Find the Michigan Supreme Court Broadens MMMA definition of Paraphernalia. Here is a recent Supreme Court decision under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

1. Michigan Supreme Court Broadens MMMA Definition of Paraphernalia
Office supplies and drug paraphernalia. One would think that the two have nothing in common. But
according to a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision, a simple sticky note can fall within the
definition of paraphernalia under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.
Maybe the first impression would be that the sticky note was used as a rolling paper. But no: it actually
met the definition of “legal drug paraphernalia” because it had writing on it that was relevant to the
harvest dates of plants being grown under the Act.
The case arose out of a raid on the home of a family with a state-approved medical marijuana user.
Neighbors had complained about a strong smell coming from the home’s basement. When the police
entered the home, even though the husband had a
valid permit, violations of the laws permitting the
growth and harvest of medical marijuana on the
premises were found, including an unlocked door
which violated the Act’s requirement that the
substance be grown only in an enclosed, locked
space.
Because of the violations, the husband and wife were arrested and charged with felonies of possessing
and manufacturing marijuana in violation of the Act. The question in the case is whether the wife
should have immunity because her spouse was authorized to grow the substances.
The Court’s ruling was fairly narrow: while it said that the sticky notes could not be used as evidence
against the wife, it could not rule that she qualified for “mere presence” immunity because the husband
was not in compliance with the requirements of the Act, i.e., leaving the marijuana in an unlocked
space. Her case has been sent back to the trial court in her county to determine whether she is in fact
immune from further prosecution, but prosecutors must prove their case without the sticky notes with
her handwriting on them.
Another recent Michigan Supreme Court case ruled that the defendant under an MMMA case has the
burden of proving his or her immunity and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. So this may
also affect the wife’s ability to avoid prison time.

2. Whatever the ultimate outcome of this case, it is an excellent illustration of how Michigan courts’
interpretation of the MMMA remains in flux. The state Supreme Court has ruled on nine cases in the
seven years since the Act was passed and each one adds to the body of law that will be used to acquit
or convict those charged with violations of the Act.
As the body of law develops, those who have been approved to use medical marijuana and those who
may be seeking approval would benefit from the counsel of an experienced and prominent drug
attorney in Berrien County to make sure that their rights are protected.
For further information or to schedule an appointment with one of our leading drug and criminal
defense attorneys at Peter J. Johnson Law Office, PLLC please visit
www.AttorneyPeterJohnson.com or contact us at 269.982.1100 .
Source: Lansing State Journal, “Sticky note can’t convict in marijuana cases, state Supreme Court
rules,” Bill Laitner, June 13, 2015
Secondary Source: Michigan Live, “Michigan Supreme Court: ‘Inconsistencies’ in medical marijuana
law still causing ‘confusion’,” Jonathan Oosting, July 29, 2015