Judges & Medical Marihuana Immunity [People v Jones] - MMMA Case - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

Judges Deciding Immunity - People v Jones

On July 9, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals brought about further interpretation on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). More specifically, People v Jones explained that the decision of Section 4 Immunity is left up to the judge, but in what cases or circumstances?

Generally, an issue of fact (or a factual issue) is to be decided by a Jury (or the trier of fact), yet an issue of law (or a legal issue) is to be decided by the judge. This is long standing procedure. However, here in the State of Michigan and in certain situations and instances a judge still determines factual issues within a case. These situations include entrapment, voluntariness of statements, suppression of physical evidence, or consenting to search, to name a few.

The issues at hand in the Jones case dealt with whether or not the Defendant was a resident of the State at the time of her application and whether she was possessing marihuana for the medical use as a caregiver and patient.

The court paralleled Section 4 to the Entrapment Defense, and ultimately determined that Section 4 “fact-finding is a question for the trial court to decide. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision finding that [Section] 4 immunity fact-finding is a question for the jury is reversed.” Jones. 

Beek v Wyoming - Rights of Michigan Medical Marihuana Act [MMMA] - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a city could not completely ban the use and cultivation of Medical Marijuana. See Beek v City of Wyoming. The individual challenging a city ordinance argued that the ordinance was in conflict with State law, which makes the ordinance unconstitutional. The City, on the other hand, argued that it was following Federal law, or more precisely the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA), and thus the Federal law preempted State law, which would allow its ordinance to be enforceable.

The court had to determine this issue through statutory interpretation, which meant looking to the intent of the laws called into question, including the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), the City of Wyoming ordinance, and the CSA. The court explained that the ordinance provided for civil sanctions, yet the MMMA immunity forbids any penalty when acting within the scope and confines of the Act’s provisions.

Moreover, the federal law does not preempt (or overrule) the MMMA because States are allowed maintain specific police powers while the Federal Government enforces its own enactments. The Feds cannot require or mandate States to enforce federal statutes or enactments. Further, even though the Feds are allowed to pass laws criminalizing medical marihuana, it cannot require a State to do the same.

Therefore, the MMMA can be used by anyone within the state, in any county, so long as the individual qualifies for the act and follow it requirements. A city does not have the right to enforce an outright ban on Medical Marihuana.

PLEASE 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.

Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) Outlined [MMMA] - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

The Section 8 [Affirmative Defense] Briefly Outlined

The Michigan Supreme Court in People v King determined what an individual must do in order to be considered a “patient” within the language of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). It explained that “patients” must obtain a doctor’s statement indicating a medical need for marihuana prior to the commission of any potential criminal act. A written statement or “certification” may be more appropriate due to the required evidentiary hearing that is attached to criminal charges. It seems the outcome of the evidentiary hearing will be based upon the reasonableness of the activity and as compared to the other requirements indicated in Section 8 of the MMMA. See MCLA § 333.16428.

Once the patient has obtained a statement or “certification” from a doctor he or she may use a “reasonably necessary quantity of marihuana ” The Court did not elaborate on “reasonably necessary.” But in essence, a “patient” should be allowed to hold at least 2.5 ounces of marihuana (the amount indicated in Section 4). See MCLA § 333.26424.

It seems that the Court interpreted the Act clearly in a fashion that it was intended, which consisted of a variation in the term “patient.” You have those patients that will want to be somewhat immune from criminal exposure, if that person adheres to the strict requirements of Section 4 of the MMMA. You will also have those patients that do not want to register or become “qualified patients.” In the end, the MMMA allows for multiple defenses involving a “patient’s” marihuana and medical uses of such marihuana. 

Consult your attorney to discuss the potential exposure to criminal prosecution and the stages of prosecution in order to make an informed decision about any and all questions regarding the MMMA. 

United States v Jones - GPS Tracking & Constitutional Searches - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

GPS Tracking - Was it a Search?

The United States Supreme Court held that GPS tracking devices were not allowed to be attached an individual’s vehicle unless the government has first obtained a warrant to attach such a device. See United States v Jones. The defendant Jones was being investigated by the federal government, which included surveillance, cameras, and wiretaps of Jones’s phone. Using the information obtained from the investigation, the Federal Government applied for a warrant to use a GPS tracking device to track Jones’s movements, yet the government failed to attach the device prior to the ten-day deadline noted inside the warrant.

The court began its analysis by looking at the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits an “unreasonable search and seizure.” In order to determine what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure hinges on the whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to the area or thing searched or seized. The Court noted previous holdings where it had to determine the legitimacy of a “beeper” GPS device in the eyes of the Fourth Amendment. In those cases were different than in Jones because the item tagged with the “beeper” was owned by a third-party.

Even though the government is allowed to watch, follow, and tape an individual from a distance, the Court in Jones explained that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle went too far. The need for a warrant is necessary due to the invisible line that is crossed when the government encroaches an individual’s personal property.  

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.

Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - OUTLINING Deferral/Diversion Statutes, Generally - Josh Jones - 7/17/2013

1. Domestic Violence Cases, MCL 769.4a


2. Controlled Substance Cases MCL 333.7411 “7411″


3. Delayed Sentencing MCL 771.1


4. Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA) MCL 762.11


5. Minor in Possession of Alcohol MCL 436.1703 (3)

1. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

MCL 769.4a authorizes a court, without entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the accused and of the prosecuting attorney in consultation with the victim, to defer further proceedings in an assault and battery case when an individual who has not been convicted previously of an assaultive crime pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, assault and battery under MCL 750.81 AND 81A. The victim of the assault must be the offender’s spouse or former spouse, an individual who has a child in common with the offender, an individual who has or has had a dating relationship with the offender, or an individual residing in the same household as the offender. THIS DEFERRAL can be utilized only if the accused has no prior assaultive conviction. For law enforcement purposes, although a judgment of guilt is not entered, the arrest and the disposition by utilization of the deferral statue will appear on the criminal record of the defendant.

2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CASES

Another deferral statue that may be available to a defendant is MCL 333.7411, “7411.” This law allows for an individual who has been charged with a non-major drug offense to walk away without a drug conviction after successful completion of the court’s sentence. Non-major drug offenses are usually simple possession of controlled substance offenses for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy. Major offenses not “7411″ eligible are offenses that involve delivery or manufacture of drugs, including possession with intent to deliver and maintaining a drug house.

3. DELAYED SENTENCING

This is not technically a deferral, although MCL 771.1 authorizes a court, without entering a judgment of guilt, to delay sentencing for no more than one year in all prosecutions for felonies, misdemeanors, or ordinance violations other than murder, treason, criminal sexual conduct in the first or third degree, armed robbery, or major controlled substances offenses. This deferral does not require the prior consent of the accused, the prosecutor, or the victim.

4. HOLMES YOUTHFUL TRAINEE ACT (HYTA)

MCL 762.11, is another deferral law that has specific age restrictions. To receive HYTA consideration, a defendant must have committed the crime charged between the ages of 17 and 21. HYTA is not allowed for a number of offenses, including all offenses for which the penalty is life, all traffic offenses, and most criminal sexual conduct offenses. MCL 762.11 (2), (3). As with the other deferral statues, HYTA will allow for a non-public record of the offense. Additionally, you must satisfy all the sentence requirements of the court.

5. MINOR IN POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL (MIP)

MCL 436.1703(3) authorizes a court, after fulfillment of the terms and conditions of probation, to discharge the defendant and dismiss the proceedings. To qualify for this deferral the defendant must not have been previously been convicted of or received a juvenile adjudication for being a minor who purchased or attempted to purchase alcoholic liquor, consumed or attempted to consume alcoholic liquor, possessed or attempted to possess alcoholic liquor, or had any bodily alcoholic content.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.