Medical Marijuana Card Protects You From Prosecution, Not "discovery"

[trichcycler]

maybe, or the azz backwards cops in certain areas too. I saw four cops at a local outdoor concert and they mostly let the mj users alone. The ones that blew smoke in their faces were "carded" and it appeared to always end in smiles with a pat on the back from the cop. I'm assuming everybody using was properly carded there.  Its strange to hear other tactics from areas not so forward thinking as mine.  I meant no harm in the question, and don't judge Rory either way. But most often the devil is in the details as we all know here. I respect the mums the word without legal council, but still am curious of course.

 

From the courageous videography, to the respectful exchange, I suspect this patient was legal in and outside, and will be able to show the court the same. Unfortunately those police didn't walk away when they saw he was registered. I still cant find the part about the card not protecting from discovery thing in the Act though....

 

good luck Rory !

[Highlander]

The cops were either being stupid or flat out liars saying that the card doesn't protect you from "discovery."  "Discovery" is what occurs after arrest and charges are filed.  "Discovery" is pre-trial work conducted so the PA and defense can gather the information/witnesses they need for the trial.  What the cops were doing in this video was NOT discovery.  So yeah, it might be accurate to say that a card doesn't protect from discovery, because at that point you're already in the court system.  I wonder if this was an intentional misuse of the term designed to mislead patients without the cops actually having to outright lie?

[Rory Larkey]

Here is a video that shows what my burn pit looked like...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Qeu1aPV5o

Edited May 1, 2014 by Rory Larkey

[MiMedical]

If that is probable cause, then well...

 

I guess everyone better start flushing their roots, tree branches, and stumps down the toilet..

[bobandtorey]

maybe, or the azz backwards cops in certain areas too. I saw four cops at a local outdoor concert and they mostly let the mj users alone. The ones that blew smoke in their faces were "carded" and it appeared to always end in smiles with a pat on the back from the cop. I'm assuming everybody using was properly carded there.  Its strange to hear other tactics from areas not so forward thinking as mine.  I meant no harm in the question, and don't judge Rory either way. But most often the devil is in the details as we all know here. I respect the mums the word without legal council, but still am curious of course.

 

From the courageous videography, to the respectful exchange, I suspect this patient was legal in and outside, and will be able to show the court the same. Unfortunately those police didn't walk away when they saw he was registered. I still cant find the part about the card not protecting from discovery thing in the Act though....

 

good luck Rory !

Thank you

i do agree inn most cases the devil is in the details or their is aways more to the story most times

[bobandtorey]

If that is probable cause, then well...

 

I guess everyone better start flushing their roots, tree branches, and stumps down the toilet..

it is sad to see stories like this one and many more and you seem to know how things go after Leo comes by mostly not good and the only ones that know this are the ones that have had it happen to

 

others may think otherwise 

 

Thank you

[Dr. Bob]

Thanks again for your input maybe just the small of cannabis coming from someone's home is enough to bring Leo to someones door

 

It may bring them, but once the card is shown- where is the evidence of a 'crime'?

[MiMedical]

It may bring them, but once the card is shown- where is the evidence of a 'crime'?

[bobandtorey]

Here is a video that shows what my burn pit looked like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Qeu1aPV5o

thank you 

[Rory Larkey]

Is that the case? Where you can possess usable marijuana anywhere besides public places and unusable waste must be locked up?

Edited May 1, 2014 by Rory Larkey

[BirdHunter]

Why invite trouble? Should have burned it immediately, rather than leaving it outside sitting in the burn pile. Now your cash is gone forever, and you have to deal with all this bs. Not that it's right, it just is what it is. Take steps to protect yourself.

[ozzrokk]

Showing of the card should have answered all of that.............. but we know how that goes...............

[MiMedical]

Mma doesn't say to burn your scraps immediately. if the police would respect the vote of the people who pay their wages.

We would be just fine.

 

Shouldn't have to live like that anymore, he presented his mmj card, the cop checked it, it was valid.

 

The guy needs legal council.

[GregS]

We can certainly call this dumbassness, which is indeed a thing.

[trichcycler]

I think your vid of evidence is perfectly acceptable trash to be in the pit. I don't know if I would burn mj in a neighborhood though. the acceptable roots and misc garbage should have been covered by the card, and a warrant negated.

 

did they find any incriminating evidence inside once they broke in ?

 

peace

Here is a video that shows what my burn pit looked like...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Qeu1aPV5o

[BirdHunter]

Mma doesn't say to burn your scraps immediately. if the police would respect the vote of the people who pay their wages.

We would be just fine.

 

Shouldn't have to live like that anymore, he presented his mmj card, the cop checked it, it was valid.

 

The guy needs legal council.

You are right it does not day to burn immediately. And you are right they should respect the act and the law.

 

But they don't.

 

Wisdom says act accordingly.

[MiMedical]

I think your vid of evidence is perfectly acceptable trash to be in the pit. I don't know if I would burn mj in a neighborhood though. the acceptable roots and misc garbage should have been covered by the card, and a warrant negated.

 

did they find any incriminating evidence inside once they broke in ?

 

peace

Is it possible, nowadays to have the evidence supressed if there was something out of order? I can't think of a case where they actually supressed illegal activity/stuff if a warrant was not legit..

 

 

 

You are right it does not day to burn immediately. And you are right they should respect the act and the law.

 

But they don't.

 

Wisdom says act accordingly.

Can't beat that, you are correct.

Isn't fair...

[trichcycler]

zapa answered that one. I had no idea.

 

but, what evidence?  the root balls? fire pit fodder?   or other?

 

the "evidence" used to gain a SW was the smell and the pit contents. He's not charged with the smell or  with the pit compost I think ?   The other charges may stem from indoor findings.   If a smell and unusable material is enough to get the warrant(??) then .......

 

Is the warrant null because the smell and pit junk was obviously covered by the card ?

Is it possible, nowadays to have the evidence supressed if there was something out of order? I can't think of a case where they actually supressed illegal activity/stuff if a warrant was not legit..




Can't beat that, you are correct.
Isn't fair...

[GregS]

A little about the exclusionary rule:

 

 

The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 439 (1966), and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated defendants’ Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, see Miranda. The rule does not apply to civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032.

 

If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

 

The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future. See Arizona v. Evans, 541 U.S. 1.

 

The rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gathered evidence to “impeach,” or attack the credibility of, defendants’ testimony at trial. The Supreme Court recognized this exception to prevent perjury. Even when the government suspects perjury, however, it may only use tainted evidence for impeachment, and may not use it to show guilt.

 

Due to qualified immunity, the Exclusionary Rule is often defendants’ only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights. Even if officers violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights, qualified immunity protects them from suit unless no reasonable officer would believe that their conduct was legal.

 

Most states also have their own exclusionary remedies for illegally obtained evidence under their state constitutions and/or statutes, some of which predate the federal constitutional guarantees against unlawful searches and seizures and compelled self-incrimination.

 

The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.

Even in a criminal case, the exclusionary rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In Hudson v. Michigan,^[18]Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court (personal note: Scalia and his conservative pals have been instrumental in progressively marginalizing those rights):

 

“ Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been "cautious against expanding" it, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166 (1986), and "have repeatedly emphasized that the rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application," Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364–365 (1998) (citation omitted). We have rejected "indiscriminate application" of the rule, Leon, supra, at 908, and have held it to be applicable only "where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served," United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974) – that is, "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs,'" Scott, supra, at 363, (quoting Leon, supra, at 907). Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case is an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct. ”

Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following:

• Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.^[19]
• Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party.^[20] However, there is a narrow exception to this standing requirement, the jus tertii standing exception.^[21]
• The defendant cannot take advantage of the situation (police breaching rules) to turn the case to his advantage, in face of other evidence against himself. This falls under the exigent circumstances exception.^[22]
• The Silver Platter doctrine which was ruled unconstitutional in the case of Elkins v. United States in 1960. State officials that obtained evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial.^[23]
• Nix v. Williams held that if the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would almost definitely have been found eventually even without said search (inevitable discovery), the evidence may be brought forth in court.
• If police officers acting in good faith (bona fides) rely upon a defective search warrant, then the evidence acquired may still be used under the good-faith exception.

 

Edited May 2, 2014 by GregS

[mibrains]

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the qualifying patient presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the qualifying patient.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

so... as long as you had a valid card, and ID... you are afforded section 4 protections.. the warrant would have to show you were in direct violation of those requirements.. smell alone cannot satisfy that.

it says clearly that all activities are presumed medical use unless shown otherwise..

as i am told..to determine probable cause there would need to show some evidence that shows a clear violation of that specific presumption that is highlighted in blue....

Edited May 2, 2014 by mibrains

[Restorium2]

Does a video of a patient passing a joint to a non patient show non medical use?

[mibrains]

no rest.

 

not in it of itself.

 

but it would likely remove section 4 protection.

[bobandtorey]

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the qualifying patient presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the qualifying patient.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

so... as long as you had a valid card, and ID... you are afforded section 4 protections.. the warrant would have to show you were in direct violation of those requirements.. smell alone cannot satisfy that.

it says clearly that all activities are presumed medical use unless shown otherwise..

as i am told..to determine probable cause there would need to show some evidence that shows a clear violation of that specific presumption that is highlighted in blue....

 Thank you

 

 sorry i have to disagree on smell alone and getting a warrant people v Brown

 

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/people-v-brown/

Edited May 2, 2014 by bobandtorey

[mibrains]

 Thank you

 

 sorry i have to disagree on smell alone and getting a warrant people v Brown

 

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/people-v-brown/

 

 

from Brown

 

The possession, manufacture, use, creation, and delivery of marijuana remain illegal in this state, even after the enactment of the MMMA. Thus, we conclude that to establish probable cause, a search-warrant affidavit need not provide facts from which a magistrate could conclude that a suspect’s marijuana-related activities are specifically not legal under the MMMA. Probable cause exists if there is a substantial basis for inferring a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime exists in the stated place. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 417-418. Defendant has presented no authority indicating that for probable cause to exist, there must be a substantial basis for inferring that defenses do not apply.

 

now remember in Brown someone called and reported seeing plants and lights...

 

here there was leaves outside.. it was not smell alone after they arrived so they had different probable cause scenario. 

 

the COA said it is a narrow allowance to use cannabis in contrast to the state prohibition... however the supreme court said it is a right.  a guaranteed right that is protected under our states constitution.

furthermore... if a person has the wherewithal they could challenge the mere fact that cannabis cannot meet the legal requirement under schedule one and since that conflict exists and has not been resolved... even after 5 years... there is technically no way a person "should" be charged under any cannabis prohibition... if they have deep enough pockets to go there...

 

they want us to shut up don't be seen or heard...

 

-yeah right-

we have a constitutionally protected right to use cannabis... the COA had better get on board.

 

it is a matter of months before it changes federally and people had better get used to the idea that cannabis prohibition is over as we have known it.

 

the only advice i could offer is for a patient or caregiver to know your home.  know your prosecutor. know how your county is acting in relationship to the act and cannabis prohibition in general and prepare your defense long before you need it.

 

great work with having this all on video... 

Edited May 2, 2014 by mibrains

[mibrains]

5

While we decline, in light of the pertinent case law, to impose an affirmative duty on the police to obtain information pertaining to a person’s noncompliance with the MMMA before seeking a search warrant for marijuana, if the police do have clear and uncontroverted evidence that a person is in full compliance with the MMMA, this evidence must be included as part of the affidavit because such a situation would not justify the issuance of a warrant. This scheme will reduce any potential (however unlikely) for police overreach in attempting to obtain search warrants.