People v King - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - MMMA - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

What Is A Patient Under The MMMA

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). See People v King. It explained that “patients” must obtain a doctor’s statement indicating a medical need for marijuana prior to the commission of any potential criminal act. A written statement or “prescription” may be more appropriate due to the required evidentiary hearing that is attached to criminal charges. It seem the outcome of the evidentiary hearing will be determined on the reasonableness of the activity compared to the requirements indicated in Section 8 of the MMMA. See MCLA § 333.16428.

Once the patient has obtained a statement or “prescription” from a doctor he or she may use a “reasonably necessary quantity of marijuana.” The Court did not elaborate on “reasonably necessary.” But in essence, a “patient” should be allowed to hold at least 2.5 ounces of marijuana (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. See Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Section 4. 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” antibiotics.  See Mich. Supreme Court Expands Mich. Medical Marihuana Act.  

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Michigan Medical Marihuana & Warrants - 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 marijuana 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 marijuana 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 marijuana cardholder more facts would be needed. But this can be said, medical marijuana users will want to be careful and expressly show their medical marijuana 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 marijuana 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. 

Michigan Medical Marihuana (aka MMMA) - Caregiver Status Update - Michigan Medical Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

The MMMA & Criminal History

New legislation has created two new (or one new and another modified) criminal charges that can and will extend from specific violations of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). This new law became effective as of April 1, 2013; therefore, it is imperative to know what can and will happen if you perform certain acts outside the scope of the MMMA. Josh Jones can help you maintain your ability to smoke carefree. 

One of the biggest and having the most impact on the MMMA community is the new change in the caregiver definition. See the relevant section here. In essence the change in the caregiver definition made those who currently have felony convictions on their records unable to obtain such a certification or license to be a caregiver.

This limit or restriction only applies to the past ten (10) years. However, the new definition does require an individual to remain free of felony drug convictions and assaultive convictions. Therefore, a caregiver must not only be 21 years or older but maintain a criminal record free of felonies within the last 10 years.

It is not only imperative to take note when these new laws come into effect, but it also highly noteworthy that many individuals will no longer be caregivers. These and other new amendments affect the medical marijuana community. Make sure you know what you can and cannot due with your certification to use marijuana. It could keep you out of jail and allowing you to continue with blowing smoke.

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.