Truth Seeker
New Member
In a medical marijuana case before the state Supreme Court, Grand Rapids attorney Bruce Block said the law, rather than offering protection to responsible users and growers, has instead put them at risk of arrest.
"Too many have complied with the plain language of the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marihuana Act) only to have the proverbial carpet yanked from beneath them after they were raided by SWAT teams in riot gear and automatic weapons and charged with serious drug felonies," Block wrote in a 47-page filing before the high court.
He argued that the medical marijuana law, approved overwhelmingly by 63 percent of voters, "must be construed in its most limiting form against the state. ... This Act was clearly intended to change the attitude of the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of the State of Michigan.
"The people of Michigan wanted a fundamental attitude change towards marijuana," Block wrote. "This court is now faced with being the final protector of the will of the people in this regard."
Block, who specializes in medical marijuana cases, is representing Ryan Michael Byslma, a licensed medical marijuana caregiver who set up a grow operation in a Grand Rapids commercial warehouse at 470 Market Ave. SW
The trouble came on Sept. 15, 2010, when a city water inspector saw an orange extension cord going into Bylsma's unit. He had the building maintenance manager cut the lock to investigate the "illegal electrical line."
The open door revealed marijuana plants in various stages of growth, and police responded with a search warrant.
Authorities seized 88 plants and they also took five ounces of usable marijuana, fertilizers, grow lights and security system with cameras. Bylsma maintained that he only possessed 24 plants, the number he was licensed to grow. The rest belonged to other licensed growers.
After a two-day hearing, in which the other growers showed they were licensed, and owned the plants, a Kent County Circuit Court judge denied Bylsma's motion to dismiss under the law because it contains a requirement that each of the 12 plants permitted a medical marijuana user be kept in an "enclosed, locked facility that can only be accessed by one person."
While secure, Bylsma's operation had a single lock, and was accessible to other growers.
The state Court of Appeals ruled he "possessed" all 88 plants, and lost immunity under the state law.
Block, challenging the definition of "possession" under the state medical marijuana provision, doesn't dispute that his client was not the designated caregiver for others with marijuana in the shared grow area.
He said Bylsma didn't possess the plants. At most, he had custody of plants owned by others. He had no intent to violate the law.
"Can definitions formulated over the last 72 years when all marijuana was per se illegal still be applied to medical marijuana cases, such as (Bylsma's)? Restated, did the voters intend the MMMA to supplant the existing definition of 'possession' in the context of medical marijuana? The answer is 'yes.'"
"The traditional definition of possession of marijuana must be replaced with a workable definition, which incorporates notions of physical possession, exclusive dominion, and control ... . The spouse who retrieves a prescription from the pharmacy would ... be surprised to learn that they possess the controlled substances in the medicine bottles."
Block said too many have faced drug charges even though they believed they were following the law. That includes his client, he said.
"Instead of playing the game of 'aha-gotcha' and charging citizens with serious drug felonies because they failed to comply with some heretofore unknown requirement of a simple law, the legal system, including law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges need to use wide discretion when evaluating medical marijuana cases such as the present one."
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: mlive.com
Author: John Agar
Contact: Contact Us - MLive.com
Website: Grand Rapids lawyer: Medical marijuana providers targeted, not protected by Michigan law | MLive.com
"Too many have complied with the plain language of the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marihuana Act) only to have the proverbial carpet yanked from beneath them after they were raided by SWAT teams in riot gear and automatic weapons and charged with serious drug felonies," Block wrote in a 47-page filing before the high court.
He argued that the medical marijuana law, approved overwhelmingly by 63 percent of voters, "must be construed in its most limiting form against the state. ... This Act was clearly intended to change the attitude of the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of the State of Michigan.
"The people of Michigan wanted a fundamental attitude change towards marijuana," Block wrote. "This court is now faced with being the final protector of the will of the people in this regard."
Block, who specializes in medical marijuana cases, is representing Ryan Michael Byslma, a licensed medical marijuana caregiver who set up a grow operation in a Grand Rapids commercial warehouse at 470 Market Ave. SW
The trouble came on Sept. 15, 2010, when a city water inspector saw an orange extension cord going into Bylsma's unit. He had the building maintenance manager cut the lock to investigate the "illegal electrical line."
The open door revealed marijuana plants in various stages of growth, and police responded with a search warrant.
Authorities seized 88 plants and they also took five ounces of usable marijuana, fertilizers, grow lights and security system with cameras. Bylsma maintained that he only possessed 24 plants, the number he was licensed to grow. The rest belonged to other licensed growers.
After a two-day hearing, in which the other growers showed they were licensed, and owned the plants, a Kent County Circuit Court judge denied Bylsma's motion to dismiss under the law because it contains a requirement that each of the 12 plants permitted a medical marijuana user be kept in an "enclosed, locked facility that can only be accessed by one person."
While secure, Bylsma's operation had a single lock, and was accessible to other growers.
The state Court of Appeals ruled he "possessed" all 88 plants, and lost immunity under the state law.
Block, challenging the definition of "possession" under the state medical marijuana provision, doesn't dispute that his client was not the designated caregiver for others with marijuana in the shared grow area.
He said Bylsma didn't possess the plants. At most, he had custody of plants owned by others. He had no intent to violate the law.
"Can definitions formulated over the last 72 years when all marijuana was per se illegal still be applied to medical marijuana cases, such as (Bylsma's)? Restated, did the voters intend the MMMA to supplant the existing definition of 'possession' in the context of medical marijuana? The answer is 'yes.'"
"The traditional definition of possession of marijuana must be replaced with a workable definition, which incorporates notions of physical possession, exclusive dominion, and control ... . The spouse who retrieves a prescription from the pharmacy would ... be surprised to learn that they possess the controlled substances in the medicine bottles."
Block said too many have faced drug charges even though they believed they were following the law. That includes his client, he said.
"Instead of playing the game of 'aha-gotcha' and charging citizens with serious drug felonies because they failed to comply with some heretofore unknown requirement of a simple law, the legal system, including law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges need to use wide discretion when evaluating medical marijuana cases such as the present one."
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: mlive.com
Author: John Agar
Contact: Contact Us - MLive.com
Website: Grand Rapids lawyer: Medical marijuana providers targeted, not protected by Michigan law | MLive.com
