Print

[BigRedDog]

I believe this is exactly what a lot of the voters have been saying all along...   interesting that it was a "unanimous" decision too...

The state’s highest court unanimously ruled that the law approved by voters in 2008 contains plainer language and broader protections than the way in which it was interpreted by the Michigan Court of Appeals,

This doesn't mean they've let the guy off the hook...   just that he has a right to present more evidence than he was previously allowed to present!

More at:  http://www.monroenews.com/news/2012/jun/01/state-supreme-court-makes-first-medical-pot-ruling/

[Professor H]

It will be interesting to see how the lower courts now handle this - based on the 2008 language (which  i will now have to go look up...  here is the section based on the ruling)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(i4niuvmqgb1lbof2eatyc345))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26424

12 plants in a locked area...  Interesting  I can see small gardens all over that may keep the sheriffs helicopter busy if people start growing their own...   

I can see it now - farming communes leasing out dog kennels...  not sure how much a large plant will produce - to see if the crop would bring in more revenue than traditional crops, but I'm sure someone is looking at it...

[Frenchfry]

I saw another version:

Michigan Supreme Court: Medical marijuana patients safe from prosecution

The Michigan Supreme Court, in its first major ruling on a case arising from the use of medical marijuana, said today that the state's voter-approved law on medicinal pot provides relatively broad legal protection from prosecution, even for patients who do not register for a state medical marijuana card.

In a pair of cases out of Oakland and Shiawassee counties, the court ruled unanimously that lower-court interpretations of the marijuana statute had been too restrictive.

In the Oakland County case, the court said the law allows a person arrested on a marijuana-related offense to assert a medical marijuana defense, as long as the use of marijuana was recommended by a doctor after the law was enacted in 2008 and before the arrest.

Unfortunately for the defendant in the case, Alexander Kolanek, the court said he could not avail himself of the defense because his doctor’s recommendation was post-arrest.

In the Shiawassee case, the Supreme Court said defendant Larry King was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether his medical marijuana was kept in what the law would define as a secure facility.

Detroit-area medical marijuana advocate Tim Beck, who had not yet reviewed the decision this afternoon, said it sounded like the Supreme Court had overturned what he called some of the more onerous and misguided interpretations of the law by lower courts.

The state Court of Appeals, Beck said, had taken “way too narrow a view … not something that could be construed as the plain meaning of the law.”
http://www.freep.com/article/20120531/NEWS06/120531054/Michigan-Supreme-Court-Medical-marijuana-patients-safe-from-prosecution

[BigRedDog]

I saw another version:

Michigan Supreme Court: Medical marijuana patients safe from prosecution

The Michigan Supreme Court, in its first major ruling on a case arising from the use of medical marijuana, said today that the state's voter-approved law on medicinal pot provides relatively broad legal protection from prosecution, even for patients who do not register for a state medical marijuana card.

In a pair of cases out of Oakland and Shiawassee counties, the court ruled unanimously that lower-court interpretations of the marijuana statute had been too restrictive.

In the Oakland County case, the court said the law allows a person arrested on a marijuana-related offense to assert a medical marijuana defense, as long as the use of marijuana was recommended by a doctor after the law was enacted in 2008 and before the arrest.

Unfortunately for the defendant in the case, Alexander Kolanek, the court said he could not avail himself of the defense because his doctor’s recommendation was post-arrest.

In the Shiawassee case, the Supreme Court said defendant Larry King was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether his medical marijuana was kept in what the law would define as a secure facility.

Detroit-area medical marijuana advocate Tim Beck, who had not yet reviewed the decision this afternoon, said it sounded like the Supreme Court had overturned what he called some of the more onerous and misguided interpretations of the law by lower courts.

The state Court of Appeals, Beck said, had taken “way too narrow a view … not something that could be construed as the plain meaning of the law.”
http://www.freep.com/article/20120531/NEWS06/120531054/Michigan-Supreme-Court-Medical-marijuana-patients-safe-from-prosecution

Attorney General Bill Schuette has taken the same view and has also chosen to ignore the will of the the voters

[Maverick]

I agree that the Supreme Court has basically said that law enforcement and particularly prosecutors shouldn't interpret the law so "anally " and should intrepret it closer to the "plain language"of the law as it was passed.