Jump to content






Photo

The First Day After The Raid

Posted by bobandtorey , 30 January 2012 · 109 views

Last Edited: Wednesday, 01 Apr 2009, 7:53 PM EDT
Created On: Wednesday, 01 Apr 2009, 6:39 PM EDT

MADISON HEIGHTS, Mich. (AP) - Police in Madison Heights have seized 21 marijuana plants from the home of a man who says he grows the drug for medicinal use.

Police in the Detroit suburb seized the plants Monday.

But Chief Kevin Sagan tells the Detroit Free Press that the department doesn't know if the man has violated any laws.

Michigan voters last year legalized the medicinal use of marijuana. But ID cards for registered patients won't be issued before rules for the program go into effect on Saturday.

The 59-year-old man tells The Detroit News he and his girlfriend have recommendations from a doctor to use marijuana. He says he didn't think they were doing anything illegal.

Police are consulting with the Oakland County prosecutor on the case.





bobandtorey
Jan 30 2012 09:47 AM
MADISON HEIGHTS, Mich. (AP) - An Oakland County judge has thrown out drug charges against a couple who say they grew marijuana for medical reasons.

Fifty-nine-year-old Robert Redden and 47-year-old Torey Clark successfully argued they were protected by Michigan's medical-marijuana law, which voters approved last year.

Police seized 21 marijuana plants from their Madison Heights home in March. Redden and Clark had recommendations from a doctor to use the drug.

The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press report District Judge Robert Turner was critical of the law Wednesday but dismissed the charges against the couple.

The state is issuing ID cards to medical-marijuana patients to protect them from arrest. The cards were not available at the time of the Madison Heights raid.
  • Report

bobandtorey
Jan 30 2012 10:43 AM

Doctor in Madison Heights medical pot case ordered to testify

Jennifer Chambers / The Detroit News
Madison Heights -- The doctor who certified two Madison Heights residents as medical marijuana patients under Michigan's new law has been ordered to testify in their criminal case.

Judge Robert J. Turner of the 43rd District Court signed an order today requiring Dr. Eric Eisenbud to appear in court on May 27 to answer questions about a document he signed that gives medical authorization to Torey A. Clark and Robert Redden to possess marijuana for medical purposes.

Eisenbud, an ophthalmologist who works for the Hemp and Cannabis Foundation's medical clinic in Southfield, signed the authorization on March 4, three weeks before Madison Heights police used a battering ram to break down the front door of Redden and Clark's home and remove 21 marijuana plants.

Advertisement

The couple has been charged with illegally growing the plants and faces up to 14 years in prison.

Assistant Oakland County Beth Hand asked the judge for Clark's and Redden's medical records, saying she needed the basis for the "bona-fide" patient-physician relationship as described in the state law.

"Was there a relationship or did they walk into a door, pay a few hundred bucks and get this paper?" Hand said.

Turner denied the request but did take into evidence copies of the couple's state-issued ID cards, which are issued by the Department of Community Health for physician-certified patients.

Turner told Hand his interpretation of the law, which has been widely criticized by legal observers as being poorly written and vague.

"It says it's a matter of one doctor testifying and charges shall be dismissed," Turner said.

The couple did not have the cards at the time of the March 30 raid. Their attorneys claim the state law and its protections went into effect on Dec. 4 and the couple should not be charged in the case.

  • Report

bobandtorey
Jan 30 2012 08:49 PM
For the past 2 days, the MMMA has been working closely with Bob and his beautiful companion Torey to help them recover from the shocking encounter they had with Madison Heights Police and their infamous Special Investigations Unit. Bob and Tori are fine, and they said to make sure I thanked everyone on the site for all their well wishes and support.




Officers of the Madison Heights SIU searched the residence and seized 21 marijuana plants that were from 2" to 4" tall. They also took approximately one ounce of marijuana, some cash, and some personal records. They did however leave Bob one joint for, as one officer allegedly said was "for in the morning".

On Tuesday the MMMA did what we said we would do and began helping Bob and Tori put the pieces back together. Greg called early that morning and spoke at length to Bob to make sure he was safe and his home secure, then called me to see if I could go help. Steve K. from the Troy Compassion Club and I went to Bob's house, assessed the damages and talked to Bob and Tori an length about what happened. From the story I was told, and after reviewing the documents left by the Madison Heights Special Investigations Unit, I was convinced that Bob and Tori were within the guidelines established in the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. After leaving Bob and Tori's house, I contacted two attorneys who specialize in criminal defense and civil rights.

On Wednesday, Bob and Tori met with one of the lawyers, Robert Mullen, J.D., an accomplished attorney from Plymouth, to discuss the case. A relationship was established and Mullen began work almost immediately as FOX2 News crews showed up to interview Bob and Tori. Meanwhile, MMMA member peanutbutter, arrived to help me start replacing the front door at the Redden residence. Another MMMA member, whose screenname I can't remember, also arrived to help and assured me that he would finish installing the new front door today.

When I left the Redden house Wednesday, Bob and Tori were in much better spirits. They seemed surprised that so many MMMA members called, came by, assisted and supported them. They want to thank everyone for the support and want our members to know they're doing OK. I want everyone to know that the MMMA is not just some website who tells people you're OK to use marijuana, and then leaves you twisting in the wind when trouble darkens your doorway.

The MMMA is a website, but it's also a large group of caring and compassionate people who stick together, who share a common cause, and who will fight back against those lawless individuals and agencies that violate our rights. I feel confident that Bob and Tori will come out of this OK, they were, and still are within the law. They have a good attorney, and they have us..... all of us!
  • Report

bobandtorey
Mar 23 2012 08:10 AM

COA Opinion: Possession of Registry Identification Card Not Required to Assert MMMA Affirmative Defense
Labels: Medical MarihuanaWednesday, 15 September 2010 00:00In People v Redden, Docket No. 295809, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed numerous questions regarding the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act's (MMMA) affirmative defense.

The MMMA became effective in December of 2008. The named defendants obtained physician certifications for medical marihuana in March of 2009; however, the Department of Community Health did not begin issuing registry identification cards until April of 2009. The prosecution contended that in order for defendants to invoke the MMMA's affirmative defense, they must possess the registry identification card mandated by Section 4 of the Act.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. While "qualifying patients" are required to possess a registry identification card to receive the protections of Section 4, "patients" are entitled to assert the MMMA affirmative defense without possessing such identification.

A "patient" must satisfy three elements to be shielded from criminal prosecution under the MMMA's affirmative defense:

  • The patient must obtain a physician's statement acquired in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient is likely to receive benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof;
  • the patient must possess a quantity of marihuana not more than is reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof, and;
  • the patient must be engaged in the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof.

The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in concluding that defendants established the three criteria required for the affirmative defense.

Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that defendants failed to establish a bona fide physician-patient relationship. Noting that the certifying physician was employed for the sole purpose of writing medical marihuana recommendations, the court concluded that the facts at least raised an inference that the defendants saw the physician not for good-faith medical treatment, but rather, in order to obtain marihuana under false pretenses.

Next, the Court of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence presented for the district court to conclude that the defendants possessed an amount of marihuana "not more than reasonably necessary." Defendants were found with 21 marihuana plants and approximately 1.5 ounces of marihuana. The district court concluded that because this amount, when divided between two defendants, was less than the maximum permissible under Section 4, the amount possessed by defendants was consistent with the affirmative defense.

The appellate court found that the amount permitted under Section 4 is not equivalent to the "reasonably necessary" amount under Section 8. And without any further evidence presented on this issue, the district court erred by concluding the affirmative defense was established as a matter of law.

Finally, the Court of Appeals found that the defendants failed to establish whether they had a serious or debilitating medical condition. The certifying physician only stated defendants suffered from pain and nausea and never specifically identified an underlying condition. The Court noted that "without knowing the nature of defendants' medical conditions, it is not possible to determine whether they are 'serious.'"

Judge O'Connell issued a concurring opinion that attempted to "cut through the haze surrounding the [MMMA]." This opinion included the interpretation of numerous MMMA provisions outside the context of the specific facts before the court.

  • Report

Recent Comments

  1. Michigan Medical Marijuana Association
  2. → Community Blog
  3. → bobandtorey's Blog
  4. → The First Day After The Raid