Hartwick And Tuttle Ruling Published

[+Malamute]

Does this ruling help in a couple ways for those already arrested? Yes, onlybecause of how the courts have been acting.

 

But IMHO, it blows out the immunity for arrest by stating one must prove their immunity. Assumption got pretty squished in this ruling,... I believe.

[+Malamute]

The whole point of the law was to avoid arrest and harassment. This ruling says the judge must decide if immunity is valid, which means for immunity, one must allow police into the grow room and be shown all usable cannabis.

 

That is BAD. That could easily double the court cases IMO. Sure, you may be able to get a judge to agree more easily, but that defeats the purpose of blocking police intrusion.

[+Malamute]

I think that is fantasy. ;-p

 

I would think it is business as usual with the excuse of "tell it to the judge".

[+Malamute]

Remember, we are talking about Michigan here. :-)

 

An already frail assumption clause has been railroaded into a court room.

[+Malamute]

IMO of course,... if 1 in 5 cases end with conviction, it is monetarily worthwhile to continue pushing as many pt/cg into court.

 

 Look at how many people have been convicted on the transportation law in Michigan which is entirely unenforceable.  The dismissals have meant nothing.  Now add in an actual legitimate assumption suppressor and tell me things will change with less people in court.

 

 I just don't see it. I see renewed effort towards compliance checks.

[+Malamute]

The assumption is stronger in court,... not at your front door. IMO of course.

 

This will all play out.

[+Malamute]

How have people handled the transportation law in court?

 

Has it deterred the judiciary in any way yet?

[+Malamute]

And here(H/T), the supreme court has stated immunity assumption only exists once all 4 elements are proven.  To me, it was a huge memo to all police to start abusing this,... as we all know in some counties they already were. *grumble*

 

Does this ruling justify compliance checks?

[+Malamute]

Btw, good discussion... ;-)

[+Malamute]

Of course.

 

But denial of search justifies a search warrant because you have forfeited immunity from search because you have not proven the 4 prongs of immunity from arrest.

 

I just see this as encouraging compliance checks and letting the judge decide.

 

I assume a few good prosecutors will not pursue, and I assume many will; and I assume all police agencies are already sending out memos to search for compliance.

 

I see more people in court, with a certain percentage being given immunity, with a lot pleas to guilt of some sort, and many being caught at harvest time thus begging for justification of Sec 8 amount of usable rulings.

[+Malamute]

I never think positively about the Michigan judiciary and its enforcement arm. :-)

[+Malamute]

And of course I hope I am wrong,... but I so rarely am when it comes to the way it should be and what actually is.

 

Heh.

 

[t-pain]

yes, the supreme court has left many questions about the mmma open to be challenged later, especially arrest and search protections.

[+Malamute]

This is just one of those issues that we wont know for sure for a couple of years.

 

Bookmark it so I can come back and say "I told you so".

 

(just kidding)

[t-pain]

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, ... for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act

 

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 the protection from arrest can only be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence that the conduct of the patient/caregiver was not for the purpose of alleviating the condition.

[+Malamute]

The preponderance only occurs after these are satisfied:

 

 presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act.

 

 

 This ruling does not allow a presumption to exist that your locked grow room is in compliance or the amount of possessed(physically or constructively) cannabis is within the limits.

 

 Thus my concerns.

[+Malamute]

Btw, more than willing to be proven wrong,... I pray and hope I am proven wrong,..... but,....just but,..

[cristinew]

But denial of search justifies a search warrant .. that seems guilty until proven innocent  that is not right, 

[t-pain]

marijuana is still illegal (according to the mich supreme court) and thus probable cause exists to determine if there is a crime or not.

 

sec 6G only says that cards or applications are not to be used as probable cause to execute searches.

 

(g) Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency.

 

but it does not say anything about marijuana smell as probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

 

sec4a says "or penalty in any manner" which, could mean a search is a penalty, or being held until a search warrant would be a penalty? sec 4a also says "or denied any right or privilege", where right or privledge is protection from unreasonable search.

 

you thought the mmma was confusing?

"Articulating precisely what 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' mean is not possible. They are commonsense, non-technical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. As such, the standards are not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." (Ornelas v. U.S.)

try explaining common sense to a cop!

[Restorium2]

try explaining common sense to a cop! 

 

Works every time .... when it's something they want to believe and it doesn't make them do any extra work. It's an infinitely adjustable tool.

[bobandtorey]

I do not believe denial of search justifies search warrant, but there may be some courts that will uphold such things unless and until they are stopped by a higher court.

 

 

Thanks but it will be a long time before the High Court hears another case Imo

[t-pain]

I think Rudi said he has a few cases going up. Msc keeps making half assed rulings, it's going to get more cases.

[bobandtorey]

The preponderance only occurs after these are satisfied:

 

 presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act.

 

 

 This ruling does not allow a presumption to exist that your locked grow room is in compliance or the amount of possessed(physically or constructively) cannabis is within the limits.

 

 Thus my concerns.

 

 

Thank you Sir. 

 

Are you saying that Law one of 2008 isn't  going to work 

 

1. Has not worked

 

2.Is not going to work

 

3. May not work 

 

Door Number one

 

Door Number two

 

Door Number three  

 

Or all above ? 

[bobandtorey]

I think Rudi said he has a few cases going up. Msc keeps making half assed rulings, it's going to get more cases.

OK thanks

 

imho it will bee five years before  it happen i guess we will all have to wait and see guessing is not my best 

[GregS]

Btw, more than willing to be proven wrong,... I pray and hope I am proven wrong,..... but,....just but,..

Not a problem. The lower courts, to include most certainly the COA, were handed their azzes again.

 

Call me an optimist. I'm okay with that. Those courts threw some hefty schit our way, and it was turned around on them.