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.

No Criminal Charges For Refusing Blood Draws – Birchfield v North Dakota: Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently rendered an opinion, in Birchfield v North Dakota, indicating that criminal charges cannot ensue for individuals refusing blood draws after being requested by a police officer. North Dakota previously criminally punished individuals for refusing breathalyzers. Here in the State of Michigan, refusing breathalyzers does not bring about criminal punishment; however, it is worth a scholarly analysis to review the SCOTUS opinion.

The Court was concerned with whether the requirement of providing a breath test is controlled by the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The issue also revealed around the idea of taking blood as well as a breath test. The court was more concerned, or so it seemed, with the idea of taking blood from an individual. This is considered more intrusive than a simple breathe test. Traditionally, officers are allowed to take a warrantless breathe test after an individual has been arrested for suspected drunk driving. However, this has not always been the case for the taking of blood.

The Court ruled that States are not allowed to impose criminal sanctions on individuals refusing to submit to blood draws, even in the face of an implied consent law. For example, here in Michigan if an individual refuses a blood draw then they are not criminal punished. Instead, Michigan brings about civil repercussions for refusal, which includes the suspension of the individual’s drivers license. It is also important to note that Michigan does allow individual’s who have refused for the first time an opportunity to petition for a restricted drivers license during their time of suspension. It is important to know the laws among various states and to know what will happen if you attempt to invoke your constitutional records. The opinion by SCOTUS protects some constitutional rights; however, it is necessary to invoke those rights.

Know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up. AND 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.

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Breakdown – Utah v Strieff

The U.S. Supreme Court in Utah v Strieff upset many individuals with its opinion because the court essentially allowed for illegally obtained evidence to be used to convict an individual due to the attenuation doctrine. The issue before the Court, in Utah v Strieff, was based upon facts as follows: an officer was investigation a drug house for numerous days, and the defendant in the case was exiting said house, he was stopped by the officer, questioned about where he was going, where he had been, and what he was doing. Subsequently, the officer had the individual ran through the department’s computer system, and upon completing the search an outstanding warrant for an unpaid ticket appeared. The officer then arrested the individual on the warrant, and incident to that arrest performed a warrantless search of the defendant, finding illegal contraband on his person.

The Court, in Utah v Strieff, examined this case using a legal doctrine that that allows for illegally or improperly obtained evidence to be admissible in a trial if there was some act or event that would essentially allow for the evidence to become legally or properly obtained. This means the event or act trumps the illegality, refreshing the evidence and allowing it to now be admissible in trial. Prior to the opinion in Utah v Strieff, courts generally only looked to two events capable of trumping illegality, which was consent to search or by confession. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, explained that the outstanding warrant was an event that can trump the prior illegality committed by the Officer because essentially the warrant refreshed the officer’s ability to act, arrest or search the individual defendant. Moreover, the court indicated that it was separate from the illegal actions of the officer performing his job, which is to arrest or search when an individual has an open warrant. This means the illegal conduct, stop and confrontation by the officer becomes irrelevant when attempting to suppress or dismiss evidence later obtained.

The issue in Utah v Strieff, surrounded around whether there was illegality performed by the officer. The reason for this is due to the fact that if the defendant was able to show that the officer illegality or improperly stopped the individual then he has the ability to ask the court to dismiss or suppress all evidence obtained after the improper or illegal act. The court in Utah v Strieff, essentially said that “yes, the officer acted improperly when first stopping and confronting the Defendant, yet upon learning of the warrant, the actions of the officer are appropriate and all evidence is admissible.” This opens up numerous arguments for the State, Township, City or Municipality attempting to prosecute individual defendants. Know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up. Josh Jones is a criminal defense attorney, handling criminal and traffic cases and cases like Utah v Strieff for defendants throughout 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.

Restoring Your Privilege To Drive: Michigan License Restoration

Michigan license restoration begins and ends with obtaining the correct and appropriate documentation, proof, and advocating in order to obtain your privilege to once again drive a motor vehicle. This is why Michigan license restoration requires determining first why your license has been suspended, denied or revoked. There are specific reasons for these types of suspensions or revocations, and why Michigan license restoration becomes so important. Some of the most common reasons and ways individuals lose their ability to drive a motor vehicle include, but are not limited to the following:

a. OWI

b. OWI Causing Serious Bodily Injury/Death

c. OWI Repeat Offenses

d. OWI High BAC (“Super Drunk” allegations)

e. OWI Refusals (Implied Consent Violations)

f. Miscellaneous Criminal Offenses: (1) Possession of Controlled Substances (2) Flee/Elude Police (3) Felony Vehicle Advisory (MCL 257.319) (4) Automobile Theft/Joyriding (5) Reckless Driving

g. Point Accumulation

h. Medical Issues

i. Accidents Resulting in Fatalities

j. Probationary Drivers with Points

Once an individual has identified why his or her license is revoked or suspended, the next phase in Michigan license restoration is determining how to make corrective life choices in order to show the Michigan Driver License Appeal Board why you deserve the privilege of the State reinstating your ability to drive. In many situations, an individual will be required to wait a specific period of time prior to appealing or petitioning the State for his or her driver’s license, which can delay the Michigan License Restoration process. Therefore, it becomes important to always obtain a license restoration lawyer in order to properly and efficiently handle your Michigan License Restoration matter or situation. Filing an appeal and being denied after a hearing could force you to wait another year or longer to re-file your appeal or petition for a drivers license.

It is so imperative to make sure that everything is in order prior to filing an appeal. Why spend the time, resources, and finances if you do not want to be successful at your Michigan license restoration hearing? This is why you need to file someone who understands the process and what the administrative judges are looking for in each given situation when a Michigan license restoration is involved. Josh Jones handles these matters through Metro-Detroit, Genesee and Lapeer Counties. If you believe that you may qualify for a Michigan License Restoration make sure you take the right steps towards successful driving privileges.

IT IS A MATTER OF COURSE THAT YOU NEVER RELY ON ANY INFORMATION WHEN YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT YOURSELF IN ANY COURT OR BEFORE ANY JUDGE OR JURY, AND YOU SHOULD NEVER RELY ON ANY INFORMATION ON THIS SITE OR ANY OTHER SITE OR MEDIA SOURCE WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING ADEQUATE LEGAL ADVICE AND REPRESENTATION BEFORE MAKING THE DECISION TO USE OR ATTEMPT TO USE ANY POSSIBLE DEFENSE OR OTHER LEGAL THEORY OR PROCEDURE.

Reporting Systems: Criminal Background Checks, Driving Records, and More

A criminal background check is one of the most common and popular public means of obtaining someone’s criminal history or record. However, did you know there are various ways to perform criminal background checks on individuals? Moreover, did you know that there is centralized agency that attempts to collect and maintain all criminal records reported to them from various states, agencies, and departments? Did you know that these records include more than just simple criminal background checks?

Here in Michigan there are multiple reporting systems. One of those reporting systems, which essentially is a complete and extensive criminal background check includes driving records, concealed pistol licenses, various certifications, death records, missing person reports, insurance information and more. This is a statewide computer system that allows the various agencies, courts, and departments to maintain and share information to each other. This system also allows for reporting to other various states throughout the US. The information that is reported to another state is limited and controlled by agreements, state reporting policy and other circumstances and considerations.

For example, an individual’s driving record is not always shared to another state. In fact, the sharing of an individuals driving history is based upon the state that is taking action against the driver, meaning it is that State that determines whether they report information and to whom. Michigan generally reports all driving information to other states, exception in some instances. Furthermore, it should be known that insurance companies are not cooperating with States and their individual reporting agencies or databases in order to provide up-to-date insurance information on individual motor vehicles. Michigan is now able to access and determine by a license plate whether the motor vehicle connected to that plate has appropriate car insurance.

Its always important to remember that a criminal background check does not necessarily mean a criminal background check. The information and discussion noted above does not include third party criminal background checks, which can incorporate much of the information that Michigan’s LEIN reporting system does. However, the accuracy of that information may not be on par. With that said, even Michigan’s LEIN system is not always accurate, and after performing an appropriate criminal background check it may be discovered that information is being mis-reported.

It always becomes essential that an individual charged with a criminal misdemeanor or felony or even cited for a traffic ticket should obtain a criminal defense attorney, such as Josh Jones. Having representation could afford you the unnecessary hassle of having issues with criminal background checks. Always lawyer-up.

Josh Jones Is Your Macomb County Criminal Lawyer

Whenever you are charged with a crime, issued a traffic ticket, violated for probation or need someone to assist in getting you your Michigan driver’s license back, you need a Macomb County Criminal Lawyer. Josh Jones is your Macomb County Criminal Lawyer because he is here for your 7-days a week and maintains a full service criminal defense law firm, specializing in marijuana defense. Did you know that a Macomb County Criminal Lawyer can drastically and dramatically assist you if you are ever charged within a crime or traffic ticket? Did you know that there are multiple courts found within Macomb County? Did you know that depending on the type of criminal citation or charge you could be having to proceed through two different courts within Macomb County? Did you know there are many Macomb County Criminal Lawyers that can assist you 7-days a week?

Josh Jones, a Macomb County Criminal Lawyer, is one that handles exclusively and entirely all criminal matters, including but not limited to the following:

• ALL Felonies & Misdemeanors

• ALL Attempted Criminal Conduct

• Aggravated Assault

• Assault or Assault & Battery

• Controlled Substances – Use or Possession

• Controlled Substances – Delivery or Manufacture

• Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) – All Degrees

• Maintaining A Drug Vehicle

• Maintaining A Drug House

• Delivery of Marijuana

• Manufacturing Marijuana

• Possession of Marijuana

• Delivery of marijuana without remuneration

• Use of marijuana

• Disorderly Conduct or Persons

• Disturbing the Peace

• Domestic Violence

• Drunk Driving [OWI/OWVI/OWPD/DUI]

• Drivers License Restoration

• Driving w/License Suspended/Revoked/other

• Criminal Expungements

• Home Invasion – All Degrees

• Larceny or Larceny in a Building

• Minor In Possession

• Nuisance Parties

• Probation Violations

• Prostitution or Solicitation

• Reckless Driving

• Retail Fraud  – All Degrees

• Traffic Tickets

• Implied Consent Hearing

• Traffic Citations

• CarelessDriving

• RecklessDriving

• Armed or Unarmed Robbery

• Drug Driving [OWI/OWVI/OWPD/DUI]

• Criminal Trespassing

• Improper Transport of Medical Marihuana

• Fleeing And Eluding

• No Operators License on Person

• Malicious Destruction of Property

 

If you have been charged with a crime or have a criminal or traffic matter that is not listed above, contact Josh Jones, Macomb County Criminal Lawyer in order to obtain information on his services. He can assist you with any criminal matter brought in a Michigan Circuit or District Court. Macomb County is broken up into on Circuit Court and multiple District Courts. Depending upon the criminal or traffic matter, your issue will be dealt with in one of the two courts. Generally, all misdemeanors are handled by Macomb County District Courts and felonies are handled by the Macomb County Circuit Court. Contact a Macomb County Criminal Lawyer today for your free consultation and understanding of your trial rights, options, and risks.

Never rely on any information when attempting to or wanting to represented yourself in a court of law. Always consult and hire an experienced criminal defense attorney in order to assist you with your matter, whether criminal or civil. The information on this website is simply information and opinions, which does not replace competent and adequate legal representation. Always lawyer-up.

Teen Sexting In Michigan – Is It Child Pornography?

While reviewing some recent news articles, I stumbled across one discussing a hot topic or issue extending from Bay County, Michigan. The article was discussing teen sexting and the possible ramifications and implications of teenagers sending photos through text message. At first thought, my moralistic gut was screaming “wait, what?” But eventually, my legal brain started to process, and then the comments and suggestions began to make sense, criminally speaking.

Lets begin by first explaining and outlining the idea of teen sexting. Sexting in general is the use of a text message to engage in, discuss, and express sexual preferences, acts, desires, and opinions between individuals. Essentially, the term “sexting” has been invented over the years as there has been an increase in technological advancement. Teen sexting, therefore, involves individuals under the age of 18. This is where the predicament and issues of teen sexting lie. The words themselves may not be of legal consequence when examining teen sexting issues; however, when an individual teen begin to send photos, videos or other types of multimedia to another individual teen (or anyone for that matter) the individual sender (and even receiver) could have potentially committed a criminal and illegal act.

The reasoning there is possible criminal consequence behind photos, videos or other types of multimedia depicting a teen is due to the laws and protections on child pornography. Pornography itself, as you may know, is legal and can be possessed by individuals of legal age (which is 18 years old); however, the individual depicted or the individual in possession must also be at or over legal age. Therefore, it becomes apparent why criminal consequences, convictions, and charges can and do extend from individuals engaging in sexting, at least when one or both of the individuals are under the age of 18.

This brings about another issue and point that should be made while discussing this topic, which is that the legal age of consent to engage in sex is 16 years old. This means that individuals 16, 17, or 18 can engage in legal sexual acts between one another, except in situations that bring about a showing of authority, mental incapacity or otherwise found illegal by the criminal sexual conduct statutes here in Michigan. In the end, individual teens legally engaging in sex could potentially be found illegally creating, possessing or distributing child pornography due to teen sexting. This theory also holds true to individuals not legally allowed or of age to engage in sex, but are engaged in teen sexting that involves the use of multimedia (i.e. child pornography).

The reasoning teen sexting becomes such a huge issue and concern is partially due to the comments and opinions noted above; however, there is still the concern of sex entering into a child’s or teenager’s life too early. Bay County has recently taken an effort to educate and distribute some of the ideals discussed in this article, yet it remains with the children’s home and parents, teachers, relatives, etc. We must educate our young and reveal to them the possible consequences and repercussions if they are not acting appropriately within this new and fast pace digital world. Teen sexting can be a problem, and it can have major repercussions, so know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up.

Possessing Reproduced or Forged Drivers License

Here in the State of Michigan there is a criminal misdemeanor charge for possessing reproduced or forged drivers license. In fact, the criminal charge includes possessing a reproduced, altered, counterfeit, forged or duplicate drivers license. MCL 257.310.

The statute states possessing reproduced or forged drivers license photograph, negative of the photograph, image, license, or electronic data contained on a license or part of a license is guilty of a misdemeanor.” MCL 257.310(10). If an individual is found guilty of the crime possessing reproduced or forged drivers license will not only be found guilty of a misdemeanor, but they will also face a possible punishment of imprisonment for not more than 1 year and/or a fine of not more than $2,000.00. MCL 257.310(7)(c).

There is, however, an exception to the general rule of possessing reproduced or forged drivers license. The general rules does “not apply to a person who is in possession of 1 or more photocopies, reproductions, or duplications of a license to document the identity of the licensee for a legitimate business purpose.” MCL 257.310(16).

Moreover, it should be noted that if an individual is convicted of possessing reproduced or forged drivers license there is no licensing sanction imposed for the offense. This is important because the drivers license or ability to operate a motor vehicle legally remains intact. Therefore, a conviction is not and will not be reported to the Michigan Secretary of State (SOS). MCL 257.732(16)(b).

It is important to understand the difference between those crimes that impact or can influence an individuals driving record and drivers license. For instance, because this is not reported to the SOS an individual’s car insurance company should not increase an individual’s rates. This is due to the fact that the conviction, again, is not reportable. In order for an increase in insurance rates there should be activity reported to the driving record. For example, a speeding ticket that has zero points is still a reportable infraction for insurance and driving record purposes. However, and similar to the reporting of possessing reproduced or forged drivers license, an impeding ticket is not reported to an individual’s driving record.

Anytime you are facing a criminal traffic or misdemeanor offense, do not represent yourself and rely on information on this website, blog or any other website or information on the internet without the assistance and advice of a criminal defense attorney. Always lawyer-up.