Jump to content

Colorado Supreme Court Rules In Medical Marijuana Case


bobandtorey

Recommended Posts

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KKTV) - A four-year dispute over medical marijuana seized by police in Colorado Springs has come to an end. The Colorado Supreme Court says police don't have to return marijuana plants to a man acquitted of marijuana-related drug crimes. Colorado police can resume destroying marijuana seized in a criminal investigation.

On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Robert Crouse. The opinion ends the dispute over whether article XVIII, section 14(2)(e) of the Colorado Constitution, which requires law enforcement officers to return medical marijuana seized from an individual who is later acquitted of a state drug charge, is pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Crouse was in possession of 55 marijuana plants and about 2.9 kilograms of marijuana product that police had seized. Crouse was later acquitted of marijuana-related drug crimes after he asserted he that he was in lawful possession of the drug for medical purpose under Colorado law.

The issue came up when a district court judge ordered the return of the plants under Colorado law. The district judge shot down the district attorney's argument and ruled the marijuana be returned to Crouse in December of 2013. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court judge’s order. The ruling was a positive conflict between Colorado law and the federal Controlled Substances Act, violating federal law according to the Colorado Supreme Court. The Colorado Supreme Court stated the return provision is preempted and rendered void.

 

The Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion resolves a conflict of interpretation between Colorado state courts and federal prosecutors regarding the scope of the federal Controlled Substances Act. 

John Walsh, the former United States attorney for the district of Colorado, had previously advised state law enforcement officers that they would be in violation of the federal Act if they complied with Colorado’s return provision. Because federal authorities are not bound by state judges’ interpretation of federal law, the conflicting interpretations of the federal Controlled Substances Act placed local law enforcement authorities at risk of federal prosecution anytime they returned marijuana that they had previously seized.

 

http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Colorado-Supreme-Court-rules-in-Medical-Marijuana-Case-411580105.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2010s/op10341.htm

 

Bill Schuette's AG opinion on the matter.

 

 

 

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT:

PREEMPTION:

Return of marihuana to patient or caregiver upon release from custody

 

 

 

Section 4(h) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26424(h), which prohibits the forfeiture of marihuana possessed for medical use, directly conflicts with and is thus preempted by, the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801 et seq., to the extent section 4(h) requires a law enforcement officer to return marihuana to a registered patient or primary caregiver upon release from custody.   

Opinion No. 7262

 

November 10, 2011

 

The people of this State, even in the exercise of their constitutional right to initiate legislation, cannot require law enforcement officers to violate federal law by mandating the return of marihuana to registered patients or caregivers.  This conclusion is consistent with the federal district court's opinion in United States v Michigan Dep't of Community Health, ___ F Supp 2d ___, supra, which held that the MMMA's confidentiality provision, MCL 333.26426(h), was preempted by 21 USC 876 to the extent it precluded compliance with a federal subpoena sought in conjunction with an investigation under the CSA.  It also accords with the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc v Bureau of Labor and Industries, 348 Or 159; 230 P3d 518, 529 (2010), which held that Oregon's medical marihuana law authorizing the use of marihuana and exempting its use from prosecution, was preempted by the CSA to the extent it "affirmatively authorizes the use of medical marijuana, . . . leaving it without effect."

 

It is my opinion, therefore, that section 4(h) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26424(h), which prohibits the forfeiture of marihuana possessed for medical use, directly conflicts with and is thus preempted by, the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801 et seq., to the extent section 4(h) requires a law enforcement officer to return marihuana to a registered patient or primary caregiver upon release from custody. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...