Medical marijuana transportation law ruled unconstitutional by Benzie Co. judge

silusbotwin

silusbotwin

Well-Known Member
Yet another small victory for the little person

In following with the several other district and circuit court judges throughout Michigan, a Benzie County judge has recently ruled that a 2012 medical marijuana transportation law is unconstitutional and superseded by Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). (See also: MI AG invited to weigh in on constitutionality of marijuana transportation law)

The 2012 statute (MCL 750.474) states that: “[a] person shall not transport or possess usable marihuana as defined in [the MMMA] in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel unless the usable marihuana is 1 or more of the following:
(a) Enclosed in a case that is carried in the trunk of the vehicle.
(b) Enclosed in a case that is not readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle, if the vehicle in which the person is traveling does not have a trunk….”

A violation of the 2012 medical marijuana transport law is a “misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.”

Benzie County District Court Judge John D. Mead held oral arguments on December 18, 2014 regarding Beulah criminal defense attorney David Huft’s motion to dismiss the improper transportation of medical marijuana charge filed against his client, Olaf Johnson. Johnson was alleged to have transported his medical marijuana in the passenger compartment of his vehicle in July of 2014.
(VIEW HERE: December 18, 2014 oral arguments in People v Johnson)

Judge Mead’s January 14 Opinion and Order granted Johnson’s Motion to Dismiss and it specifically held that:

“…Defendant asserts that [the medical marijuana transport law] MCL 750.474 is unconstitutional. The Court agrees. Art. IV, §25, of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 pertinently provides, "No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only. The section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted and published at length."

With the enactment of MCL 750.474, the Legislature clearly was attempting to amend, by reference, [the MMMA] MCL 333.26427. It appears to this Court that §27 of the MMA should have been "re-enacted and published at length" to include the language put forth in MCL 750.474. The Legislature has the opportunity to legislate medical marihuana. However, it decided to place the issue squarely in the hands of the voting public.
This Court is further of the opinion that MCL 750.474, at its roots, appears to be good public policy. That being said, it is unconstitutional, and it conflicts with and is superseded by [the MMMA].”

In a final footnote to his January 14 Opinion and Order, Judge Mead stated that he personally “voted against the MMA Proposal. However, the voters have spoken, and the MMA must be enforced as written.”

Benzie County's Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Jennifer Tang-Anderson, has indicated that she has not yet determined whether the prosecutor's office will be appealing Judge Mead's dismissal of Johnson's criminal charge.
Click to expand...
 
cephalopod

cephalopod

Well-Known Member

I had a long day and this just made it for me! Especially the part about it being unconstitutional.
Silus where did you find this story?
 
Skylor

Skylor

Well-Known Member
Yeah cool, its easy to forget sometimes to open the trunk and stash your stuff.

Yet, IDK, I feel better having my stuff in a soft case in the trunk while I'm driving. Anything can and does happen on the highways, look at I-94 and that 190 car crash, even if U stopped in time, some jerk would had plowed right into your car. Then fireworks went off and some cars caught on fire.

Open alcohol isn't allowed in cars, not even in the backseat--I think thats stupid but its the law. Even if your not drinking it, if the seal is broken, its not allowed expect in the trunk. So I got little problems with this law. My weed, pipe and lighter is all in one place, easy to find and not on or near me. I gotta drive, I hope I don't crash but U never know. I broke today for a cop, he zipped out on a 2 lane road and it was a wet snow and he just crossed the center line for a half second, way ahead of me, good thing I broke, went by him 5 under vs 5 over, lol..I didn't know it was a cop at first, I broke in case it went out of control...some father taking his kids to school tis morning got killed when his car lost control and crossed over.

Shit happens on the highways, U should plan for the unexpected
 
Last edited:
DemonTrich

DemonTrich

Well-Known Member
I drive a quad cab pickup truck. anywhere inside the cab is accessible and with-in reach to me. im 6'1" and wear a 42long suit coat. I have long arms. I keep my meds in a locked secured case in the cab, but its still accessible. and its illegal and absolutely STUPID to keep in locked in the bed (easily stolen). so where do I fall into the category if I happen to get pulled over and searched?
 
silusbotwin

silusbotwin

Well-Known Member
DemonTrich said:
I drive a quad cab pickup truck. anywhere inside the cab is accessible and with-in reach to me. im 6'1" and wear a 42long suit coat. I have long arms. I keep my meds in a locked secured case in the cab, but its still accessible. and its illegal and absolutely STUPID to keep in locked in the bed (easily stolen). so where do I fall into the category if I happen to get pulled over and searched?
Click to expand...
If this ruling means what I think it does, it means you can drive with a sack in your pocket if you choose to do so. You better be prepared to fight a hell of a court battle, but I'm thinking this means you would be in the right in the end. Or maybe this could mean the cops cant even charge you for not following the attempted amendment.

Also, I am not an attorney and you should not interpret my post as legal counsel. Someone with some actual experience with the laws needs to weigh in on this. Please refer to my signature below.
 
DemonTrich

DemonTrich

Well-Known Member
I do not mind having my meds in my lock box at all. I actually prefer it this way. im too old and too much to lose to be toking and driving any more.

now if I were heading up north with my boys on a snowboarding/camping/long drive trip, then road J's are a MUST on any trip. lol
 
W

wastedcave

Active Member
DemonTrich said:
I drive a quad cab pickup truck. anywhere inside the cab is accessible and with-in reach to me. im 6'1" and wear a 42long suit coat. I have long arms. I keep my meds in a locked secured case in the cab, but its still accessible. and its illegal and absolutely STUPID to keep in locked in the bed (easily stolen). so where do I fall into the category if I happen to get pulled over and searched?
Click to expand...
they have lockable swing cases for truck beds.
 
Huel Perkins

Huel Perkins

Well-Known Member
DemonTrich said:
I do not mind having my meds in my lock box at all.
Click to expand...
Why does everyone seem to think they need a lock box or some kind of container with a lock on it? It seems like every patient/caregiver I know went out and bought something with a lock on it because they think its the law. The law says "enclosed in a case", nothing about locks yet people insist it does. Sorry for the mini rant, it's just one of those little things that bothers me, it's like no one bothers to actually read the laws...

Back to the original topic... Is this really a victory for us? Are they going to amend the law now or are we going to have to go to court to fight the same fight should this happen to us?
 
GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
DemonTrich said:
i use a tonnau (sp) cover, so no space/room for a bed tool box. plus I don't subject my meds to extreme cold temps. it knocks the trichs off the buds.
Click to expand...
Which is why shake is damn good smoke.

Note that these are all district court cases, which means they are not legal precedent and legally not binding in any other court. I don't expect prosecutors to appeal them because they know, and it is spelled out extremely clearly in this and other courts' decisions, that the law, because it is in the traffic code, is preempted by the MMMA, which disallows penalty in any manner.
 
silusbotwin

silusbotwin

Well-Known Member
Huel Perkins said:
Why does everyone seem to think they need a lock box or some kind of container with a lock on it? It seems like every patient/caregiver I know went out and bought something with a lock on it because they think its the law. The law says "enclosed in a case", nothing about locks yet people insist it does. Sorry for the mini rant, it's just one of those little things that bothers me, it's like no one bothers to actually read the laws...

Back to the original topic... Is this really a victory for us? Are they going to amend the law now or are we going to have to go to court to fight the same fight should this happen to us?
Click to expand...
I picked up a lockbox because I have a van that doesn't have a trunk so I didn't want to take a chance, but you're right, no lockbox is ever mentioned. I think it's just that with the way that LEO does whatever the fuck they can to subvert the will of the people, people try to cover their asses in every way.

Huel is right though, it does not say anything about a lockbox. The interpretation is pretty straightforward too:

Sec. 474. (1) A person shall not transport or possess usable marihuana as defined in section 26423 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.26423, in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel unless the usable marihuana is 1 or more of the following:

(a) Enclosed in a case that is carried in the trunk of the vehicle.

(b) Enclosed in a case that is not readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle, if the vehicle in which the person is traveling does not have a trunk.

(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

This act is ordered to take immediate effect.
Click to expand...
I think the locks just take care of the "readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle" part. Popo can't say it was accessible when it was locked up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top