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.

People v King - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - Patient Defenses - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

People v King - The Two Defenses For Patients

The Supreme Court in People v King provided a great deal of guidance when looking at the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), at least when it comes to those who possess and do not possess registry identification cards. In the end, the Court held that the MMMA has two classifications for marijuana “patients” in the State of Michigan.

The first rests within Section 4, which contains strict requirements and provides immunity against arrests, charges, and prosecution. The second rests within Section 8, which allows for registered and non-registered patients to qualify for an affirmative defense, but an evidentiary hearing will likely be held to determine if the individual has met the requirements set forth within the section. It should be noted that Section 8 indicates a presumption of compliance if the three “elements” are met. See MCLA § 333.26428. Therefore, Section 8 allows for a defense for those who do not satisfy Section 4 of the MMMA, yet subjects the individual to potential criminal prosecution and/or conviction.

Section 4 is differentiated from Section 8 because it refers to “qualifying patient” or “caregiver,” while Section 8 simply states “patient” or “patient’s caregiver.” Section 4 indicates qualifying patients and primary caregivers “who have been issued and possess a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner . . . for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act.” MCLA § 333.26424(a-b).

Further, the qualified patient and primary caregiver (if attempting to comply with Section 4) must not possess more than 2.5 ounces of “usable marihuana” nor have more than 12 marijuana plants kept in an “enclosed locked facility.” Remember, a qualified patient is allowed to possess 12 marihuana plants as an individual and a primary caregiver is allowed to possess 12 marihuana plants for each of the “qualifying patients to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process.” But remember, Section 7 also applies to Section 4, which limits activities involving medical marijuana in certain circumstances.

Therefore, registered patients and caregivers will not have to worry about prosecution if they follow the strict requirements set forth in Section 4, which includes those activities involving other registered and connected patients and caregivers. If the individual does not satisfy all the requirements within Section 4, he or she may qualify for a Section 8 defense. A Section 8 defense does not provide immunity from prosecution.

The Michigan Supreme Court has established two thresholds that police officers and prosecutors must overcome before prosecuting “patients” within the MMMA. Patients, registered and non-registered, now maintain two avenues of redress when facing alleged criminal prosecution within the State of Michigan.

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. 

6th Circuit Court - Oakland County, Michigan - Josh Jones - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer

6^th Circuit Court – Oakland County, Michigan

The Circuit Court is a division of the state judiciary, and it serves as a trial court of general jurisdiction serving all the citizens of Oakland County and the townships, cities and villages located within. The court is located at 1200 N. Telegraph Rd., Pontiac, MI. The court currently has two satellite offices for Adult Probation and Juvenile Probation. The court oversees the counties felony criminal charges, convictions, sentencing and probation.

The court will also oversee or has the jurisdiction to preside over misdemeanor cases and charges. This will generally happen when the misdemeanor charge is also attached to a felony charge. If you were in need or are looking to file a Personal Protection Order (i.e. a PPO), the 6^th Circuit court would be the proper court for such an order. More information can be found here. The Law Office of Josh Jones also will or can assist in filing and properly preparing a PPO on your behalf.

There are fourteen (14) judges that oversee the court’s criminal docket. Charges any particular judge will see ranges from trespassing to murder. The court see the worst of the worst, but also the dumbest of the dumbest when it comes to criminal charges. A list of these judges, along with their bios, can be found here.

The large number of judges makes it difficult to know the expectations of any particular criminal charge; however, that difficult can be minimized by having the appropriate counsel by your side when walking into the 6^th Circuit Court. The Law Office of Josh Jones understands the stress, pain and worry that criminal charges bring. We focus on taking the stress out of any criminal mess.

If you need to check the status of your criminal case, which may still be pending at the 6^th Circuit Court, click here and enter the appropriate information. The court also posts its holiday schedule here, which indicates dates the court is closes. 

7th Circuit Court - Genesee County, Michigan - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

7^th Circuit Court – Genesee County, Michigan

The Circuit Court is a division of the state judiciary, and it serves as a trial court of general jurisdiction serving all the citizens of Oakland County and the townships, cities and villages located within. It is comprised of nine (9) elected judges, and additionally, it has 80 individual making up its clerical, professional and administrative staff. The court is responsible for overseeing the Public Defender Program, Court Services Division, County Law Library, Financial Services Division, Felony and Misdemeanor Matters, Adult Probation, and Jury Commission. 

The court is located at 900 S. Saginaw, Flint, MI, and its doors open at approximately 8:00 A.M. Monday through Friday, except for Holidays when the court is closed. A list of holidays and days the court is closed can be found here. If you need to contact the court for any reason, a list of numbers and departments can be found here.

It is important to note and know that all persons will pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines in order to ensure that no weapons or illicit substances are brought into the courthouse, which includes cellphones with video capturing capabilities. The procedure for checking individuals when entering the courthouse will cause a short delay; however, be aware of this will cause the delay to be shortened dramatically.

The Circuit Court generally presides over felony criminal matters; however, it will also oversee or has the jurisdiction to preside over misdemeanor cases and charges. This will generally happen when the misdemeanor charge is also attached to a felony charge. The court see the worst of the worst, but also the dumbest of the dumbest when it comes to criminal charges.

The large number of judges makes it difficult to know the expectations of any particular criminal charge; however, that difficult can be minimized by having the appropriate counsel by your side when walking into the 7^th Circuit Court. The Law Office of Josh Jones understands the stress, pain and worry that criminal charges bring. We focus on taking the stress out of any criminal mess.

If you need to check the status of your criminal case, which may still be pending at the 7^th Circuit Court, click here and enter the appropriate information.