Judges & Medical Marihuana Immunity [People v Jones] - MMMA Case - Michigan Criminal Lawyer, Josh Jones

Judges Deciding Immunity - People v Jones

On July 9, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals brought about further interpretation on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). More specifically, People v Jones explained that the decision of Section 4 Immunity is left up to the judge, but in what cases or circumstances?

Generally, an issue of fact (or a factual issue) is to be decided by a Jury (or the trier of fact), yet an issue of law (or a legal issue) is to be decided by the judge. This is long standing procedure. However, here in the State of Michigan and in certain situations and instances a judge still determines factual issues within a case. These situations include entrapment, voluntariness of statements, suppression of physical evidence, or consenting to search, to name a few.

The issues at hand in the Jones case dealt with whether or not the Defendant was a resident of the State at the time of her application and whether she was possessing marihuana for the medical use as a caregiver and patient.

The court paralleled Section 4 to the Entrapment Defense, and ultimately determined that Section 4 “fact-finding is a question for the trial court to decide. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision finding that [Section] 4 immunity fact-finding is a question for the jury is reversed.” Jones. 

People v Koon - Operating Under The Influence - MMMA - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer Josh Jones - Michigan Criminal Defense

People v Koon - Operating Under The Influence And The MMMA

It may be considered a landmark case for the Michigan Medical Marihuana community. The Michigan Supreme Court, in People v Koon, has held that individuals who qualify for immunity will not automatically be found to be driving “under the influence” simply because they internally possess medical marihuana.

The Court distinguished the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, MCL 257.625(8), from the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA), which allows for the use of medical marihuana. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the Act does forbid an individual from operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marihuana. MCL 333.26427(b). However, as the Court pointed out, the Act does not define what it means by “under the influence.”

Therefore, the Court concluded that the Motor Vehicle Code was not applicable in Koon case. The reason for this is because the MMMA specifically states that any and all other statutes within the State of Michigan that are inconsistent with the MMMA will not apply to such individuals, but of course they must first be immune as defined in the Act. It is important to note that the individuals must be engaged in the medical use of marihuana in order to qualify for this interpretation.

In the end, an individual qualifying for immunity under Section 4 will be allowed to internally possess medical marihuana and operate a motor vehicle. Yet that still begs the question of what qualifies as “under the influence” of marihuana as defined in Section 7 of the Act?

To answer this question the case will likely and seems to turn on other factors that occurred during and/or before the traffic stop, i.e. proving that you are visibly impaired or under the influence.

This means that swerving, weaving, rolling stops, speeding, and the like will all come into play when an officer is attempting to establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause that you are under the influence of marihuana or visibly impaired. More over, the factors just listed, do not include the care smelling like burnt marihuana, an individual’s eye’s being red, a roach sitting in the ashtray, or the like, which will also increase the risk and probable cause that you are driving while under the influence.

Remember, know the law, know your rights, and lawyer-up with Josh Jones. He has your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.