Royal Oak Improper Transport Ordinance Approved By Commission

[t-pain]

just need some smart lawyer to destroy this ordinance.

 

 

http://www.candgnews.com/news/commission-approves-local-enforcement-transporting-medical-marijuana-87447

 

Commission approves local enforcement of transporting medical marijuana

By Victoria Mitchell

 

October 28, 2015

 

ROYAL OAK — City commissioners unanimously adopted an ordinance Oct. 19 to allow local enforcement of state laws that mandate how drivers may transport marijuana legally.

 

City officials said the measure is similar to adopting the driving while intoxicated city ordinance — taking a state law and adopting an ordinance so the violation could be enforced locally instead of having to go through the county prosecutor’s office.

 

“Then we could just simply write a violation and handle it over at our district court,” said Police Chief Corrigan O’Donohue.

 

Interim City Attorney Mark Liss said the new ordinance addresses a bit of a problem that the Police Department and the City Attorney’s Office have encountered in prosecuting people who have medical marijuana licenses but who are transporting the marijuana inside the vehicle in an easily accessible location.

 

Liss stated in a memo, “Because the Royal Oak criminal ordinance prohibiting the possession of marijuana encompasses only the possession of marijuana, the City Attorney’s Office has been unable to bring criminal charges for improper transportation of medical marijuana within the city.”

 

The state of Michigan adopted legislation in 2013 regulating the transportation of medical marijuana.

 

“It requires that medical marijuana be transported in a similar fashion to a firearm, which is it has to be in the trunk or an area not accessible from the passenger side and it has to be locked,” Liss said.

 

He said there has been some controversy regarding similarly passed local ordinances and enforcement, but it has not been ruled unconstitutional.

 

Liss stated that the addition of the improper transportation of marijuana law to the Royal Oak code would provide officers with additional tools and leverage to conduct a search. Without a Royal Oak equivalent to the state law, probable cause to search a vehicle is negated when the driver or passengers produce their authorization to use medical marijuana, and they are not transporting more than the legal amount or driving under the influence.

 

With the newly adopted ordinance, an officer would be able to make an arrest and conduct a search if the authorized medical marijuana users cannot demonstrate that they are properly transporting their marijuana, regardless of whether the amount they possess is legal.

 

“It will make prosecution of these crimes a little more efficient,” Liss said.

 

City officials also said the passage of the new ordinance would make the city a safer place, as the transportation of the drug poses greater risks and threats to public safety than simple possession.

 

Violation of the new city law would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $500.

[zaphod]

They're just looking to collect the money from the fine instead of handing it over to the county?

[t-pain]

thats how local ordinances work, apparently.

 

still conflicts with mmma and the law itself is unconstitutional because of the way it was passed

[AmishRnot4ganja]

It is surreal how bureaucrats want to create new crimes in order to bully more citizens.

 

As dangerous as transporting weapons... come on already. "Stand back! He may try to assault us with a bud!"

[Wild Bill]

By making it a local ordinance the city will get the cash and not have to send it to the state.

 

How does the MiLegalize proposal sound in light of these local ordinances? Seems like it'll be business as usual for Porky and friends.

[t-pain]

By making it a local ordinance the city will get the cash and not have to send it to the state.

 

How does the MiLegalize proposal sound in light of these local ordinances? Seems like it'll be business as usual for Porky and friends.

it would be nice if people took the time to read things before making comments. this is how wrong information gets spread around.

 

http://www.milegalize.com/read_the

 

Sec. 3. A consumer shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in an manner, or denied any right or privilege, for committing any of the following acts:

 

(a) Acquiring, possessing, internally possessing, using, or transporting marihuana, marihuana products, or marihuana accessories.

[imiubu]

it would be nice if people took the time to read things before making comments. this is how wrong information gets spread around.

 

http://www.milegalize.com/read_the

 

 

And... since when has the courts, leo ever respected the 'letter' of our law?  geesh

[Wild Bill]

And... since when has the courts, leo ever respected the 'letter' of our law?  geesh

 

Yeah, it's worked out just great with the medical law!

 

The Court of Appeals wouldn't dream of twisting the wording of the recreational law. Would they?

[t-pain]

that's what I'm talking about when I talk about fear, imiubu.

 

we all respect the same laws, if someone isn't respecting the law, we need to vote them out, recall them, sue them, or shame them.

 

when people say no one respects our law, some assume they shouldn't even register to get a card. why bother? Or why bother trying to fix the laws? why bother voting?

 

you should clarify what you say, otherwise people may think you are spreading fear.

[t-pain]

then let's report the coa judges to the bar or supreme court for intentionally twisting the law.

 

anyone look up how to file a complaint? Let's do something instead of insulting each other.

[t-pain]

Don't think compassion clubs are going to get rid of bad judges but yeah.

 

I wanted to start a club, but I'm a chicken

[Norby]

And... since when has the courts, leo ever respected the 'letter' of our law?  geesh

Word, what's the use?  Decrim would eventually end up the same as this.  Necessary but it won't stop till we show by presence what we won't stand for anymore.

  Time for revolution!!!! By that I mean getting a group of people to go to EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES and show the system we won't stand for it!  What we need is the whole state to see and be behind us.  Unfortunately sick people have a hard time making it around to these cases.

MiLegalize might be just what's needed.  It goes against all these crap transport laws and gives us the power to vote in something rather than having it imposed on us.  Get's everyone on the same page and takes care of the transport issue and probably more by giving patients the same rights as adults of age to possess.  Plus there is the whole thing about tons more people transporting with stinky cars so we can blend in instead of being singled out.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Norby

[imiubu]

I don't feel that telling the truth should be considered fear mongering.

 

Telling people that legalization will "help to end prohibition" and that it

will make the cannabis situation in MI better is just more prohibition talk imho.

 

 

You two will never get me to believe legalization is the way to go, never.

[t-pain]

they are still moving forwards with this

 

if you live in royal oak , start contacting the city officials...

 

second reading of the ordinance in royal oak:

http://romi.gov/sites/default/files/meetings/City%20Commission/2015/Ordinance%20Illegal%20Transport%20of%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Second%20Reading.pdf

 

commission meeting nov 9th, oops missed it:

http://patch.com/michigan/royaloak/commissioners-take-transport-medical-marijuana-again

 

The City Commission meets at 7:30 p.m. Monday, Nov. 9, at City Hall, 211 Williams St.

 

contact the city commission, emails here http://romi.gov/departments/city-commission

[t-pain]

Yeah, it's worked out just great with the medical law!

 

The Court of Appeals wouldn't dream of twisting the wording of the recreational law. Would they?

to answer this question, the mmma law was drafted by MPP.

 

milegalize was not drafted by MPP.

 

the MMMA's wording was twisted because it literally is twisted. why does it say "a patient" in one section and "the patient" in another section? poor drafting, thats why. inability for MPP to listen to complaints is another.

 

and this is not new either. these problems were brought up in another state that MPP did. years before the MMMA was proposed or enacted. so mpp knew about these issues years before michigan and yet here we are.

 

blame the coa of michigan all you want. but judges in the other states saw these issues, probably michigan coa judges just copied from those states' rulings. to be fair, the michigan coa did twist the law themselves as well. the mmma wording is not perfect.

[t-pain]

heres montana's med mj law from 2004

 

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/I148.pdf

 

looks familiar... section 4, section 8...

 

anyone have a list of what states laws are similar to ours? obviously montana's legislature killed their mmj law so it wont be the same now.

 

arizona's law is very similar to the mmma as well.

[Restorium2]

heres montana's med mj law from 2004

 

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/I148.pdf

 

looks familiar... section 4, section 8...

 

anyone have a list of what states laws are similar to ours? obviously montana's legislature killed their mmj law so it wont be the same now.

 

arizona's law is very similar to the mmma as well.

Rhode Island started out much the same as our law. 

[bobandtorey]

California also only has the AD

[GregS]

This should take care of itself. Any patient or caregiver gigged with this unconstitutional ordinance will have the opportunity to point out the City's errors. A responsible judge will find against Royal Oak. It might take an appeal, but I don't expect it to go past circuit court before it is locked down. In fact, it would not surprise me to see the District Court to rule against it. If some local resident with standing were to lay their 'nads on the line like John TerBeek did, that would be fun to watch. He is one of the heroes of the movement.

Edited November 23, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

I know someone well that did go to the meeting because they where caught with cannabis in their car yes he has a card two of them one from Cal and one from MI and he told me you can not appeal,

 

Pay the fine or get a Lawyer the fine is $500 the Lawyer $1,500

[t-pain]

who exactly told him he couldnt appeal, bob? there is no law you cannot appeal to a higher court. if his atty or some cop told him, he got bad advice.

 

never plea, always appeal.

[bobandtorey]

He said something about because of its a Charter Law another words City infection or something like that 

[bobandtorey]

Sorry why would someone appeal when it's only $500 and an appeal would be $$$$$$$$$$

[t-pain]

It's a misdemeanor, gets on your permanent record.

 

drug conviction also lose drivers license for 6 months.

 

probably also probation in some cases, check the list of improper transport sentences in that thread here on the site for more examples. also you can see lots of fines, more than 1000 in some cases.

[bobandtorey]

Wow Good thing i don't drive with cannabis and if someone does get a Box with a lock to just be safe