Clawson Approves Improper Transport Ordinance

[t-pain]

http://www.candgnews.com/news/new-prosecution-team-examines-refines-city-ordinances-93001

 

Ordinance revisions were passed dealing with the transportation of medical marijuana for card holders similar to what was passed in Royal Oak recently. The drug must be in a closed container in the trunk while driving.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Bullschit. State law supersedes local ordinances

 

Why don't they make an ordinance banning all firearms and see how far they get with that?

Edited May 21, 2016 by AmishRnot4ganja

[Alphabob]

It is because MMJ patients are much more of a minority than gun owners are. It’s how they get away with stuff like this because not enough people care or become affected by the injustices. If registered CCW carriers were to start getting pulled over, told that they needed to transport their gun in the trunk even though they had their license, then there would be massive pushback. This is essentially what they are doing to us, we have a permit that allows us to carry cannabis on person and they are violating this right among several others.

 

I can’t find additional information on Clawson’s ordinance online, maybe they are trying to keep it on the down low to screw over as many patients as possible. From what is available, their intentions are quite clear; they can’t arrest law abiding MMJ users any more so they need to pass unconstitutional ordinances in order to remove due process and boost funding.

 

“The way it was passed, the referendum … it is very problematic,” he said. “It is problematic for our officers (and) it’s problematic in the courtroom dealing with the day-to-day application of some of the aspects of the marijuana act.”

 

The majority of the ordinance revisions also put greater control and revenue back into Clawson.

 

Kingsepp said the new ordinances also make enforcement local with respect to recovery of costs, expenses, cleanup and allowing the court to enter a more prompt and effective judgement.

 

I'm guessing it's pretty similar to the royal oak ordinance which in itself is disturbing: http://patch.com/michigan/royaloak/commissioners-take-transport-medical-marijuana-again

 

without such an ordinance, “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.”

 

However, with a local ordinance, police would be able to arrest and search authorized medical marijuana users if they’re unable to demonstrate that they’re properly transporting medical cannabis, regardless of whether the amount they possess is legal.

 

Time to boycott Royal Oak, Clawson and any other city that wishes to force unconstitutional laws upon law abiding citizens... or sue; either one is fine with me.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Alphabob

[+Malamute]

The marijuana transport law is based on the firearm transport law.

[CedarSpringsCG]

The marijuana transport law is based on the firearm transport law.

Except if you have a CCW you can carry in a car, loaded and in reach...  I have the equivalent to a CCW, in my MMJ Card, and state says that you are immune from prosecution for transport. No ifs ands or butts, I am immune from prosecution for transportation.  The law isn't ambiguous about it. 

 

Not to mention, I think they passed it because they don't want people smoking while driving.  OK, but there are already laws against impaired driving under any circumstance, even sleep deprivation.  Also, is it really a concern that I can reach a baggie of weed while I drive, as long as I don't consume any, I mean it isn't capable of harming anyone.  What could you do throw it at someone?  They would probably thank you and drive away happy...

 

The transport law is for criminals, which we are not.  It is in the penal code, not our MMJ law, because it doesn't actually apply.  

 

Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer, and my lawyers have recommended only transporting in the trunk.  It is not worth fighting according to them...

[+Malamute]

A definite preaching to the choir moment... :-) 

 

I just thought I would add that info.  But even with a CCW there are times you must transport it locked, out of reach or in trunk.  Intoxication or without a hunting license sort of stuff.  The right isn't absolute.

 

But yea, this transport thing really pizzes me off.

 

 What I do recommend is reading the verdict in this circuit case referencing a district case.  It is how they explain that a patient can be prosecuted and that the transport law can occupy the same space as the Act.  It is NOT precedent setting, but this is the argument that will be used against us:

 

People v Park - Missaukee CC MMMA transport opinion - 02-08-16.pdf

 

 And the Prosecutors stated intent to continue prosecuting:

 

 

Missaukee Co. Prosecutor MMMA transport memo - 02-16-16.pdf

 

 

 

 

[+Malamute]

Oops. And to be clear, I do not agree with the court opinion. Just posting information. :-)

[CedarSpringsCG]

right...  But their logic is a bit flawed...  You can require me to do it since the MMJ law doesn't say they can't.  That's what they are saying...

 

However you can't prosecute me if I don't...  Because I am immune from prosecution for transportation...

 

Pisses me off too, and I semi oblige, making it inaccessible to anyone in the car, but I mostly do that for concealment more than I do to appease the unjust law...

 

That PDF is a clear depiction of how they spin things to make it confusing.  The question they actually answered is not the question that should be asked.  They said both can be consistent and then jumped to "the patient can be prosecuted".  So the question they need to answer, is can they prosecute me for it?  Reading the law, it is a No.  The MMMA does not say, You are immune from prosecution if you follow all of the other laws...  no it says I am immune.

 

 In the court room in my head, and my own jury, I win!

[+Malamute]

I'm with you.

[Alphabob]

I've beaten the illegal transport charge in Oakland county, but before that I was told by several attorneys it would be very difficult. If we compare it to CCW, it's similar to the rule where you have to lock it in your trunk if you don't have a CCW permit; so completely backwards. In fact, the bill was originally named 'Transportation or possession of medical marihuana' and had 'medical' changed to 'usable' because they were getting a lot of negative feedback. They also did not amend the MMMA due to this feedback, but LEO and some other groups got the bill to pass under MI penal code.

 

I can imagine that when you get arrested in one of these cities due to their forced search policies, the judge is automatically going to deny use of MMMA protections. So either A) your going to appeal or B) your going to take a plea. On the other hand, cities that don't have illegal transport ordinances may charge you with possession of controlled substance/paraphernalia instead. I had this happen and they put "possession of marijuana (illegal transport)" among many other bogus charges, which triggered random drug testing after arraignment. I never went to jail or stopped medicating though

Edited May 21, 2016 by Alphabob

[t-pain]

A definite preaching to the choir moment... :-) 

 

I just thought I would add that info.  But even with a CCW there are times you must transport it locked, out of reach or in trunk.  Intoxication or without a hunting license sort of stuff.  The right isn't absolute.

 

But yea, this transport thing really pizzes me off.

 

 What I do recommend is reading the verdict in this circuit case referencing a district case.  It is how they explain that a patient can be prosecuted and that the transport law can occupy the same space as the Act.  It is NOT precedent setting, but this is the argument that will be used against us:

 

People v Park - Missaukee CC MMMA transport opinion - 02-08-16.pdf

 

 And the Prosecutors stated intent to continue prosecuting:

 

 

Missaukee Co. Prosecutor MMMA transport memo - 02-16-16.pdf

so the prosecutor finds one dumb judge to take the argument and its back on?

 

the judge in the case says it doesnt conflict, hilarious. i guess local cities can make ordiances banning marijuana use on tuesdays, because it doesnt conflict either?

 

see , this is why patients need to start suing for wrongful arrest, wrongful prosecution , etc.

lawyers need to take those cases pro bono, thats a good way to get paid.

[Alphabob]

Both the judge and prosecutor deserve written complaints. These arguments are non-sense and will never hold up in higher courts. They attempt to imply article 4, sec. 25 of the constitution is outdated and meant to control historic legislative fraud. Yet one of the primary reasons for this article is then expressed under Mok v Detroit, which they believe can be made harmonious with their far-fetched interpretations.

 

“Alterations made in the statues by mere reference, and amendments by the striking out or insertion of words, without reproducing the statute in its amended form, were well calculated to deceive and mislead, not only the legislature as to the effect of the proposed law, but also the people as to the law they were to obey…”

 

It’s also ironic that when the legislature leaves out some terms in a bill it is automatically assumed they intended to do so, but when two bills amend the MMMA and one does not it’s simply a mystery that we should ignore; i.e. that we should assume they meant to amend the MMMA with it (or in this case ‘supplement’?). I could go on about the contradictions and false logic, but we all know they never meant for a sensible argument; they just needed to blabber on and make their preferred conclusion.

 

But my main point is this: When MMJ patients and CG have a law that says ‘don’t worry, nothing else affects you but the MMMA’ and then they try and pull this, it’s simply not American. This has been a well established concept since the late 1800's. Where was the advertisement or education for MCL 750.474; we posted previous transportation laws everywhere to inform the public, click-it-or-ticket, don't drive drunk, ect. Illegal transport nowhere to be mentioned. We are transitioning to a government of hidden gotchas meant to keep the system afloat while all local, state and federal funding magically disappears (civil forfeiture anyone?). It is plainly evident in nearly every action these people take and will only get worse unless something fundamentally changes.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Alphabob

[t-pain]

funny enough, getting near the bottom of the opinion, the judge says 750.474 does not amend the act.

 

doesnt that mean that its legal to transport and possess marijuana, because the legislature amended the phc and says its unlawful UNLESS...