced to pay agency fees to a union as a condition of employment. They must give clear and affirmative consent for any payroll deductions to a union.
• What are "agency fees" or "fair share fees"? These were payments made by public employees who chose not to join a union but were still required to contribute to the cost of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance processes, from which they benefited. Janus declared these unconstitutional without affirmative consent.
• Does the Janus decision apply to private sector employees? No, Janus v. AFSCME specifically applies to public sector employees. Private sector employees may still be subject to union security clauses in non-Right-to-Work states, as governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
• What is a "Right-to-Work" state? A "Right-to-Work" state is one that has laws prohibiting union security agreements, meaning employees cannot be required to join a union or pay union dues/fees as a condition of employment. Michigan's Right-to-Work law was repealed in 2023, effective in early 2024.
• What should a public employee do if they believe their Janus rights are being violated? If a public employee believes they are being forced to pay union fees without their affirmative consent, or if they are being restricted by narrow opt-out windows, they should seek legal counsel. Organizations like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation also provide resources.

Suggestions/Links to Similar Articles:

• Mackinac Center - Lower courts ignore Supreme Court precedent to force union payments
• Oyez - Janus v. AFSCME Case Summary 
• National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation - Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
• Michigan Legislature - Public Employment Relations Act (MCL 423.210 discusses union security):  (Note: While this MCL section discusses permissible union security arrangements, it must be read in light of the Janus decision's impact on public sector unions.)
• Right to work law dies in 2024
• Komorn Law - Criminal Defense (General)

More Posts

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We represent clients throughout the

State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (248) 858-0344
• Address: 1200 N Telegraph Rd, Department 404, Pontiac, MI 48341-0404
• Website: Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (586) 469-5150
• Address: 40 N. Main Street, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
• Website: Macomb County 16th Judicial Circuit Court

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

• Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
• Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
• Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
• Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
• Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
• Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
• Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

• Telephone Number: (231) 922-4701
• Address: 328 Washington Street, Suite 300, Traverse City, MI 49684
• Website: Traverse City 13h Circuit Court

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (734) 240-7020
• Address: 106 E First Street, Monroe, MI 48161
• Website: Monroe County 38th Circuit Court

The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling on August 1, 2025, limiting the ability of law enforcement to conduct broad, warrantless searches of cell phones during criminal investigations.

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling on August 1, 2025, limiting the ability of law enforcement to conduct broad, warrantless searches of cell phones during criminal investigations.

The Court found that generalized warrants to search "any and all records or documents" on a cell phone violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, emphasizing the vast amount of private information stored on modern devices.

Background

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the digital age, applying this protection to electronic devices like cell phones has been a complex legal challenge.

Courts across the country have grappled with balancing law enforcement's need for evidence with individuals' privacy rights, especially given that a single cell phone can contain a person's entire life history.

This case, People v. Carson, centered on a defendant appealing convictions partly based on text messages obtained via a broad search warrant for his phone.

Details:

• Date of Decision: August 1, 2025.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court.
• Key Ruling: A warrant to search a cell phone must be specific about what information law enforcement is looking for, rather than allowing a broad search of "any and all data."
• Reasoning: The majority opinion highlighted that modern cell phones contain an "unlimited amount of private information" and that "wide-ranging exploratory rummaging is constitutionally intolerable."
• Impact: This decision sets a higher standard for law enforcement seeking search warrants for cell phones in Michigan, offering greater protection for individual privacy. It will likely require police to be much more precise in their warrant applications, potentially impacting how digital evidence is collected in criminal cases.

Aggressive Defense in any Courtroom

For anyone facing charges -  Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC brings extensive experience in criminal defense in any Michigan court, including Federal Court. Call the office to to hire us. 248-357-2550

More Posts

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We represent clients throughout the

State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (248) 858-0344
• Address: 1200 N Telegraph Rd, Department 404, Pontiac, MI 48341-0404
• Website: Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (586) 469-5150
• Address: 40 N. Main Street, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
• Website: Macomb County 16th Judicial Circuit Court

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

• Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
• Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
• Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
• Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
• Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
• Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
• Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

• Telephone Number: (231) 922-4701
• Address: 328 Washington Street, Suite 300, Traverse City, MI 49684
• Website: Traverse City 13h Circuit Court

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (734) 240-7020
• Address: 106 E First Street, Monroe, MI 48161
• Website: Monroe County 38th Circuit Court