Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

The Michigan Supreme Court says the public can bring laptops, tablets and phones into local courthouses.

The public can now bring cell phone, tablets and laptops into Michigan courthouses under a groundbreaking policy announced Wednesday by the state Supreme Court.

The new rule covers the use of electronic devices in courtrooms and clerk’s offices, where public documents are stored.

Of course many elected clerks had opposed the policy during the drafting stage because it would allow people who voted for them to copy PUBLIC RECORDS and avoid fees source of revenue beyond what they are already absconding anyway.  Surely they will make it up somewhere else like the government always does.

The rule change improves access and “will help make sure the doors to our courts are open to all,” Chief Justice Bridget McCormack said.

The public can bring electronic devices into courtrooms to take notes, use the internet or exchange email and text messages, under the rule, which starts May 1 in circuit, district and probate courts.

Photos or video are prohibited unless approved by a judge.

Copies of court documents can be made as long as the “device leaves no mark or impression on the document and does not unreasonably interfere with the operation of the clerk’s office,” the rule states.

The rule says judges can restrict devices if the activity “is disruptive or distracting to a court proceeding.”

Policies regarding phones have varied throughout the state. In Macomb County and Kent County the courthouse allows phones but Oakland County and the Wayne County criminal courthouses do not.

Is smell enough to justify search warrant? Bloomfield Township man appealing decision on marijuana case

Is smell enough to justify search warrant? Bloomfield Township man appealing decision on marijuana case

Nearly a year after voters approved adult use of recreational marijuana, Oakland County resident Kevin John Carlson continues to fight a possession/intent to deliver case, which he believes stems from a search warrant that should never have been granted.

Carlson, 30, was charged in early 2018 after police searched his Bloomfield Township home and reportedly found marijuana and other evidence — months prior to cannabis being legalized in Michigan. At the time Carlson was a registered marijuana patient and caregiver, legally allowed to have a certain amount of cannabis.

The magistrate who issued the search warrant — based on police reportedly smelling marijuana outside the home — was wrong to do so because it wasn’t based on probable cause, Carlson claimed.

Thinking of Starting a Cannabis or Hemp Business?

When it comes to cannabis and hemp business. Komorn Law is the law firm you need with local as well as international networks and assets when your business needs to go global.

Contact our office to find out more information.

The court further found that the 2008 Michigan Medical Marihuana Act didn’t shield Carlson from the search, stating “the police were not obligated to determine, before obtaining a search warrant, the legality of the marijuana-related activities inside the defendant’s home and whether the defendant’s activities complied with the MMMA.”

However, Carlson’s defense attorney Michael Komorn said the judges failed to address if current Michigan marijuana law can be applied retroactively and are wrong in not considering its relevancy, as well as the state reclassification of medical marijuana as a Schedule II drug — permitted for some use. Carlson’s case is next headed to the Michigan Supreme Court for consideration, which earlier had remanded it to the Court of Appeals.

“This case is important for Fourth Amendment issues (regarding protection against unreasonable search and seizure) for constitutional reasons,” Komorn said, “and for the citizens of Michigan…just because somebody is doing something suspicious, that’s not enough for probable cause.”

Contact Us For a Free Case Evaluation

10 + 1 =

Michigan Court Costs Are Unconstitutional?

Michigan Court Costs Are Unconstitutional?

So when you’re convicted of a crime, or a traffic ticket, you have to pay a bunch of costs. Did you know that many of those costs go back into the local court’s operating budget? So when that judge orders you to be a good convict and pay your court fees, you’re actually paying the salary of the judge’s court recorder, or paying for the copy machine they use to print your probation order. According to this source, local courts get up to 26% of their operating budget from their own generated revenues (fines, costs and imposed penalties. Not from holding bake sales).

Courts across Michigan generate $418 million per year to fund their own operating expenses. They don’t raise $418 million by finding people innocent.

But wait, there’s news. The 5th Circuit Court of the United States Court of Appeals just ruled that when judges have a personal interest in collecting costs from a defendant, they have a conflict of interest. The court said that they can’t rule in a case where their own court stands to benefit. In the 5th Circuit Court case, the judges personally didn’t benefit, but their staff salaries and operating expenditures came from some of the funds collected in court costs. And the U.S. Court of Appeals said nope.

The history of this is a bit twisted. So stay with me.

In 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court decided the People v. Cunningham case. That case threw half of a wet blanket on court fees. The Michigan Supreme Court said that the court couldn’t impose a cost unless they were authorized by the legislature to impose that cost.

And what do you think the legislature did? They ran out and passed a law that authorized the courts to collect fees. But that law is only in effect until 2020.

So someone challenged that by bringing a new court case, People v. Cameron. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the new law as constitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to look at the case.

But in the meantime, someone saw the writing on the wall, because the Michigan Trial Court Funding Commission quietly began working on a new funding scheme that sounds a little more constitutional.

So what the Michigan Supreme Court did was decline to accept the application for leave to appeal, so that $418 million in annual court funding around the state wouldn’t go poof. The Michigan Supreme Court punted in order to give administrators time to figure out how to run the courts and follow the constitution at the same time.

Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack more or less admits as much. In her concurring opinion denying leave to appeal, Chief Justice McCormack said that trial court funding is a “long-simmering” problem in Michigan. She said that denying leave to appeal will “allow our current system of trial court funding in Michigan to limp forward.” She then goes on to tell the legislature to pass the new, centralized funding scheme.

Read the rest here – Pretty interesting. The whole website is good. Each city should have one Dirty Traverse City

ABA Journal Link – Fines-and-fees system that helps fund court budget is unconstitutional, 5th Circuit rules

Charged with a Crime?

Call every other attorney on the planet.

Then call Komorn Law for a legal team who will truly fight for you.

There’s no comparison for cost effective criminal defense representation.

Research it!

248-357-2550

Recent Posts

Nuclear waste headed to southeast Michigan landfill

What happened to the nuclear waste from the...

Cannabis workers claimed employer violated labor laws

Allegedly had to put on company-issued personal...

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to...

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana...

John Sinclair, the inspiration for Ann Arbor’s Hash Bash, dead at 82

John Sinclair, the poet whose imprisonment for...

Police investigate crash-and-grab burglary at Hazel Park pot shop

Hazel Park police are seeking assistance from...

Dead goats lead Michigan deputies to illegal marijuana grow

Deceased goats pointed Calhoun County deputies...

Michigan wants to study marijuana’s health benefits

MICHIGAN WANTS TO STUDY MARIJUANA’S HEALTH...

Police seize 4,000 marijuana plants, processed weed worth $6.3M

HIGHLAND PARK, MI - Feb. 24, 2024 Michigan State...
Search of vehicle after drug odor ruled illegal

Search of vehicle after drug odor ruled illegal

A judge’s ruling that a vehicle search prompted by an odor of marijuana was illegal.

An Pennsylvania judge has ruled that state police who said they smelled marijuana in a vehicle weren’t allowed to search the vehicle once they were shown the driver’s medical marijuana card.

The (Allentown) Morning Call reports that a Lehigh County judge tossed out evidence cited in support of drug and firearms counts stemming from the Nov. 7 search of the vehicle in Allentown.

“The smell of marijuana is no longer per se indicative of a crime,” Judge Maria Dantos wrote in her opinion filed earlier this month.

Prosecutors must now decide whether to appeal to state Superior Court or try to move forward without the evidence.

Defense attorney Joshua Karoly said the ruling could help change a rule allowing police to search based solely on the odor of drugs.

An eastern Pennsylvania judge has ruled that state police troopers who said they smelled marijuana in a vehicle weren’t allowed to search the vehicle once they were shown the driver’s medical marijuana card.

Have you been arrested or charged with a crime?
Call Komorn Law for a free case evaluation now (248) 357-2550 or visit KomornLaw.com or Read client reviews.

“The smell of marijuana is no longer per se indicative of a crime,” Judge Maria Dantos wrote in her opinion filed Friday.

Recent Posts

[kl_posts posts_per_page=”10″ order=”desc”]

Nevada to introduce first banking system for the cannabis industry.

Nevada to introduce first banking system for the cannabis industry.

Nevada to introduce the nation’s first banking system for the cannabis industry.

The dispensary businesses are targeted for burglaries and robberies for the cash they keep around to pay overhead and employees.

Motivated by their gaming sector, officials would allow marijuana businesses to deal in electronic tokens and chips.

“We really want to deal with the public safety issue. That much cash in the hands of that many people, it’s just dangerous. It’s an attractive target,” said Nevada state Treasurer Zach Conine, who pushed for the program.

Cannabis businesses operate on a cash basis due to banks and other financial institutions having refused to do business with them citing federal laws of the Schedule 1 drug.

Nevada has to make sure they get theirs and not let that cash slip through the system.  Hopefully it will be used for making Nevada a better place for families and not for idiocracy.

Attorney Michael Komorn stated “The time has come for the legitimacy of cannabis and hemp industries to be accepted and allowed to operate as taxpayers and invest in the community. If you are thinking of growing hemp or starting a cannabis business you will require legal guidance…that’s what we do“.

Recent Posts

[kl_posts posts_per_page=”10″ order=”desc”]