People v Koon - Operating Under The Influence - MMMA - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer Josh Jones - Michigan Criminal Defense

People v Koon - Operating And The MMMA

It may be considered a landmark case for the Michigan Medical Marihuana community. The Michigan Supreme Court, in People v Koon, has held that individuals who qualify for immunity will not automatically be found to be driving “under the influence” simply because they internally possess medical marihuana.

The Court distinguished the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, MCL 257.625(8), from the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA), which allows for the use of medical marihuana. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the Act does forbid an individual from operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marihuana. MCL 333.26427(b). However, as the Court pointed out, the Act does not define what it means by “under the influence.”

Therefore, the Court concluded that the Motor Vehicle Code was not applicable in Koon case. The reason for this is because the MMMA specifically states that any and all other statutes within the State of Michigan that are inconsistent with the MMMA will not apply to such individuals, but of course they must first be immune as defined in the Act. It is important to note that the individuals must be engaged in the medical use of marihuana in order to qualify for this interpretation.

In the end, an individual qualifying for immunity under Section 4 will be allowed to internally possess medical marihuana and operate a motor vehicle. Yet that still begs the question of what qualifies as “under the influence” of marihuana as defined in Section 7 of the Act?

What Does This Mean?

To answer this question the case will likely and seems to turn on other factors that occurred during and/or before the traffic stop, i.e. proving that you are visibly impaired or under the influence.

This means that swerving, weaving, rolling stops, speeding, and the like will all come into play when an officer is attempting to establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause that you are under the influence of marihuana or visibly impaired. More over, the factors just listed, do not include the care smelling like burnt marihuana, an individual’s eye’s being red, a roach sitting in the ashtray, or the like, which will also increase the risk and probable cause that you are driving while under the influence.

Remember, know the law, know your rights, and lawyer-up with Josh Jones. He has your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

People v McQueen - Dispensaries - Michigan Supreme Court Opinion - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

People vMcQueen - Michigan Supreme Court Decides Issue On Dispensaries 

The biggest case in the history of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA), People vMcQueen was decided February 8, 2013. The Michigan Supreme Court (aka MSC) explained that patient-to-patient sales violated the MMMA.

The MSC began its opinion by pointing out that the Michigan Court of Appeals, who initially determined patient-to-patient sales were illegal, was wrong when it stated that “sale” was not included in the definition and purpose of “medical use.” However, the MSC went on to explain that even though the term was included within the definition of “medical use” it can be rebutted. This means that if the government provides evidence that rebuts the showing that the “conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating” the patient’s condition then the conduct could violate the MMMA.

The MSC points out that pursuant to Section 4 and the term “medical use” the transferor patient is not involved in alleviating his (or her) condition or symptom while transferring marijuana to another patient. Because the patient is not alleviating himself or herself by transferring marijuana to another patient he or she is not granted immunity.

The MSC went further to state that an individual caregiver will not be granted immunity if he or she transfer marihuana to an individual patient that is not connected to him or her through the registry system.

The MSC further explained that Section 8 does not protection against a civil nuisance claim because that particular section only goes towards criminal prosecution, which was determined based upon the surrounding language used within the section.

This is a stopping point for many medical marijuana businesses. Now what? Contact Josh Jones today to get a more detailed explanation and break down of what People vMcQueen means for the medical marijuana community. 

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.