In early November, I attended an excellent panel discussion on the topic of medical marijuana put on by the Oakland County Bar Association; the 1/2 day seminar addressed the topic from the perspective of medical marijuana card holders that desired to legally grow their businesses along with their pot. The panel had an all-star cast, including our friend, preeminent defense lawyer Neil Rockind.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Rockind told the packed room to be on the lookout for a big-news-splash coming soon on the topic of blood testing for marijuana. The following month, Rockind, along with two other well-known medical marijuana lawyers, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Investigative & Forensic Sciences.

The primary thrust of this complaint accuses the Michigan State Police crime laboratory with negligence and, worse, intentional deceit. The complaint, in a 7-page letter to the DOJ forensic office's director, alleges that the lab is influenced by the state prosecutor's association in its method of reporting lab results such that a report that would normally support a misdemeanor charge [i.e. use of marijuana, or driving under the influence of drugs] is elevated to a felony [i.e. possession or manufacture of synthetic marijuana].

In doing so, Rockind characterizes the prosecutor's influence, in getting the lab to deviate from established scientific principles, as political; the crime lab has become politicized. The result is that a scientific lab now produces forensic reports that support a felony rather than a misdemeanor conviction.

Toward the end of the complaint, Rockind requests an audit by the DOJ's forensic office pursuant to General Accountability Office standards, as well as a Michigan State Police internal affairs investigation, apparently already underway.

If his allegations are proven, then it does give us grave concerns over here at the Law Blogger that forensic crime labs, tasked with getting to the scientific truths of a specific case, can be influenced in their reporting methods by a political organization like the prosecutor's association. We will certainly monitor this file as it moves through the DOJ.

Post #521

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

By: Timothy P. Flynn

Since the Obama Administration began in 2009, we've seen memos like this at least twice before.  But last week's long-awaited Department of Justice memorandum concerning federal law enforcement policy regarding marijuana appears to be the most significant policy statement yet, and may have the most far-reaching consequences.

In a memo to all United States Attorneys, the Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, advises prosecutors that the Justice Department will not be challenging the recently-passed state laws legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington.  Also, the memo instructs prosecutors not to base pot distribution charging decisions on the size or profitability of local marijuana dispensaries.

The policy statement was significant to the legal marijuana industry in those states as well as to the medical marijuana growers and dispensary owners throughout the country.  One of the roadblocks to the development of the industry in general has been the confusion and anxiety arising when state laws say "go", but federal law still says "no".

While this memo provides some assurances to the, er, "industry professionals" [some would say, "criminals"], it does not change the basic fact that marijuana remains a Schedule 1 drug: i.e. criminalized due its high potential for abuse, with no proven medical benefits.  Just ask the owners and operators of the dozen dispensaries recently mothballed in Northern California courtesy of Melinda Haag, the U.S. Attorney in California.

The pot lobby views the DOJ's most recent policy statement as "more good than bad."  Their optimism comes from the DOJ's encouragement of large for-profit dispensaries that adhere to DOJ guidelines, and the invitation for other states to legalize pot.

Banks and insurance companies, however, have yet to buy into the transition of the marijuana industry from a craft-oriented enterprise to industrial production.  Until that occurs, the pot farmer will just have to sleep with one eye open.

Post Script:  Here is some of the fall-out to the DOJ's policy shift announcement from Congress, here and here.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

This just in.  Illinois joins Maryland and Delaware to pass a law protecting the social media privacy of individuals from prospective employers.

Michigan also has a similar bill under consideration known as the Social Network Account Privacy Act.  The general concept of these laws is to proscribe employers or educational institutions from requiring prospects to provide account access data such as passwords or log-in information.

Many of these prospective employers are law enforcement agencies, perhaps looking to see whether their recruits have any gang connections.  Other employers seek inappropriate photos are company disparaging remarks.

This practice is widely regarded as a breach of privacy.  Further, it is a breach of the operating agreement for most sites to share a password.  While the Justice Department considers the practice of entering a social media site in violation of the site's agreement to be a federal crime; albeit, the JOD has admitted in recent congressional testimony that such crimes will, for now, go un-prosecuted.

These laws are considered by legal experts to be both pro-business and pro-privacy.  The benefits to our ever-eroding privacy are obvious.  As for business, such legislation relieves a company or educational institution from the duty of monitoring protected digital content.

We will monitor the bill currently pending in the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com