Medical Marihuana Facility License Act In Michigan

In September 2016, Governor Synder signed into law Michigan Medical Marihuana Facility License Act, establishing a system that allows Michigan Medical Marihuana Patients and Caregivers to obtain their medical marihuana through a commercial business legally. This changes the current landscape because until this law becomes effective the State of Michigan, and the MMMA patents and caregivers, have been restrained by the decision in People v McQueen, which essentially outlawed businesses from selling medical marihuana to patients and caregivers. Now, with the Medical Marihuana Facility License Act there is a specific license an individual must obtain before they are allowed to commercially dispense or sell medical marihuana to Michigan patients and caregivers. What’s more, is that the license is overseen by the State; however, it is up to the local municipality on whether or not a business can be licensed within that particular locale.

So let’s back up a moment . . . the Medical Marihuana Facility License Act actually establishes multiple licenses for various activities that medical marihuana patients and caregivers engage in. The various licenses created by the Act are as follows: (i) grower, (ii) processor, (iii) secure transporter, (iv) provisioning center, and (v) safety compliance facility. As you can see by the individual names for each license, the Michigan Facility Licenses are broken down into the various activities that go into growing, harvesting and distributing medical marihuana to end users (patients and caregivers). There is also a compliance facility, for testing purposes. Moreover, the Statute identifies that the system to be implemented will also incorporate state-wide monitoring in order to keep track of the marihuana created by the individual license holders. This means all marihuana grown, processed and then sold will be tracked from the moment it is planted. Lastly, only secure transporters will be allowed to move the marihuana between the various individuals, which also requires a specific license.

As mentioned above, the local municipalities will be the ultimate deciders on what type of medical marihuana facility license will be issued within their boundaries. The reason for this is due to the language in the Statute, which identifies that the municipality will determine which type of facility will be allowed through the creation of a local ordinance. Once the local ordinance has been established an individual will be allowed to apply for the particular license that the locale allows for, but must apply through the State. The application process, is seemingly the same for each individual license, and each individual license provides for legal protection for the activities covered by that particular license. Moreover, and in the end, it is the State who will approve or deny an individual’s application for a medical marihuana facility license. It should also be noted that there are particular convictions and time periods that could automatically preclude an individual from obtaining a license. This is important to consider if there is a corporation or other business entity looking to apply because the clearance checks require certain parties of those entities to make certain disclosures within the application.

It is so important to obtain legal advice, guidance and assistance if you are attempting to obtain a medical marihuana facility license. This act becomes effective on a specific day, requires specific information, and many other business necessities in order to maintain compliance with the Act and license. Remember, you should never rely on this website or any other website in order to obtain legal knowledge or information that you would want or like to use if you ever choose, want or attempt to defend yourself within a court in Michigan or the United States. Always seek out legal counsel and assistance.

Federal Judge Rules Government Hacking Is Constitutional Without Warrant

In June 2016, a Federal Judge ruled Government hacking is Constitutional, after it had been discovered that the FBI had utilized malware on a private computer to obtain specific I.P. addresses of individuals accessing a particular website. It is worth noting at this point in the discussion that the use of the malware was done after the FBI obtained a search warrant for such use. The website in question hosted a voluminous library of abusive and explicitly sexual material of minors. The type of malware that was used is known as a network investigation technique, or more commonly referred to as NIT. Once the FBI obtained specific information using the malware they then went and sought out a subpoena for personal information on the individuals I.P. addresses they had obtained from the use of the malware. The subpoena was sent to Time Warner Inc., which is how they obtained specific information on the individual, such as his name, address, and other personal information on file with Time Warner.

After the FBI obtained the personal information about the individual in question from Time Warner, they then went and sought a second search warrant. But this time, the warrant was issued for the search of the individual’s home and computers. The issue before the court, originally dealt with whether the second warrant issued was overly broad or vague, meaning the place to be searched was not described with enough specificity as required by law. The court determined that the second search warrant was appropriately drafted, but it also spoke to the legitimacy of the initial search warrant. The court explained that Government hacking is Constitutional is founded and legal because of the lack of expected privacy involving the use of a computer on the internet.

Essentially, the court held that an individual using his computer at home, who may even be attempting to block people from reading this I.P. Address does not have an expectation of privacy in what they are viewing or searching on the web. By making this statement and analyzing the use of the malware to obtain an I.P. Address the court held that a warrant in such a situation was not needed or required. This means that if the FBI wanted to they would have, without a warrant, still used the malware to obtain the information they did.

This ruling, and others like it, is a showing that our privacy rights are continually being eroded due to the advancement of technology. This issue with technological advancement and the lack of privacy rights has been an issue for decades, and it seems to be getting worse now that Government hacking is Constitutional and does not require a warrant prior to its deployment. So in the end, because Government hacking is Constitutional, Police officers and the like can now technically use software that will be able to obtain data about you and your private life without the need for a warrant. Not every court agrees with this analysis, which makes the issue more problematic when dealing with criminal charges. In the end, never rely on this website or any information on the internet when wanting, attempting or contemplating representing yourself in any court within Michigan or the United States. Always obtain or seek out competent counsel to assist you with any legal issue or question.

Michigan Medical Marijuana Edible And Concentrate Bill Explained

By the end of 2016, the new Michigan Medical Marijuana Edible and Concentrate Bill will be in full affect and have modified the existing law under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). The new Michigan Medical Marijuana Edible and Concentrate bill allows individual patients and caregivers (and even provisioning centers) obtain and use medical marijuana that have been made from a concentrate. The term concentrate is not very specific, at least in terms of the language used in the new Michigan Medical Marijuana Edible and Concentrate bill. Therefore, it is best to look at the plan language of the bill, which now allows for a “Marihuana-infused product.”

Under the new Michigan Medical Marijuana Edible and Concentrate bill, an infused product “means a topical formulation, tincture, beverage, edible substance, or similar product containing any usable marihuana that is intended for human consumption in a manner other than smoke inhalation.” The other term that becomes important, when determining the extent of an allowable amount of marihuana infused products, is “usable marihuana equivalent.” The usable marihuana equivalent is actually a guide or conversion for various types of marihuana infused products, and thus places the limits on the amount of marihuana infused products that an individual patient and caregiver can possess.

The modifications of the new Michigan Medical Marijuana edible and concentrate bill are easily incorporated into the old language of the exists MMMA statute, which means that when determining the amount of marihuana infused products a caregiver or patient can possess is limited to the same amounts as previously allowed; however, now individuals will use the conversion table, set forth in the usable marihuana equivalent section, to determine how much usable or flower marihuana translates into the appropriate amount of marihuana infused products. For example, 1 ounce of usable or flower marihuana is equivalent to 36 fluid ounces of marihuana infused products, meaning that someone in possession of 36 fluid ounces of infused marihuana would be under his or her limitations of Section 4 of the MMMA because that would only translate or convert into 1 ounce of usable or flow marihuana.

It should also be noted that the new Medical Marihuana Concentrate and Edible bill will also control and limit how individual patients and caregivers can transport their usable marihuana equivalent or infused marihuana products. This part of the law is listed directly under Section 4 of the new MMMA, and thus this could potentially be dealt with differently than the “improper transport of usable marihuana” law. The language of the law seems to read very similar to the preexisting law for normal usable marihuana; however, the huge difference is that if someone is found responsible or guilty of improperly transporting their marihuana infuse products, they will be required to pay a civil fine.

Moreover, the new Medical Marihuana Edible and Concentrate bill is going to apply retroactively once it has become effective. It is important to understand that the bill will not become effective until 90-days after Gov. Snyder signed the bill. Therefore, it will not become effective until 90-days after Sept. 20, 2016. The fact that the bill and the section for marihuana infused products is retroactive means that individuals convicted of crimes involving marihuana infused products could have reprieve or an opportunity for a defense against such a crime even though they have already been convicted. This may be a confusing statement, and thus simply put: if you have previously been convicted of a marihuana crime involving marihuana concentrates or edibles, you should contract a marihuana defense lawyer today to see if you are able to take advantage of the retroactivity under the new Michigan Medical Marihuana Edible and Concentrate Bill.

It is always so important and essential to never rely on this website or any other information on the web when you or someone you know is attempting, wanting or trying to represent yourself in a court within the State of Michigan or anywhere in the United States. Always contact and obtain the assistance of a counsel before defending, representing or identifying a legal theory, defense or claim.

Michigan Criminal Bonds Explained & Outlined

Here in the State of Michigan criminal bonds are a necessary and vital component of the criminal process. Michigan criminal bonds will originally occur at the beginning of the criminal process. The criminal arraignment is the first opportunity for an individual and the court to determine and set a Michigan criminal bond. Michigan criminal bonds can vary in the amount that is set or determined by the court. In some situations, a court will provide an individual with a personal recognizance bond, which means that the individual will not have to post or provide the court with any monies.

Another type of Michigan criminal bond will require an individual to post monies with the court in order to be released from the court’s custody. There are variations of this type of Michigan criminal bond, which means that the bond can consist of terms or limitations such as a 10% bond, cash bond and/or a surety bond. Whether the court places an individual on personal bond or a monetary bond, a monetary value will always be attached to the bond even though the individual may not have to actually give money to the court for a personal bond. An example of this is a personal/$10,000 bond, which means the individual does not have to place monies with the court. Moreover, if the court places an individual on a monetary bond, requiring money, the court is allowed to make that bond a cash, surety, and percentage bond. An example of this is: $10,000 cash/surety/10% bond. What would occur here is the individual would need to post the $10,000 bond through a surety or they would place with the court 10% of the $10,000 bond.

For all intensive purposes, a surety is a bondsmen, which means that at times an individual will be required to go to a bondsmen in order to post bond; however, that does not mean there are situations where a bondsmen is the more affordable choice. Furthermore, it should be noted that if an individual goes through a bondsmen to post and be released on a bond, then the individual will likely be out those monies provided to the bondsmen. However, if the individual posts the bond directly to the court then those monies will either be returned to the individual or be used to pay any fines or costs, if any, that may be associated with the individual’s criminal case.

The last thing to remember when discussing a Michigan criminal bond is the fact that the bond  once set can always be modified or amended if the individual placed on bond violates a condition of his or her bond. This is another reason why a criminal defense attorney is always needed, even when dealign with a Michigan criminal bond. Moreover, you should never rely on this information or other information on the internet when attempting or wanting to represent yourself in a criminal case or any matter within a Michigan court or other court within the United States.

Medical Marijuana Dispensary And Edible Bills In Michigan Explained

In Sept. of 2016, Gov. Snyder signed into law new Michigan Medical Marijuana dispensary and edible bills that will change the current landscape of how medical marijuana patents and caregivers obtain medical marijuana. This is changing the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) here in the State of Michigan. The MMMA, due to the new medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills, modify the MMMA, unless otherwise determined, and thus now there will be new laws, provisions, and oversight for the MMMA. It is vital to know and understand the new medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills and how they could and will affect your medical use of marijuana. As the title of the article reveals, new medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills will target new laws on the validity and operation of marijuana dispensary and medical marijuana edibles or concentrates. This will apply to all medical marijuana users (patients and caregivers) that are members of Michigan’s medical marijuana program.

The new Medical Marijuana dispensary and edible bills provide specific provisions for individual companies to distribute medical marijuana to end users. This had been lacking prior to the enactment of these bills in many areas around the State of Michigan. Dispensary, prior to this enactment, had been operating under municipal ordinances that did not technically bring about legality for their operation. Two of the medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills specifically look to control and provide for the growth, sale, and seed of medical marijuana and marijuana plants. It is important to note that the State will be in control of providing licenses to those individual who want to commercially grow and distribute medical marijuana through the new medical marihuana dispensary and edible bills. Furthermore, there will now be a tracking system for those growers and distributors of medical marijuana, which will begin at the seed and run through the distribution of the plant and the medical marijuana being distributed.  Moreover, the third medical marijuana dispensary and edible bill will now legalize the possession, use and sale of medical marijuana concentrates and infused products.

The House Bills that have made up the new medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills are as follows: House Bill 4209, now Public Act 281; House Bill 4210, now Public Act 282; and House Bill 4827, now Public Act 283. The new medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills are to become effective 90-days after they have been enacted. Gov. Snyder signed the medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills on Sept. 21, 2016. If you are involved in the medical marijuana industry, looking to take advantage of the new medical marijuana dispensary and edible bills, or simply looking for clarification on what this all means for the medical marijuana industry here in the State of Michigan then you should immediately seek to obtain assistance from counsel handling medical marijuana matters. It is so important, especially when we are discussing topics such as this, to never rely on information from this website or any other internet medium when attempting to represent yourself or any legal matter before a court or otherwise here in the State of Michigan. Know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer up.

Dismissing Criminal Charges: Easy or Difficult?

Here in the State of Michigan dismissing criminal charges can sometimes be a confusing topic to discuss among the public. The reasons that dismissing criminal charges is so confusing is because of the blogs, posts, and other social media forms of communication. The reasoning for social media confusing the issue of dismissing criminal charges is due to the lack of explanation and differentiation of what classifies as an actual dismissal.

Essentially, dismissing criminal charges can and will consist of essentially two variations of the term “dismissal.” The first variation of dismissing criminal charges actually involves the outright dismissal of a criminal charge due to some reasoning. The reason for a dismissal can be numerous, and it can also vary from case to case. Under this first variation, a criminal case is outrightly dismissed upon a motion by the defendant or the prosecutor. Typically, and depending on the reason for a dismissal, dismissing criminal charges will be granted, but without prejudice. Without prejudice means that the criminal charges dismissed can or could be reissued against the individual. Even though a charge is dismissed without prejudice, it does not necessarily mean the prosecutor will reissue the charges; however, it does allow for them to do so.

The second variation of dismissing criminal charges is usually performed through the use or attachment of a criminal statute. This type of dismissal requires some sort action and compliance. Moreover, these types of dismissals will also require some sort of review or probationary period prior to the dismissal becoming fully effective. Essentially, an individual seeking a dismissal under a statute will be seeking diversion from the conviction. This means that if the individual does what he is told, during a specified period, his or her case will be diverted or dismissed against them. This is different than outrightly dismissing criminal charges. Because the individual is placed under some sort of review or probationary period he or she could potentially lose the ability to have the criminal charge dismissed against him or her. The benefit of dismissing criminal charges, under a statute, is only received upon completing what is asked by the court.

Dismissing criminal charges can be confusing, depending on how it is explained, and depending on what type of dismissal you are receiving. It is important to also discuss your criminal case with a criminal defense attorney because you could be put into a situation where you do not understand what is occurring with your criminal charge. Know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up.

Michigan Criminal Arraignments Outlined & Explained

Whenever there are criminal charges issued against an individual a Michigan criminal arraignment is almost always required. Michigan criminal arraignments vary depending upon the criminal charge issued against the particular individual. Michigan criminal arraignments will depend upon whether the criminal charge issued is a criminal misdemeanor or a criminal felony.

The reason for this is due to the fact that criminal misdemeanors and criminal felonies follow a different procedural course once the criminal charges have been issued and a Michigan criminal arraignment is required. For criminal misdemeanors a Michigan criminal arraignment is required unless otherwise waived by a criminal attorney. The same is true for criminal felonies; however, there are two Michigan criminal arraignments. The first Michigan criminal arraignment will occur at the district court and if the criminal felony is bound over or moved from the district court to the circuit court a second Michigan criminal arraignment will ensue at the circuit court.

In some courts the second Michigan criminal arraignment can be waived, which allows a shortening in the criminal process when dealing with a criminal felony. In those situations, the first Michigan criminal arraignment cannot be waived and must be held at the district court. During Michigan criminal arraignments, whether they are occurring at the district court or the circuit court three things are essential: (1) the reading of the charges the defendant faces, (2) the determination or modification of bond, and (3) the setting of a pretrial or probable cause hearing, which is determinate on whether the criminal case is a misdemeanor or felony.

Michigan criminal arraignments are highly important because they are the first time the court is going to be seeing the defendant for the particular case and this is also the determination of bond, which allows the defendant the ability to be released pending the criminal charges. The bond that is determined at a Michigan criminal arraignment is based upon multiple factors and can granted in multiple forms. Some factors influencing bond at a Michigan criminal arraignment include but are not limited to, prior criminal history, employment status, and living status. Whenever you have or believe you will be charged for a criminal misdemeanor or felony you should always obtain a Michigan criminal attorney. Moreover, you should never rely on this website or any other website or information online if you are attempting to represent yourself or your interests in any court within Michigan or the United States.

Marijuana Clones Are Plants As Explained By Michigan Court Of Appeals

The Michigan Court of Appeals explained in August 2016, that marijuana clones are plants for purposes of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) when the marijuana clone has a readily identifiable root system. In People v Ventura, the Court of Appeals had to deal with a case of first impression here in Michigan and with the MMMA. The key issue that the Court had to handle and deal with involved whether marijuana clones are plants? In many circumstances, MMMA patients and caregivers that are manufacturing or growing their own marihuana plants partake in the process of cloning their marijuana.

The process of cloning is essentially the taking of a stem and leaf from a mature mother marihuana plant. The taking of the stem and leaf is brought on but cutting the stem at a specific point on the marihuana plant, which then provides the patient or caregiver a clone that can be revitalized  and grow into a mature, budding marihuana plant. The process of when marijuana clones are plants is one of first impression here in the State, even though many individuals understand that once the marijuana clone is cut it is not automatically a plant. In People v Ventura, the Court of appeals took a similar approach and stated that even when a marijuana clone is in soil or growing material it does not automatically make it a plant. Instead, the Court explained that a marijuana clone is a plant when there is “readily observable evidence of a root system.” The court looked to outside material, which included Idaho State court case and Federal cases in determining the extend of when a marijuana clone is a plant, or becomes one. The has identified this analysis or definition as the “root formation standard,” which as of today looks to be used throughout MMMA cases. Moreover, the Court explained that when “applying [the root formation standard], ‘a court must be permitted to use its eyesight and common sense to conclude that it has before it a plant with roots.”

The MMMA is an ever-changing landscape, and for that reasoning it is important to always seek and obtain legal advice and counsel when dealing with activities involving the MMMA. The court in People v Ventura has again limited and explained the atmosphere involving the MMMA and when a marijuana clones are plants, which is at the time when there is “readily observable evidence of a root system.” Never rely on information on this website or any where on the internet when attempting to engage in activity that could be or is potentially criminal in nature or when attempting to provide your own defense within a court of law within Michigan or any State or Federal court within the United States. Lawyer know the law, maintain your rights, so lawyer-up today.

Distributing Sexually Explicit Material Of Another

Here in the State of Michigan, it is now a criminal misdemeanor is an individual if found to be distributing sexually explicit material of another. In  2016, Michigan modified the criminal code by adding in a misdemeanor offense of anyone distributing sexually explicit material of another. In fact, distributing sexually explicit material of another encompasses more than simple distribution.

MCL § 750.145e definitions dissemination, by incorporating distribution, as “post, distribute, or publish on a computer device, computer network, website, or other electronic device or medium of communication.” Specifically speaking, the statute states that a “person shall not intentionally and with the intent to threaten, coerce, or intimidate disseminate any sexually explicit visual material of another person.” Moreover, in order to be convicted of the crime under MCL § 750.145e, the victim (or other person) must be less than 18 years of age; the other person is identifiable in the material, the other person would reasonable believe the material to be private, and there was no consent for such dissemination.  There are also limitations on when distributing sexually explicit material of another will not be considered a violation of the act.

These situations that are excluded from violations, included but are not limited to, to a person engaged in an interactive computer service, information service, telecommunications service, or cable service. These exclusions have specifically defined parameters for the type of service that is included within that section of the statute. These exclusions are limited to specific individuals as well, such as those reporting the crime or police officers, which goes to show the protection afforded for reporting such crimes and acts.

If an individual is convicted of the crime distributing sexually explicit material then he or she is facing a 93-day criminal misdemeanor, plus fines and costs. The statue also provides for individuals who are convicted more than once for the crime of distributing sexually explicit material, bringing about a 1-year criminal misdemeanor if convicted. Lastly, if convicted of distributing sexually explicit material you are not precluded from convictions that could arise from the same acts or circumstances, which may or may not expose greater criminal sanctions. It is always necessary to contact a criminal defense attorney if you believe you will be or you actually have been charged with the crime of distributing sexually explicit material or other criminal misdemeanor or felony here in the State of Michigan.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO NEVER RELY ON THIS INFORMATION OR ANY INFORMATION FROM ANY WEBSITE OR THIRD PARTY ADVICE CONCERNING ANY LEGAL DEFENSE, TACTIC, PROCESS OR PROCEDURE. YOU MUST AND SHOULD ALWAYS CONTACT, DISCUSS AND CONSULT WITH PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION PRIOR TO OR ATTEMPTING TO DEFENDANT YOURSELF WITHIN A COURT OF LAW.

People v Simmons – Outlines Temporary License Plates

In People v Simmons, the Michigan Court of Appeals outlines the downfall of having a temporary license plate on an individual’s motor vehicle here in the State of Michigan. The reason that this opinion on temporary license plates has such a big impact on individual’s is because the opinion now allows for officers to stop a motor vehicle if the license plate is not properly visible.

The individual defendant in People v Simmons had a temporary license plate on the back of his motor vehicle, but he did not have anything in the plate holder. The officer performed a traffic stop on the defendant, and as he approached the vehicle he again searched for a license plate, which he found; however, as he was three (3) or four (4) feet away from the vehicle he was still unable to read any printing on the paper plate. The officer continued his approach to the defendant’s vehicle, made contact with him, and then he proceeded to ask the general questions of: license, insurance and registration. In the end, the defendant did not have proper registration and his license was suspended. The defendant was subsequently arrested, and the vehicle was then searched, which brought about a finding of contraband in the vehicle.

The Court of Appeals explained that the officer was justified in stopping the vehicle for a violation of MCL 257.225(2) because the plate was not in a clearly visible position or in a clearly legible condition. The court went on to explain that the officer was unable to properly view the license plate while the officer was on patrol in his police cruiser, but also the officer was unable to view the temporary license plate as he approached the view and only a few feet away from it. The purpose of the statue is to properly place and have in view a temporary license plate, even those paper license plates. An important note on this case and the court of appeals opinion is that the court also identified the temporary license plate as being unreadable, which is also a requirement of the license plate statute. So in the end, it does matter where the temporary license plate is placed, but also that it can be read, meaning that the temporary license plate should be typed or used with a dark ink to ensure that it is visible.

This case is important on many levels because of the buying and selling of cars and the use of paper temporary license plates. Many individuals do not recognize the concern when using a temporary license plate; however, it is necessary to ensure that your temporary license plate is properly placed and properly visible. A minor mistake such as this can possibly lead to criminal charges depending on what is occurring inside the vehicle if and when it is stopped. This statement becomes valid if an officer stops a motor vehicle for an improperly placed or un-visible temporary license place, which has been ruled as a valid traffic infraction. Know the law, maintain your rights, and always lawyer-up.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO NEVER RELY ON THIS INFORMATION OR ANY INFORMATION FROM ANY WEBSITE OR THIRD PARTY ADVICE CONCERNING ANY LEGAL DEFENSE, TACTIC, PROCESS OR PROCEDURE. YOU MUST AND SHOULD ALWAYS CONTACT, DISCUSS AND CONSULT WITH PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION PRIOR TO OR ATTEMPTING TO DEFENDANT YOURSELF WITHIN A COURT OF LAW.