OWI While Car Not Running – Can You Be Charged?

An interesting and substantive question that arises when a police arrive to the scene of a suspected drunk driving, yet the officer discovers that the individual may have not actually been driving the vehicle. Instead, the vehicle is parked, the engine is turned off, and the car is not in motion. In such cases, the courts have held that circumstantial evidence of operating the vehicle may be sufficient and used to support a drunk driving even though it’s an OWI while car not running.

An example of circumstantial evidence of operating a vehicle (or OWI while car not running) may include a situation where an officer arrives on the scene of an accident and observes several cars, not involved in the accident, pulled over in an apparent effort to provide assistance. If the officer, by questioning witnesses, gathers enough evidence to establish probable cause, he or she could arrest a person for an OWI misdemeanor (or OWI while car not running).

Questions such as “When did you stop?” “How long has it been since you drove your car here?” or “Have you had anything to drink since stopping here?” might be enough circumstantial evidence to justify the arrest. Furthermore, the smell of liquor or beer, staggering movement, empty liquor or beer bottle, or other evidence can contribute to whether an individual can be convicted of an OWI while car not running.

Another example of OWI while car not running can be found in People v Schinella, 160 Mich App 213, 407 NW2d 621 (1987). The defendant was found in the early morning at the wheel of his car, which was off the road, straddling a ditch. The engine was not running, but the hood and back tires were warm, and freshly broken tree branches had been placed under the wheels, apparently to provide extra traction. These facts sufficiently established that the person behind the wheel had been operating the vehicle.

One of the first questions an attorney should be asking is “how did the officer arrest the client for a misdemeanor that he or she did not see?”

The long-standing “misdemeanor arrest” statute was amended effective August 21, 2000, to provide for warrantless arrests for 93-day misdemeanors, including drunk driving offenses. If the officer has reasonable cause to believe that an individual operated the vehicle while intoxicated, regardless of the officer’s personal observation and regardless of the need for evidence of an accident, then he or she may arrest that suspect.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent or defend yourself in a court of law. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog, or otherwise displayed on this website or any other website on the internet.

Decriminalizing Marijuana In Michigan

Here in the State of Michigan, there are certain cities decriminalizing marijuana involving up to a specific amount of marijuana and for of-aged individuals (those over 18-years old or 21-years old). It is important to note that individual municipalities may and will have varying languages and requirements within those individual ordinances.

These cities decriminalizing marijuana include, but may not be limited to, Ann Arbor, Flint, Detroit, Lansing, Ferndale, Jackson, Grand Rapids, Ypsilanti, and Kalamazoo. The cities of Oak Park and Hazel Park recently past oridnances allowing for decriminalizing marijuana, and in November 2014 it is been said that Utica, Lapeer, Port Huron, Onaway, Harrison Township, East Lansing, Clare, Saginaw, Frankfurt, Mount Pleasant, and Berkley will be voting for decriminalizing marijuana.

What does decriminalizing marijuana mean for those individual’s found to be using, possessing, and delivering marijuana within those areas? That answer is not as clean or straight forward as one may seem.

First off, everyone must remember that you can still be charged at the state level for possessing, using, or delivering marijuana. What does that mean you may ask? Depending on the arresting department, the State Prosecutor can have jurisdiction to prosecute the matter, and thus not be constrained by local ordinance law. In the end, whether you are criminally charged or cited for a civil infraction for marijuana will depend on the arresting agency.

The second thing concerns the type of citation you recieve for marijuana within areas decriminalizing marijuana. In these areas criminal charges will not ensue, if the arresting agency is the local police deparment. Generally, areas decriminalizing marijuana will simply issue a civil infraction . . . i.e. pay a fine and you are done. But remember, whether it is a civil infraction or a criminal charges is based upon the arresting officer or agency.

You must know the law in order to maintain your right in any situation, and at the end of the day you need to lawyer-up with someone that has your back. Josh Jones is here 7-days a week. He maintains a full-service criminal defense firm specializing in marijuana defense.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Josh Jones is ready to represent you in Metro-Detroit (Oakland, Wayne & Macomb Counties), Washtenaw County, Livingston County, Lapeer County, and Genesee County.

Medical Marijuana Drunk Driving In Michigan – When Does It occurs?

It may be considered a landmark case for the Michigan Medical Marihuana community. The Michigan Supreme Court, in People v Koon, has held that individuals who qualify for immunity will not automatically be found to be driving “under the influence” simply because they internally possess medical marihuana, and thus limiting the power of marijuana drunk driving charges issues by prosecutors throughout Michigan.

The Court distinguished the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, MCL 257.625(8), from the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA), which allows for the use of medical marihuana. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the Act does forbid an individual from operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marihuana, i.e. marijuana drunk driving. MCL 333.26427(b). However, as the Court pointed out, the Act does not define what it means by “under the influence,” and thus the interpretation of what is “marijuana drunk driving” becomes debatable.

The Court concluded that the Motor Vehicle Code was not applicable to the Koon case. The reason for this is because the MMMA specifically states that any and all other statutes within the State of Michigan that are inconsistent with the MMMA will not apply to such individuals. However, in order to obtain such protection an individual must first qualify for the presumption of Immunity under Section 4 of the Act. It is important to note that the individuals must be engaged in the medical use of marihuana in order to qualify for this interpretation and not be seen as under the influence of marijuana.

In the end, an individual qualifying for immunity under Section 4 will be allowed to internally possess medical marihuana and operate a motor vehicle. Yet that still begs the question of what qualifies as “under the influence” of marihuana (or marijuana drunk driving) as defined in Section 7 of the Act?

To answer this question the case turns on other factors that occurred during and/or before the traffic stop, i.e. proving that you are visibly impaired, under the influence, or intoxicated by marijuana. They must actually prove marijuana drunk driving rather than simply showing that it is within an individual’s system.

This means that swerving, weaving, rolling stops, speeding, and the like will all come into play when an officer is attempting to establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause that you are under the influence of marihuana or visibly impaired. More over, the factors just listed, do not include the care smelling like burnt marihuana, an individual’s eye’s being red, a roach sitting in the ashtray, or the like, which will also increase the risk and probable cause that you are driving while under the influence.

Remember, know the law, know your rights, and lawyer-up with Josh Jones. He has your back and is here for all your marijuana criminal issues (medical and non-medical).

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

MEDICAL MARIHUANA COLLECTIVE GROWING – People v Bylsma Michigan Supreme Court Opinion

Many people will make People v Bylsma out to be bigger than it is, meaning that this case has negatively impacted the medical marijuana community here in Michigan. However, the case was not without hope and should be read thoroughly prior to rendering judgment.

The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) analyzed Bylsma very narrowly, at least in regards to its application to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). Moreover, the Court only used this narrow analysis for part of its opinion. When the Court looked at Section 4 of the MMMA it determined that Bylsma did not hold immunity for his acts that brought him before the court. The Court held that Bylsma was not without recourse. That recourse is found in Section 8 of the MMMA.

So what was the issue? Bylsma was charged with manufacturing marijuana because he had maintained a warehouse that contained not only his medical marijuana plants (which he was legally allowed to grow), but it also contained plants from other patients. He was not connected to those individuals through the State registry system. These patients were renting space inside the warehouse, and Bylsma was the owner and operator of the warehouse. The other plants, which were not technically owned by Bylsma, were still found to be in possession of Bylsma. i.e. Bylsma was maintaining a medical marihuana collective grow operation.

The Court was concerned, when looking at whether Bylsma possessed the over abundant amount of plants, whether there was a sufficient nexus between him and the contraband, which factors in whether he maintained dominion and control over the contraband. In the end, Bylsma did just this, and thus cannot be afforded immunity in the eyes of Section 4 of the MMMA. However, Bylsma had preserved the right to bring forth the Section 8 affirmative defense.

Because he had preserved this defense he is still allowed to raise it during or before trial, which has yet to occur with his case. The Court affirmed the fact that Bylsma does not have immunity, yet the Court also reversed in part and remanded the case back to the trial court. The trial court was told, by the MSC, that it should look to its opinion and analysis set forth in People v Kolanek, which outlines the analysis of a Section 8 affirmative defense.

At the end of the day, this was not a setback, but instead a clearing of mess that had been created and a reaffirmation of a cornerstone case—Kolanek. Some issues remain, but as time goes on those whom were weary of that fog will see that you still have rights, responsibilities, and avenues of recourse to puff away. It is time for you to be the one creating the fog, but instead of a mess you create tranquility.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.

WHAT IS MICHIGAN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR ASSAULT?

Assaultive crimes can come in various forms and degrees, meaning that one act can encapsulate numerous assaultive crimes. Within this umbrella of assaultive crimes lies the crime known as Michigan domestic violence  or assault and applies when a person is in a dating relationship with the individual assaulter.

Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault, as mentioned above, must fall under the definition of a “dating relationship” in order for the Michigan domestic violence or assault statute to be applicable. The definition covers more relationships than the direct “dating reltionship;” however, in many instance Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault will occur between individuals dating or have dated one another. The actual definition covers an individual who commits an assault or assault and battery on his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of the same household then he or she is in a “dating relationship.” See MCL § 750.81a(3).

If convicted under Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault statute an individual faces a 1-year misdemeanor and/or $1,000.00 fine. Those convicted previously of an assaultive crimes will face a 2-year felony with a possible $2,500.00 fine. Any subsequent conviction used for enhancing the sentence for a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault crime will also include general assaultive crimes. It is imperative, if not essential, to contact a criminal defense attorney when an individual faces a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault crime because these conviction can and will have a life-long impact.

Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault Deferral

Those individuals facing a Domestic Violence charge and/or conviction for the first time can obtain by statute a deferral for that particular charge. In order to qualify for this deferral for Michigan Domestic Violence an individual cannot have a prior conviction of an assaultive crime (including Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault). If granted and qualifying an individual can receive an automatic expungement of the Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault charge upon successfully completing probation and all ordered terms.

MCL 769.4a specifically states and authorizes the use of this deferral by the court, without entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the accused and of the prosecuting attorney in consultation with the victim, to defer further proceedings in an assault and battery case when an individual who has not been convicted previously of an assaultive crime pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, assault and battery under MCL 750.81 AND 81A.

Remember, to qualify the victim of the assault must be the offender’s spouse or former spouse, an individual who has a child in common with the offender, an individual who has or has had a dating relationship with the offender, or an individual residing in the same household as the offender, and thus be a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault. Also REMEMBER THIS DEFERRAL can be utilized only if the accused has no prior assaultive conviction. For law enforcement purposes, although a judgment of guilt is not entered, the arrest and the disposition by utilization of the deferral statue will appear on the criminal record of the defendant.

Whenever you are faced with a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault crime or any other Michigan criminal misdemeanor or felony contact Josh Jones today. He maintains a full-service Criminal Defense Law Firm 7-days a week, so he always has your back. REMEMBER NEVER RELY ON ANY COMMENTS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED HERE OR ON ANY OTHER WEBSITE WHEN ATTEMPTING OR TRYING TO REPRESENT OR DEFEND YOURSELF IN A COURT OF LAW. ALWAYS CONTACT AND HIRE COUNSEL. LAWYER-UP.

Warrantless Home Search By Law Enforcement Can Happen 

Generally, Law Enforcement (or Police) are not allowed to enter your home without a warrant; however, some circumstances can allow for them to perform a warrantless home search (meaning without a warrant or your consent). Those instances allowing for a warrantless home search are referred to as exigent circumstances.

Emergency Situations (i.e. Exigent Circumstances) allow for warrantless home searches. 

When an exigent circumstance exists an exception to the warrant requirement will be present and law enforcement can enter an individuals home. The issue can later be argued in court; however, if shown to exist the warrantless home search will stand and any incriminating evidence obtained from that search will continue to be admissible (unless another reason is present for its exclusion). So what are the exigent circumstances allowing for a warrantless home search?

One exigent circumstance bringing about a warrantless home search is known as the hot-pursuit exception. This exception applies to fleeing felons or individual’s fleeing after the comission of a felony. The key piece of information to take away from this exception is a showing that the individual needs to be immediately arrested, and thus society needs to be protected from possible danger. The interest in justice outweighs the privacy concerns when police are involved in a hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. However, this exception does not nor would apply when the criminal charge involves a misdemeanor.

Other exigent circumstances bringing about a warrantless home search will involve the possible destruction of evidence or physical and immediate injury to an individual within the home. For example, a domestic violence call and reasonable belief of its occurence may allow for the warrantless home search or entry by law enforcement. This is another policy exception that involves the protection of individuals from danger and bodily harm.

Important Note

These comments regarding a warrantless home search show never sway your judgement when denying consent to an officer to perform a search of you, your home or other property. These exceptions are being discussed to enlighten and inform the public of possible pitfalls and avenues found within the criminal justice system.

An individual always has the right, and should exercise the right, to deny consent to a search. If the officer has the ability to perform a warrantless home search or other warrantless search then they do. However, if they do not and they perform one anyways, an attorney could and should have an amazing argument.

That being said, know the law, maintain your rights and lawyer-up. Josh Jones is here 7-days a week to answer your questions and concerns by phone, text, email or instant message—specializing in Criminal Defense and Marihuana Defense (medical and non-medical).

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Remember, Josh Jones provides his services in Genesee County, Metro-Detroit (Wayne, Oakland & Macomb Counties), Livingston County, Lapeer County, and Washtenaw County.

What is Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a?

Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a explains that “[a] person shall not knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another.” If an individual is found guilty of Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a then he or she “is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.”

Moreover, “[i]f the person was fondling his or her genitals, pubic area, [or] buttocks” is guilty of a misdemeanor. However, the punishment could be 2-years of imprisonment or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a also applies to females who are found to be fondling their breasts.

In order to have the increase in charge, the individual must also be performing the underlying act of openly exposing him- or her-self or of another stated in Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a. The Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a can have serious repercussions because they would be become part of the individual’s criminal record if convicted.

So how could an individual be convicted of Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a? 

The key word in Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a is “knowingly.” This means that the individual must perform an act with some kind of intent, and thus knowingly expose some part of his or her “privates” to the public. However, as noted, the act does not have to be performed to his or her own person, but can include the act of another. For example, if “Jason” runs up behind a girl and takes her bathing suit off, which inevitably reveals some part of her “private region(s),” then “Jason” could be found guilty of indecent exposure. A conviction would be placed a misdemeanor on “Jason’s” criminal record, if convicted, and he would face up to 1 year in jail and/or a $1,000.00 fine.

Moreover, if there is intentional fondling of the person’s private area this can and will increase the possible punishment, if the individual is convicted. The statute does not use the term private areas, but instead says no fondling of the genitals, buttock, pubic area, or breasts (if a female is involved).

So in the end, I suppose it is best to keep your clothes on while in public or in eye of the public. This type of crime can occur almost anywhere, even in your own back yard. So, before you decide to strip down, either by yourself or with someone, you may want to think about the possible consequences.

Whenever you are involved with the criminal justice system you need competent, hardworking and honest representation by your side. Contact Josh Jones 7-days a week at 734-355-0424 by phone, text, email or instant message. He is here for you and your criminal case.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

What is Michigan 7411 Diversion?

Michigan 7411 diversion is a statutory law that allows for second chances for certain criminal acts committed within the State of Michigan, which means that certain crimes and convictions can be kept off an individual’s public criminal record. This only occurs if the individual satisfies the terms and conditions of their court ordered probation that will inevitably ensue upon pleading guilty to the specific crime and the court must first accept an individual to be placed on Michigan 7411 diversion

MCL 333.7411 outlines Michigan 7411 Diversion and is commonly referred to as “7411″

Michigan 7411 diversion allows an individual who has been charged with a non-major drug crime to simply walk away without a drug conviction, but only after successful completion of a probationary period. The period of probation can be up-to a year long. This includes all terms and conditions ordered for probation. However, Michigan 7411 diversion protects the individual’s license from Secretary of State sanctions, which occur during drug crimes convictions here in Michigan.

Essentially, Michigan 7411 Diversion never places a conviction on the individual’s criminal record and protects the record publicly the moment individual enters a plea under Michigan 7411 Diversion and continues to comply with court orders. It is important to note that if an individual is found or pleads guilty to drug charges he or she will have licensing sanctions, but only if there is an actual conviction. However, an individual placed on Michigan 7411 diversion is protected against these sanction, unless they lose the Michigan 7411 diversion status while on probation. If that occurs drivers license sanctions will ensue.

Non-major drug crimes generally include possession or use of controlled substances or drugs (including, but not limited to, marihuana, cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy. Major offenses that are not eligible for Michigan 7411 Diversion and are offenses that involve delivery or manufacture of drugs (including marihuana), possession with intent to deliver, and maintaining a drug house.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that Michigan 7411 diversion may only be used once in a lifetime. Also, a prior drug conviction precludes eligibility under Michigan 7411 diversion. There is no age requirement for Michigan 7411 diversion as compared to the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (aka HYTA). The consent of the prosecutor is not required for Michigan 7411 diversion.

It is imperative to know what will and will not happen to you and your life when involved with criminal charges, especially drug charges, such as marijuana. Therefore, know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up with Josh Jones. He has your back and is available 7-days a week by phone, text, email or instant message. He handles criminal matters in Genesee County, Metro Detroit, Washtenaw County, Lapeer County and Livingston County.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Warrantless Cellphone Searches Constitutional?

Warrantless Cellphones Searches require a search warrant when performed after an individual is arrested or detained. See Riley v California, _ U.S. _ (June 25, 2014). The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  limited the ability of law enforcement to search an individual’s cellphone during or after an arrest. However, the Court did indicate that officers may in some circumstances perform warrantless cellphones searches.

First, SCOTUS focused its attention on the scope of when an individual and his or her belongings could and would be searched due to the long standing debate on the issue. The Court looked at multiple situations involved the extension and limitation of the search incident to arrest exception in order to compare to their issue of warrantless cellphone searches.

The Court even looked at the transition in technology and accessibility of information available to and stored within cellphones. This ultimately seemed to be the crux in the government’s argument with warantless cellphones searches and their allowance. The Court spoke of the intimacy and daily use of cellphones as compared to just a decade ago, which again weighed in favor of limiting the use of warrantless cellphone searches.

It is essential to understand that the Court, in this situation, used a balancing test for determing the legitmacy of warrantless cellphone searches. This means courts must balance the governmental interest at stake with the privacy interest at issue, and in Riley v California, _ U.S. _ (June 25, 2014), the government interest was criminal evidence and the privacy interest was the information contained within the cellphone that searched. Therefore, because of the advancement technology and our dependency on that technology warrantless cellphone searches will generally be unconstitutional if performed by the government or law enforcement. I believe this is the reason that the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts was joined by all but one of the remaining Justices.

The Court went as far to say and remind its readers that simply because individuals are placed into custody or arrested does not automatically diminish their right to privacy and warrantless searches, including cellphones. However, again it must also be remembered that the Court did not create a bright-line rule with its holding in Riley v California. This means that warrantless cellphone searches can happen in emergency situations. These situations are known as exigency circumstances and allow for warrantless cellphone searches because of the possibility of the destruction of evidence or safety of the public.

Make sure to always know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up no matter the criminal misdemeanor or felony. Josh Jones is here for you and is your Michigan Criminal & Marihuana Lawyer. But remember, NEVER rely on any information within this website or any other site on the internet when attempting or trying to represent yourself in a court of law or any other criminal fashion. You MUST ALWAYS consult with an experienced criminal defense lawyer before proceeding.

People v Tuttle Michigan Supreme Court Ordered Hearing

On June 11th, 2014, Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice, Michael F. Cavanagh, Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly, Brian K. Zahra, Bridget M. McCormack, David F. Viviano, Justices, provided the following order for the application of leave filed in People v Tuttle (Mich. COA 2014):

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., who makes unlawful sales of marijuana to another patient to whom he is not connected through the registration process, taints all aspects of his marijuana-related conduct, even that which is otherwise permitted under the act; (2) whether a defendant’s possession of a valid registry identification card establishes any presumption for purposes of § 4 or § 8; (3) if not, what is a defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8; and (4) what role, if any, do the verification and confidentiality provisions in § 6 of the act play in establishing entitlement to immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8.

We direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of this Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444).

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

It will be interesting to see what the Michigan Supreme Court does with People v Tuttle. The ruling in the Michigan Court of Appeals has drastically undercut the possible defenses available to individuals looking to qualify for a Section 8 Affirmative Defense. The decision will hopefully assist rather than hinder the Michigan Medical Marihuana community.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. LAWYER-UP.