Driving With Others While Transporting Medication

[J912]

I was wondering if there would be any issue transporting MMJ (in an enclosed container in a vehicle) if the vehicle was registered to another person, but you were the one driving?

 

 

Person A - Valid MMJ license holder

 

Person B - Average citizen

 

 

 

 

Say the vehicle is registered to person B

 

 

Person A is driving the vehicle which is registered to person B with a valid MMJ license and properly stored in the trunk

 

 

 

Basically wondering how one could travel safely without putting others inside a vehicle at risk.

[Kingdiamond]

As long as the cardholder informs the police that there is medicine that is covered by their card in the trunk of the friend or acquaintances vehicle there should be no charges filed against the vehicle owner but I'm no lawyer.

[Beans]

Locked box

 

not "enclosed...

[trichcycler]

I see no mention of "locked box" in our law. could you post a link to that ?

 

Locked box

 

not "enclosed...

[t-pain]

there was a guy cited for 750.474 , as a passenger in a car, because his enclosed case was within reach of the driver.

 

but personally i dont think 750.474 applies to medical patients due to people v koon. unfortunately people are still getting ticketed.

probably depends on the cop.

[Beans]

I see no mention of "locked box" in our law. could you post a link to that ?

I take nothing for granted

thus I have never been to a dispensary or anywhere they require seeing my cards

[phaquetoo]

Good come back beans!

 

If I have to have it in something in my trunk or out of reach if I dont have a trunk, I would say a lock box is the best way to go, it dont realy matter if its in the law or not, Im locking mine, I drive an explorer I dont have a trunk, but I have a lock box i put way in the back!

 

my pt/girlfriend drives a lot of times, we are both legal pt's and im her c.g If we get pulled over you can bet the farm Im gonna say it is mine from the get go! It dont matter what you put it in, leo will smell it when you crack the window open, been there done that lol!

 

Peace

[Spartyon]

As long as the cardholder informs the police that there is medicine that is covered by their card in the trunk of the friend or acquaintances vehicle there should be no charges filed against the vehicle owner but I'm no lawyer.

why would you inform the police?   So they can give you a field sobriety test and a possible free ride to hospital to get your blood drawn and the wheel on the bus goes round and round.   I will inform them at my arraignment if they ask why i didnt show them my card at the traffic stop because i didnt want to incriminate myself.  thus reducing my chances of getting a drugged driving.

[MiMedical]

If asked, you offer.. If you don't give them your card, they will gain access to your vehicle..

[Highlander]

If asked, you offer.. If you don't give them your card, they will gain access to your vehicle..

 

Yes and there is something in the law about not lying to LEO RE MMJ.  That, and there are many more successful cases where a patient flashes a card and walks away than the opposite.  if LEO smells MJ in your vehicle and can and probably will search.  At that point, the risk of a field sobriety test is no more enhanced if you have a card.  If you have MMJ and crossed the while line a couple of times, the LEO can administer a sobriety test - card or not.

[Dr. Bob]

I see no mention of "locked box" in our law. could you post a link to that ?

It says 'inaccessible to the occupants' or something like that.  Read that as locked.  Do not go for the minimum under the law, go for something that is clearly within the law.  Trying to split the frog hairs is something for your attorney to do after you are charged.  The goal is- don't get charged.

 

Oh, and it isn't 'our law'.  It is the 'People of Michigan's Law'  remember that the VAST majority of those that voted for the act have no personal interest or involvement with marijuana.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited March 19, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[MiMedical]

"self-propelled" Would that also include a bicycle? If that is the case, time to fab a mount for a fishing pole to hold a case at the tip of the rod..

Same goes for a motorcycle..wait, I'll use a dune flag.

Edited March 19, 2014 by MiMedical

[trichcycler]

the point is exactly that "locked box" is indeed not mentioned in the law. It does mention a trunk however. It says nothing about chaining the lock box to the trunk  but that's not a bad idea either. Registrants are confused enough without us adding our add on opinions as law, letting those fly online as fact does a disservice to our community, imo, respectfully. 

law-both mine and his=ours. it may belong to others too of course.

It says 'inaccessible to the occupants' or something like that.  Read that as locked.  Do not go for the minimum under the law, go for something that is clearly within the law.  Trying to split the frog hairs is something for your attorney to do after you are charged.  The goal is- don't get charged.

 

Oh, and it isn't 'our law'.  It is the 'People of Michigan's Law'  remember that the VAST majority of those that voted for the act have no personal interest or involvement with marijuana.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

I just love that you advise people by misquoting the law. Thank you for your input, such as it is, Dr. Bob:

 

 

As to "our law," there is no doubt that a patient or caregiver has much more at stake in the interpretation of this law than any other voter in the State of Michigan; as you said, "the VAST majority of those that voted for the act have no personal interest or involvement with marijuana."

 

Those that have no interest in the medical use of marijuana should not be muddling about, and shouldn't be our concern. Otherwise, what would be the motivation?

is not readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle

 

Thanks for clarifying that 'inaccessible' and 'not readily accessible' are completely different concepts.

 

As far as motivation goes  my 75 year old mother was motivated to help those that might need cannabis to relieve their suffering, as was I, when we voted with the 63%.  But again, thank you for questioning our motives or dismissing our input into the Act back when it was up for a vote.

[Dr. Bob]

the point is exactly that "locked box" is indeed not mentioned in the law. It does mention a trunk however. It says nothing about chaining the lock box to the trunk  but that's not a bad idea either. Registrants are confused enough without us adding our add on opinions as law, letting those fly online as fact does a disservice to our community, imo, respectfully. 

law-both mine and his=ours. it may belong to others too of course.

 

Well the alternative is to suggest a course of action based on the meaning you give to the plain language, which may not be the same meaning others give.  I think we can all agree, despite what we think 'not readily accessible' means, that a LOCKED case meets the requirement.

[t-pain]

what zap is trying to say is that unless any of us are lawyers (or specifically , a majority of supreme court judges), we should be careful on interpreting the words.

 

i think we all understand the points each other are making.

lawyers recommend a locked box , even if the law doesnt require it.

police then make arguments on what constitutes an enclosed case.

an envelope is an enclosed case. a backpack is an enclosed case. but police have argued against backpacks. police have argued against jars even.

 

where do you let the injustice end?

its an unjust law and is used illegally against patients.

 

just like new yorks' decrim law was enacted but police found that by asking people to turn out their pockets, they were in violation of the law. its stupid and police shouldnt be harassing patients ever.

 

what i'm saying is that if you want to educate a group of people on the law, start with the police first.

Edited March 19, 2014 by t-pain

[trichcycler]

you can see clearly the intent is simply a case in the  trunk, not locked case. imagine all the paces we could opine more words for our own protection, I agree, but we really should just stick to facts, or present or opinions as such don't you think?  I'm not arguing, but clarifying. the op corrected himself as a legal gesture here, because he quite likely saw a post of yours with your opinion of what kind of box needs to be used by law, then he posted that somewhere else, and someone like me corrected him, now he doesn't know where to turn for the truth, maybe could happen, as an example for you.

I see it all the time here and everywhere, I am correct , within that law, and you lock idea is a good one, just not "the law"

Well the alternative is to suggest a course of action based on the meaning you give to the plain language, which may not be the same meaning others give.  I think we can all agree, despite what we think 'not readily accessible' means, that a LOCKED case meets the requirement.

[Dr. Bob]

good point Zap.  would you recommend folks just use a 'glasses case' to transport marijuana NOW after reading about the citations posted on this site?

 

If yes, then you are expressing an opinion and can support it if questioned.

If no, perhaps you would agree I have a point?

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

We all know that LEOs will be obtuse when they believe it benefits them.  Many of them want to arrest MMJ folks and let the courts sort it out.  So there is a real benefit to being hyper-compliant.  If I got stopped by LEO for a dead headlight, and the LEO smells MJ in a backpack in the trunk, I can see him saying "well, a backpack isn't a "case"."  So, while we should not have to jump through hoops like trained animals, there is a benefit to having a container branded as a "Pelican CASE" and locked and in the trunk.  Then the LEO would have a hard time steering his obtuseness to say that you're non-compliant. 

 

We have two options:  1.  Observe a more relaxed interpretation of the law (which might be OK) and hope it works out, or 2.  Go a little above an beyond and have more assurance/security. 

 

It comes down to whether or not you want to be the next test case.  If you want to be a test case, then by all means carry your meds in a glasses case.  If you want to make it home after a hard day at work, then lock you schuff up in the trunk. 

[trichcycler]

nobody denies it is a good idea to lock up meds in a briefcase or the like. but the point again is that not the law.

[Highlander]

nobody denies it is a good idea to lock up meds in a briefcase or the like. but the point again is that not the law.

 

Yes but their is a difference between folks who want to test the law vs. those who'd rather fly under the RADAR. 

[Dr. Bob]

You make a good point grass.  My point is that what we can do is NOT get cited, but if we do, then the attorney can fight the good fight and show why a lock isn't required.  I am in total agreement that if it isn't in the law, we shouldn't let them hold us accountable for their interpretation.  But I also believe in picking my battles.  This isn't one I want to force to the supreme court, just lock it if it is in the passenger compartment or lock it in the trunk. 

 

By the way, can you move a seat forward and access the trunk from inside the car?  I've heard of cases they said a grow room wasn't secured because the wall didn't go to the ceiling and by removing tiles from the hanging ceiling you could crawl over the wall and get into the grow room.

 

And thank you Zap for acknowledging my point and restating your position.

[J912]

This really is a great forum, I appreciate all the replies!

[Kingdiamond]

why would you inform the police?   So they can give you a field sobriety test and a possible free ride to hospital to get your blood drawn and the wheel on the bus goes round and round.   I will inform them at my arraignment if they ask why i didnt show them my card at the traffic stop because i didnt want to incriminate myself.  thus reducing my chances of getting a drugged driving.

Upon being pulled over I meant if the officer asks if there is anything he should know about and you say no and they find medical marijuana you think that's going to end well for those not wearing badges?

[trichcycler]

better safe than sorry, for sure. I think the best preventative to arrest happens long before pick a container. None of these people get pulled over because the cop somehow knew they were improperly transporting marijuana, (or over plant count etc). These types often hang a sign up pointing police in the right direction.

 

I, because of this thread, will replace my- jar inside of a backpack- wrig with a locking case, and will not alert any police to my activities.! 

You make a good point grass.  My point is that what we can do is NOT get cited, but if we do, then the attorney can fight the good fight and show why a lock isn't required.  I am in total agreement that if it isn't in the law, we shouldn't let them hold us accountable for their interpretation.  But I also believe in picking my battles.  This isn't one I want to force to the supreme court, just lock it if it is in the passenger compartment or lock it in the trunk. 

 

By the way, can you move a seat forward and access the trunk from inside the car?  I've heard of cases they said a grow room wasn't secured because the wall didn't go to the ceiling and by removing tiles from the hanging ceiling you could crawl over the wall and get into the grow room.

 

And thank you Zap for acknowledging my point and restating your position.