Michigan Medical Marihuana & Search Warrants - MMMA - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

Michigan Medical Marihuana Act: The Opinions Just Keep Coming

The Court of Appeals has recently determined that a Magistrate is allowed to issue a search and seizure warrant without the police officer first determining whether the individual is a Michigan medical marihuana cardholder. Yes, that was a confusing sentence. Let’s see if that idea can be expressed in simpler terms.

Ultimately, the court concluded that an officer is allowed to obtain a warrant to search an individual’s home without first establishing whether that individual is legal cultivating, using or possessing medical marihuana as allowed under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). See People v Brown.

The court based its conclusion on the fact that cultivating, using and possessing marihuana is technically illegal, unless the individual was obeying the requirements set out in the MMMA. 

In Brown, the issue was whether the officer had probable cause for a warrant based upon clippings and other materials found in the defendant’s garbage. The court indicated that such evidence constituted a reasonable conclusion that illegal activity was occurring in the defendant’s home, and thus the warrant issued by the magistrate was valid and the evidence entered into evidence during trial was not suppressed.

When reading the opinion, it will be easily noticeable that facts were limited and not really discussed, so in order to discuss the actual impact on a medical marihuana cardholder more facts would be needed. But this can be said, medical marihuana users will want to be careful and expressly show their medical marihuana card or approved paperwork. The opinion stated by the Court of Appeals is law, as of right now that is.

Anytime you are faced with legal issues that involve the MMMA, you need to contact an attorney that understands the Act’s limits. Do not hesitate or believe that the Act will simply protect you in every possibility. There is still a large amount of smoke that hovers of the rights of medical marihuana patients and caregivers. Make sure you have Josh Jones protecting those rights. 

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. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Cooperative Growing - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - MMMA - People v Bylsma - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

Medical Marijuana and the Michigan Supreme Court –

Continuing On With Its Dance

Many people will make People v Bylsma out to be bigger than it is, meaning that this case has negatively impacted the medical marijuana community here in Michigan. However, the case was not without hope and should be read through its entirety prior to rendering judgment.

The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) analyzed the Bylsma case very narrowly, at least in regards to its application to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). Moreover, the Court only used this narrow analysis for part of its opinion. When the Court looked at Section 4 of the MMMA it determined that Bylsma did not hold immunity for his acts that brought him before the court. The Court held that Bylsma was not without recourse. That recourse is found in Section 8 of the MMMA.

So what was the issue? Bylsma was charged with manufacturing marijuana because he had maintained a warehouse that contained not only his medical marijuana plants (which he was legally allowed to grow), but it also contained plants from other patients—which he was not connected to through the State registry system. These patients were renting space inside the warehouse, and Bylsma was the owner and operator of the warehouse. The other plants, which were not technically owned by Bylsma, were still found to be in possession of Bylsma.

The Court was concerned, when looking at whether Bylsma possessed the over abundant amount of plants, whether there was a sufficient nexus between him and the contraband, which factors in whether he maintain dominion and control over the contraband. In the end, Bylsma did just this, and thus cannot be afforded immunity in the eyes of Section 4 of the MMMA. However, Bylsma had preserved the right to bring forth the Section 8 affirmative defense.

Because he had preserved this defense he is still allowed to raise it during or before trial, which has yet to occur with his case. The Court affirmed the fact that Bylsma does not have immunity, yet the Court also reversed in part and remanded the case back to the trial court. The trial court was told, by the MSC, that it should look to its opinion and analysis set forth in People v Kolanek, which outlines the analysis of a Section 8 affirmative defense.

At the end of the day, this was not a setback, but instead a clearing of mess that had been created and a reaffirmation of a cornerstone case—Kolanek. Some issues remain, but as time goes on those whom were weary of that fog will see that you still have rights, responsibilities, and avenues of recourse to puff away. It is time for you to be the one creating the fog, but instead of a mess you create tranquility.

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.