12/21/16 Coa Rules "improper Transport" Law Is Unconstitutional And Null And Void.

[garyfisher]

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/opinions/final/coa/20161220_c328274_50_328274.opn.pdf

“Under the MMMA, . . . ‘[t]he medical use of marihuana is allowed . . . to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of th[e] act.’” Hartwick, 498 Mich at 209, quoting MCL 333.26427(a) (altered here). If persons comply with the MMMA, it grants “broad” “immunity” from prosecution. MCL 333.26424(a); Braska, 307 Mich App at 357-358. As noted, there is no dispute, at least for the purposes of this appeal, that defendant was in compliance with the MMMA. The MMMA defines medical use as the “acquisition, possession, . . . use, . . . delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana . . . relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or” “associated” “symptoms.” MCL 333.26423(f) (emphasis added). The illegal transportation of marijuana statute expressly refers to this provision and unambiguously seeks to place additional requirements on the transportation of medical marijuana beyond those imposed by the MMMA. Thus, MCL 750.474 clearly subjects persons in compliance with the MMMA to prosecution despite that compliance, and it is therefore impermissible. Koon, 494 Mich at, 7; Braska, 307 Mich App at 357-358. Because MCL 750.474 is not part of the MMMA, defendant, as a compliant medical marijuana patient, cannot be prosecuted for violating it.

Edited December 21, 2016 by garyfisher

[shishka]

Any legal recourse for folks who got tangled up in this mess?

[GregS]

Any legal recourse for folks who got tangled up in this mess?

I am betting there is, but it won't  be cheap. An attorney will be necessary. I wonder if zap can give us a ball park figure.

Edited December 21, 2016 by GregS

[Kingdiamond]

So in the near future what should patients and caregivers do print off a copy of this ruling to present to law enforcement that pulls them over and attempts to  issue a ticket?

[+Malamute]

It will be sent out in the police update.

 

But we do still have the new transport law on 'marijuana infused products".

 

I am sure confusion will overwhelm the small police mind. ;-)

[cristinew]

I am confused on the cookie transport law. /

[Kingdiamond]

It will be sent out in the police update.

 

But we do still have the new transport law on 'marijuana infused products".

 

I am sure confusion will overwhelm the small police mind. ;-)

Which is why I am wondering if we should have something in print to make our case .

[bax]

flower LOL they delayed the opinion until the EXACT making whoopee DAY the new transport law came into effect?

 

flower tinkle bunny muffin female parental fornicator guys muffin makers

Edited December 21, 2016 by bax

[bax]

can someone explain to me this?

 

This statute was enacted by 2012 PA 460, which was after the enactment of the MMMA, which

went into effect with the passage of 2008 IL 1. Therefore, defendant’s argument that the

MMMA “superseded” the illegal transportation of marijuana statute is impossible. Black’s Law

Dictionary defines supersede as: to annul, make void, or repeal by taking the place of. As a

general matter, to supersede something entails an act later in time.

Nevertheless, courts are not narrow-mindedly bound by the labels given to an argument

by a party, but rather by the substance thereof.

the definition of supersede does not include a time limitation. even in black's law that they quoted.

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

what the flower am i reading?

[bax]

Any legal recourse for folks who got tangled up in this mess?

yes, plenty of legal recourse for improper transport cases. please call a marijuana lawyer and they will be able to fix up your record and get you at least your money back.

 

although the weaker lawyers will point to the new MMMA law :

 

Retroactive application of this amendatory act does not create a cause of action against a law enforcement officer or any other state or local governmental officer, employee, department, or agency that enforced this act under a good-faith interpretation of its provisions at the time of enforcement."

that just means you cant sue for damages for the amendatory act. which is just the edibles and weight part. this has nothing to do with improper transport.

 

but you can definitely sue for your time, money, confiscated marijuana, etc.

 

i'm not sure how "good faith" the govt has been wrt transport law, i doubt it, as ter beek v wyoming and people v koon killed that fat chance long ago.

Edited December 22, 2016 by bax

[bax]

in fact, this is so diabolical, that i think they did this on the same day to cause more confusion.

 

dec 20th, new mmma edibles transport law goes into effect

 

dec 20th, coa issues opinion killing off old marijuana transport law.

 

so patients and caregivers only hear about improper transport being killed, not the new labelling requirements of transportation of edibles to the mmma?

Edited December 21, 2016 by bax

[bax]

so flower can be transported, but cookies need a label and package.

 

police are going to have a field day.

 

print off the new MMMA and this opinion, kingdiamond. then highlight the marijuana infused section and the transport section of the mmma.

 

only took 3 years for the improper transport law to be dead. hmmmmmm i wonder why....

 

look at all of these arrests , convictions, jail time, probations....

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/45922-is-sanilac-county-leading-the-state-in-illegal-transport-mcl-750474-tickets/

Edited December 21, 2016 by bax

[bax]

do you think the case will be going to the supreme court?

 

oh wow, oconnel went full retard.

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by bax

[Highlander]

O' Connell was never MMJ friendly.

 

He said "However, the MMMA’s immunity is only available to those individuals who are in compliance with the strictures of the MMMA."

 

The other elements of compliance were not an issue in this case. It was simply about transport. There was no question about other compliance issues. So why did he even bring that up? Because he hates MMJ.

[+Malamute]

Exactly Highlander. He has been a complete PoS on marijuana cases. He looks for the most minimal issue and latches onto it as long as it goes against marijuana.  I hope he dies a slow painful death someday that could have been helped by marijuana. :-)  Justice.....

[GregS]

O'Connell's dissenting opinion here:

 

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20161220_C328274_51_328274D.OPN.PDF

Will someone give this idiot a cookie and send him on his way?

[GregS]

O' Connell was never MMJ friendly.

 

He said "However, the MMMA’s immunity is only available to those individuals who are in compliance with the strictures of the MMMA."

 

The other elements of compliance were not an issue in this case. It was simply about transport. There was no question about other compliance issues. So why did he even bring that up? Because he hates MMJ.

He has always stretched legal construction beyond reasonable limits and the Supreme Court slapped him and the other COA judges who have handed down foolish rulings. His bullschit does not cease. He is not going to stop anytime soon. The guy was obviously dropped on his head by his mother. A lot.

Edited December 22, 2016 by GregS

[Greg Rx]

It will be sent out in the police update.

 

But we do still have the new transport law on 'marijuana infused products".

 

I am sure confusion will overwhelm the small police mind. ;-)

Hoping nobody is dumb enough to count on this.

[Greg Rx]

 

4

 In my concurring opinion in Redden, I warned against interpreting the MMMA in a piece meal 

fashion because doing so would create confusion. I attempted to establish a framework for the 

law to keep confusion to a minimum. Hundreds or more medical marijuana cases have worked 

their way through our court system. If my original framework had been adhered to, some 

citizens would have retained their freedom, property, liberty, and legal fees, and townships, 

cities, police, and prosecutors would have saved valuable resources in their quest to interpret the 

act

Bob is famous. If only the courts had listened. HAHAHA

[Highlander]

And if O'Connell and others like him didn't issue bad opionions and if the Michigan legislature didn't pass bad, law hundreds of patients and caregivers wouldn't have been dragged through the system at great financial and emotional loss.

 

Look at how many people became criminals due to the unconstitutional transport law. It's a travesty of justice. Those people will never be the same.

[+Malamute]

O'Connell just admitted to attempting to Legislate from the Bench.

 

What a twit.

 

"My framework", "My interpretation", "My Vision".

 

 

Yet, realize this,... the case he JUST ruled on has drug hundreds and hundreds of people through the court system for NO good or LEGAL reason,.... and he thinks this unconstitutional and improperly passed transportation law is just fine and dandy and instead of just killing it, he thinks we should let the COURTS decide how many of these people to prosecute.  Keep allowing arrests and let the judge decide instead of just saying, this law is dead,... move along and quit arresting people.

 

Kill the Transport law. His interpretation CREATES confusion. His rulings have been labeled WRONG even by our MSC.

 

 

OMG!...

 

 Blood pressure,... ok.

 

Next topic.

 

:-)

[bax]

he didnt run spell check "Simsilarly" LOL

 

the dissent says right there he agrees with the majority.

 

 

 

 

The only question before this Court is whether the MMMA provides immunity for the
illegal transportation of marijuana. My answer is a simple “yes.”

 

just agrees on different grounds

 

the last footnote is the stupid part

 

 

6 I note that were I not advocating for a different analysis for the interpretation of the MMMA, I
would agree with the amicus brief that MCL 750.474 does not prohibit the possession or
transportation of marijuana. It simply regulates the manner in which individuals may transport
marijuana. Therefore, it would not be inconsistent with the strictures of the MMMA, and
Section 7(e) of the MMMA is not applicable to the facts of this case.

Edited December 23, 2016 by bax

[bobandtorey]

Bob is famous. If only the courts had listened. HAHAHA

Lol i don't feel famous 

 

People v Redden, 290 Mich App 65, 90; 799 NW2d 184 (2010) (O’CONNELL, P.J., concurring). This remarkable type of law renders a traditional analysis flawed, and reviewing the MMMA from a traditional standpoint only allows the pubic to fall further into the abyss of confusion surrounding which actions are permissible under the MMMA.4 

[bobandtorey]

And if O'Connell and others like him didn't issue bad opionions and if the Michigan legislature didn't pass bad, law hundreds of patients and caregivers wouldn't have been dragged through the system at great financial and emotional loss.

 

Look at how many people became criminals due to the unconstitutional transport law. It's a travesty of justice. Those people will never be the same.

 

 

I agree i will never be the same and i do think about all the others