Jump to content


Photo

People V Koon - Supreme Court Appeal Re: "zero Tolerance" For Thc In Blood While Driving


15 replies to this topic

#1 Eric L. VanDussen

Eric L. VanDussen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • LocationTraverse City, MI

Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:13 PM

I've attached below a copy of the application for leave to appeal filed yesterday by Mr. Koon's attorneys with the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals decision that is being appealed can be found here: http://coa.courts.mi..._301443.opn.pdf - The COA found that: "This case presents the question whether the “zero tolerance” provision of MCL 257.625(8), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle with any amount of a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the driver’s body, still applies if the driver used marijuana under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). We conclude that it does."

The February 8, 2012 video of the oral arguments that were heard by the Court of Appeals in the Koon case can be viewed here:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by Eric L. VanDussen, 13 June 2012 - 04:15 PM.


#2 GregS

GregS

    Yes. I do weigh 800 pounds. Next question?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,739 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 05:27 PM

Boyoboy. Thanks Eric.

#3 solabeirtan

solabeirtan

    Real Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,344 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:50 AM

Best of Luck to the Koon Team. Thanks for fighting for all of our better interests.

Special thanks to ELV Dusen.

#4 Annnie

Annnie

    Advanced Member

  • +CC-Clare
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:22 AM

You Rock Eric!! thanks for keeping us informed..

#5 mpp

mpp

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:29 AM

good luck, and thanks for onmedicalmarijuana.com!

#6 Eric L. VanDussen

Eric L. VanDussen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • LocationTraverse City, MI

Posted 17 June 2012 - 07:32 AM

Supreme Court could hear pot case - June 17, 2012 - Traverse City Record Eagle - http://record-eagle....d-hear-pot-case

BY ART BUKOWSKI abukowski@record-eagle.com The Record Eagle Sun Jun 17, 2012, 07:14 AM EDT

TRAVERSE CITY — Medical marijuana advocates hope the state's top court will hear a local man's case and overturn a ruling that makes it illegal for patients to drive with the drug in their system.

A group of downstate attorneys recently asked the Michigan Supreme Court to overturn a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Rodney Lee Koon, a Thompsonville medical marijuana patient arrested in 2010 and charged with operating under the influence of the drug.

The appeals court in April ruled Koon isn't protected from prosecution because the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act doesn't supersede a law that prevents drivers from operating with marijuana in their system.

The ruling effectively strips medical marijuana patients of their driving privileges, advocates contend.

"Because of the court of appeals ruling, the practical effect on qualifying patients is that they are left with having to choose between using their medicine and driving," Koon's attorneys wrote in their application to the Supreme Court. "The ruling of the court of appeals is in direct contravention of the law and cries out for redress from this court."

A person has the right to have their case heard by the court of appeals, but the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear. Lansing attorney Mary Chartier — who along with four other downstate attorneys has taken on Koon's case — hopes the top court will bite.

The case has "such far-reaching implications," she said. It also would be a new topic for the court and has interesting aspects.

"This case has everything the Supreme Court is looking for when it decides to hear a case," she said.

On the local level, 13th Circuit Court Judge Philip E. Rodgers determined the medical marijuana act protected Koon from prosecution unless authorities could prove the drug impaired Koon. Grand Traverse Prosecutor Alan Schneider appealed Rodgers' ruling, and the appeals court said the act doesn't provide that protection.

Rodgers on Friday said he issued that ruling because of a provision in the medical marijuana act that indicates it should take precedence over any other laws it appears to contradict.

He also believes there are plenty of practical ways to determine if someone is impaired by marijuana or any other substance, even if there isn't an easily testable level of marijuana that legally constitutes impairment.

Rodgers is interested to see if the Supreme Court hears the case and how it might rule.

"It's an area that needs to be developed, and it would be extremely helpful if the Supreme Court were to hear it," he said.

Chartier said Rodgers' ruling was "extremely well-received and very thoughtful."

"It's not a crazy concept that the government should have to prove its case," she said. "If they believe someone is operating under the influence, they should have to prove it."

It could be several months before the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case.

Edited by Eric L. VanDussen, 17 June 2012 - 07:32 AM.


#7 Shredder

Shredder

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 09:18 AM

That the supreme court would hear the case makes me hopefull, they would not have taken it if they agreed with the COA.....shredder

#8 Croppled1

Croppled1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • LocationWashtenaw County

Posted 17 June 2012 - 10:20 AM

"He also believes there are plenty of practical ways to determine if someone is impaired by marijuana or any other substance, even if there isn't an easily testable level of marijuana that legally constitutes impairment."

I would like to hear these ways ? I imagine if you have 100 evaluations done by proponants of medical cannabis then 100 by opponants the results would show how effective subjective evaluations are . Then at what point is someones disabillities the culprit and if their evaluated as able to drive when able how do you factor that in ? Especially our officers who would rarely have known disabillity first hand or they would be removed from the job . Most are very sensitive to the sick and injured until you enter medication therapy into the equation and they associate it with criminal activity they see from the black market and the ruin drug use causes for so many individuals in our society . Patients need special understanding . It is a shame there are people abusing the act on both sides of prohibition to profit from the injured , sick , and dieing which causes backlash for honest patients just trying to survive and tolerate the suffering they have been delegated usually through no fault of their own .

Many people are not able to see the difference between recreational and medical use . They require different handling and one is legal now the other sadly is not and still subject to very harsh penalties which are still also often improperly being used against patients really trying to obey a law that has parts that inflate costs and make medical use and compliance difficult if not impossible .

Edited by Croppled1, 17 June 2012 - 10:25 AM.


#9 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,794 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:38 AM

I think that this is the case that we should be concerned the most about
I understand that p2p is important to most here
But if we can't drive then nothing else matter
Does any one no how many nano grams you have after you use or after 2-4 hours you would have?


#10 Restorium2

Restorium2

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,249 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:50 AM

There have been some precedents set that 24 is over the limit for driving. Washington is breaking some ground on this issue.

#11 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,794 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:57 AM

There have been some precedents set that 24 is over the limit for driving. Washington is breaking some ground on this issue.

Thanks
But am not to sure that will help us here in Mich

#12 Restorium2

Restorium2

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,249 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:01 PM

Thanks
But am not to sure that will help us here in Mich

Yes, you are right. They probably would trade our grow rights for that trinket. You can drive, but now you can't grow.

#13 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,794 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:48 PM

Yes, you are right. They probably would trade our grow rights for that trinket. You can drive, but now you can't grow.

I agree we can grow here as long as you don't get caught doing it
And I also thing that is why most people go to the dispensarys because they know that having MM you may be OK but growing that's a hole different
Thing I tell people that all the time that you will be ok because Leo come to raid you if your in you house smoking your Meds
But growing as I have said they won't care aa long as you have your card
4 years ago no one could say that
And that's a good thing as far as are case more people no about the Law now then they new about it then I think that's why the prosecuters don't want any one going to trail

#14 Chauncy Gardner

Chauncy Gardner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • LocationOut There

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:30 PM

I think that when they start testing to determine the level of impairment, they may find out that there is little if any impairment produced by cannabis. There are going to be many opportunities for these tests in Washington State when the first impaired driving cases hit courts in that state.

#15 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,794 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:22 AM

Does any one have any updates as to when can we see the ruling coming down?

#16 zapatosunidos

zapatosunidos

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 5,026 posts
Contributor

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

Has this one even been picked up by the court yet? They definitely need to fix the current situation.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users