Jump to content

Clinton Township Police


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

you got off easy, they called me out entrapped me, got 3 buys then jumped me with swat in a McD parking lot... then gave me a 65K$bond and seized my girls truk

Commented as written, lets see it is line one.





CAN NOT BELIVE IT!

Was doing a patient to patient transfer and got arrested!

The person who called stated they had their paperwork, went to meet
at Meijers on Groesbeck at Cass Ave…and it was a set up!

Cop was in a burgandy Explorer…would not get into our vehicle
to view medicine. Minute we were out of the parking lot we were
pulled over, searched, and arrested for distribution. We both transferred
2 oz. each. The siezed medications, cash, and legal paperwork.

BEWARE! CLINTON TOWNSHIP IS NOT…NOT…FOLLOWING LAW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was busted april 2011 by CTPD at 15 and harper, a burgundy expedition and a cop with fake papers wearing a Detroit tigers jacket..... I would like to talk about our cases....

you and about 38 others i wasn't aware of your case, sorry to hear, but ct does it to many, you are in a crowded stadium....  clinton township has overtaken oakland as the land where government uc's will strip you of all you have, and that's if you beat them.  if you don't beat them, tehy'll taek it all and then charge you another buchnch for staying in jail in theier lockup.

Edited by pic book
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you were illegally transferred and got caught ?  when I first applied to the state in 2008, they sent me a green letter that I got for years after also. On it was a warning that I would not be protected by the Act if I was selling to more than the fine people listed on my cards.  It sucks that they were only looking out for some of us, and didn't warn the rest.

you got off easy, they called me out entrapped me, got 3 buys then jumped me with swat in a McD parking lot... then gave me a 65K$bond and seized my girls truk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you got off easy, they called me out entrapped me, got 3 buys then jumped me with swat in a McD parking lot... then gave me a 65K$bond and seized my girls truk

 

I'm sorry for your trouble, but they didn't entrap you - they tricked you.  There is a difference.  You sold to someone not registered to you.   That is the same crime as selling to a non-cardholder.

 

Entrapment = the cops persuade you to commit a crime that you would not normally commit.  In this case, the crime is selling to someone who isn't your registered patient.  It is apparent from your post that you had no problem selling to someone who wasn't your registered patient.  So the cops didn't persuade you to do that.  You decided on your own to do it.  Nevertheless, I hope things work out for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selling to a non-cardholder is a violation of 4(k). Selling to a cardholder not registered to you is not.

 

I agree to a degree.  Selling to a non-cardholder is a violation of 4(k) AND the Public Health Code, which constitutes "delivery."  4(k) is an additional crime on top of the Public Health Code violation.  Selling to a card-holder not registered to the seller eliminates all Section 4 protection and is a violation of the Public Health Code, "delivery."

 

The point is, that LEO didn't entrap the poster.  They caught him doing something he was compelled on his own to do - violate the Public Health Code.

 

So maybe I'd agree that they entrapped him to violate 4(k) because he (probably) would not have sold to a non-cardholder.  But is he charged with a 4(k) violation?  That would be interesting to know.  I have not yet heard of anyone charged under 4(k).  The PAs seem to just gloss over that charge and stick to PHC only.

 

But his violation of the Public Health Code was his own decision alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And section 8 could be possibly proven to cover both, selling to the unregistered and/or not connected through the registry.

 

One problem we have yet to see addressed in case law is whether a Sec 8 defense can be launched by the CG alone, when Sec 8 says

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

Since it doesn't say "or," does this mean that the defense must be launched by the CG and the patient?  If so, we know  that the UC LEO or an informant won't testify as a patient on behalf of the CG. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking for people that went thru similar situation as me, you all know the law is whak and they will do whatever they want. I wasn't looking for a jailhouse lawyer... im looking to talk to someone that was set up by det blasky and lt demick of the Clinton twp pd. I am aware of two cases thrown out in 16th district. I am trying to research... 4 b 4 e argument was years ago. sect 8 is difficult, the elements of entrapment are found by the trial judge. apparently Brian Legghio and Mike Komorn are smashing these "fictitious paper" cases. so if anyone knows the actual case names and numbers let me know... im not a blogger I work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'll have to forgive the people of this forum, we like to discuss things over and over again...

 

some entrapment cases, most of the original articles are dead, so i will link to forum posts:

2012- http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuanagrowers.net/index.php?/topic/1167-immunity-denied-in-handy-township-medical-marijuana-case/

2010- http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/24786-waterford-pot-providers-were-entrapped-by-police-produced-fake-cards/

 

looks like People v. VanSickle was an entrapment case as well http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/092013.cfm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

thanks tpain... but I was looking for actual people. the guy they busted that posted here... but he probably got sent up the river. You guys do know you can type any word in the COA search right.

and for the guy telling me I'm not protected by sect 4 or 8... are you a court appointed lawyer? because you sound a lot like mine.

the points you are talking are not totally through the system yet... entrapement, ex poxt facto, usable marijuana, fictitious cards all need to go all the way up the flag pole while they convict people on COA opinions (like hartwick) that WILL BE REVERSED. There was a time in MI where caregiver patient transfers were covered, then all sales were illegal, then we had to be connected. these laws are time sensitive too...

If they charged us for MMMA violations they wouldn't be able to BURN US WITH THE MCL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...