Criminal defense lawyers face this question every day in the courts across the land. When a police office testifies in uniform, does his or her stature as a law enforcement professional add credibility to that testimony?

Our friend Neil Rockind has made a cottage industry out of effectively cross-examining the police. His prepared and relentless style and his "at war" approach to this difficult task makes him one of the best in the industry.

Recently, CNN covered this important topic that has had consequences locally and nationally in some of the high-profile police shooting cases. In this story, CNN covers the new ingredient now involved in many cases where a law enforcement officer testifies: video evidence.

If a jury is inclined to lend credibility to an officer, whether because of their uniform or their professional law enforcement status, does video evidence sway their view toward seeing the truth? Seeing what really happened in a given incident is a very useful "truth-tool" in many cases.

Other recent cases have also poked holes in the officer's credibility. For example, consider the Livingston County double murder case of Jerome Kowalski. He is considering post-conviction motions while he awaits the completion of an investigation into whether the officer in charge of his murder trial -a Michigan State Police detective- was having an affair with the judge presiding over his case: Judge Theresa Brennan.

In Kowalski's case, the detective's admitted affair with the judge casts doubt on the credibility of the officer. As an officer-in-charge, the detective did not actually provide testimony in the murder trial. On the other hand, there certainly is the appearance of impropriety when the detective is carrying on an illicit affair with the presiding judge in the case.

When a police officer is charged with a crime, or accused of using excessive force, jurors are asked to directly assess the officer's credibility. Many jurors are reluctant to second-guess an officer's split second decision regarding whether to use deadly force in a violent street encounter.

Each case will continue to be decided on its own merits. The thin blue line is getting even thinner.

Post #592

www.clarkstonlegal.com

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

52-4 District Judge
Kirsten Hartig

By: Timothy P. Flynn

This ruling is going to get some attention in high places.  Troy District Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig has ruled that Michigan's motor vehicle code provision criminalizing the operation of a motor vehicle with the presence of a controlled substance [marijuana] violates the equal protection clause of the Michigan and United States Constitutions.

The case, People v Sulaka, arose in 2010 when the accused was allegedly speeding and, when pulled-over, could not produce a drivers license.  In the process of making an arrest for this seemingly innocuous violation, the Troy Police officer detected the odor of marijuana coming from the car and took Sulaka to the hospital for a blood draw which yielded a trace amount of THC.

Our friend, Superlawyer Neil Rockind, argued that the controlled substance provision of the motor vehicle code improperly created a strict liability crime, improperly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the accused, and unconstitutionally created two classes of people treated differently under the law.

Judge Hartig was persuaded to invalidate the motor vehicle code on equal protection grounds.  Here's how the idea works: there are two classes of people subjected to the controlled substance provision of our motor vehicle code.  One group of drivers have medical marijuana cards and are permitted to have THC in their blood stream while driving, so long as the level does not impair their ability to drive [so says the Michigan Supreme Court in a recent case dealing with the medical marijuana act].  The other group of drivers has no such pot card and are strictly liable for operating a vehicle with any amount of THC in their blood.

In her ruling, Judge Hartig relied on a case from the Georgia Supreme Court that held that the effects of legally used marijuana [i.e. medical marijuana here in Michigan] are indistinguishable from the effects of illegal marijuana consumption: the driver is still buzzed under either set of circumstances.  Therefore, no rational public safety interest is served by creating these distinct classes of drivers thus, the equal protection clause of our Constitution is offended.

The case has already made one trip to the Oakland County Circuit Court for the prosecutor's appeal of Judge Hartig's initial dismissal of the case.  Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien relied on the now-reversed Court of Appeals decision in the People v Koon case, which ruled that even drivers with medical marijuana cards violated the motor vehicle code when driving with THC in their bloodstream.  [The Law Blogger's take on the Koon case is here.]

Of course, the Oakland County Prosecutor has again appealed Judge Hartig's second dismissal so the case seems destined to grind further through the appellate process.  Regardless of how Judge O'Brien rules in the [second] appeal of right, both sides are heavily invested in this case and can be expected to apply for further discretionary appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

We shall see whether the Court of Appeals will grant leave in light of our High Court's ruling in the Koon case.  At some point, our legislature needs to address the disconnect between the motor vehicle code and the medical marijuana act.

Unlike alcohol, which utilizes a blood-alcohol threshold for driving, there is no similar scale for drivers who recently smoked marijuana.  As long as there are lawyers like Rockind out there to skillfully protect the rights of the accused, this will continue to be a problem for the courts.  Perhaps its time for the legislature to act on this issue instead of leaving it up to local law enforcement, prosecutors and municipal judges.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

The Oakland County Sheriff's interpretation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and the Controlled Substances Act has forced two local marijuana facilities to lock their doors.  One of the pot-growing operations, Big Daddy's Hydro, in Oak Park, closed voluntarily; the other facility, right here in Commerce Township where this blog post is being composed, was the subject of a task-force raid.

The Oakland Press ran a front-page story on Saturday about Big Daddy's Hydro.  The facility was on the receiving end of an Oakland County Sheriff's raid back in January.  Since then, the owners were resolved to carry on their operation; an operation they insisted was legal under the MMA.  Sounds like a movie might be in there somewhere.

Before Hollywood came knocking to negotiate the movie rights to this true crime drama, however, Big Daddy's in Oak Park locked its doors.  The decision was based on the observations of its management group that "patients" were being shook down on the street after leaving the facility.  Also, it did not help that four members of the management group were charged with distribution felonies by the Oakland County Prosecutor.

Big Daddy's is consolidating pot growing and distribution operations into their Chesterfield Township facility in Macomb County, and in Detroit.  Therefore, Big Daddy's alleged violations of the MMA or the Controlled Substances Act are now in the hands of Prosecutors Eric Smith and Kym Worthy.

The more recent raid on the Commerce Township facility presents an example of an increasingly sophisticated approach to medical marijuana enforcement by the Oakland County Prosecutor.  This bust was executed by a joint task force with a federal component; the DEA.  [Remember, marijuana remains illegal in any form under federal law.]  Also, the Sheriff has commented publicly that the facility violated the Controlled Substances Act, not the MMA.

Criminal defense attorney Neil Rockind was quoted in the Oakland Press yesterday as saying, "They can try to describe it any way they want.  I know what happened...and if they want to pursue a case then I'll be there."  Yeah, sounds like Neil; never one to shy away from high-stakes criminal defense litigation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals handed prosecutors a serious weapon when it issued its People v McQueen decision last month.  The published, thus binding, decision of the Court of Appeals runs a lance through most MMA distribution schemes; at least if those involved want to make any money from their elaborate growth and distribution operations.

This brings us back to the intent of the medical marijuana referendum that passed overwhelmingly by Michigan voters in the 2008 election.  The MMA is designed to encourage a "grow-your-own" and "trade-among-friends" approach to distribution.

From the outset, those involved in growing pot have been looking to make money from the provisions of the MMA.  Because the Act is silent on pot sales, a legal debate has, er, cropped-up about whether distribution via sale is permitted or proscribed by the Act.

Also, as the Law Blogger has pointed out time and again; the premise of patients getting medical attention from marijuana, although legitimate in a number of cases, is a complete sham in the overwhelming number of patient-care provider relationships.  This scam will likely bring down the MMA in the end.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Bloomfield Hills passed an ordinance in October requiring card-carrying certified medical marijuana users to register with the Bloomfield Township Police Department. The ordinance also requires the submission of a form to the police disclosing the “patient’s” drivers license number and date of birth, whether the patient owns or rents their home, and identifying how many other patients share their home.

In addition, the ordinance limits the number of medical marijuana patients that can live at one address and prohibits growing medical marijuana anywhere in Bloomfield Township. Violation of the ordinance is a 93-day misdemeanor carrying a $500 fine.

Bloomfield Hills is among several municipalities that have passed ordinances that restrict the provisions of the Medical Marijuana Act, criminalize conduct authorized by the Act, or both.

Now the ordinance is the subject of a lawsuit filed against the township by two crafty [their “clients” are John and Jane Doe] veteran criminal defense attorneys: Tom Loeb and Neil Rockind. The lawsuit, undoubtedly heading to the Michigan Supreme Court, does not seek money damages but rather, declarative and injunctive relief.

Township by township, the MMA is coming under fire for a glaring flaw: it is a ruse for recreational pot users. Yes, there are legitimate medical marijuana users out there, in spades, for whom the MMA was designed to help. There are also many “patients” whose medical records were reviewed with a passing glance by a physician more interested in the high-volume review fees than in determining whether the person has a genuine chronic medical condition of the sort required by the MMA. The LawBlogger wonders how many certified users, among the tens of thousands of backlogged applicants, are under the age of 25; or are college kids whose only chronic condition is their desire to party down.

As these legal challenges grind through the court system over the next two or three years, the MMA will be subject to death-by-ordinance on a township-by-township basis. Attorneys Rockind and Loeb remarked in their press conference announcing their lawsuit that the ordinance in Bloomfield Hills cannot stand to the extent it contradicts a valid Michigan law.

While it may not be the best example of tightly drafted legislation; while it undoubtedly suffers from problems of perception and misconception, the MMA is a valid state law. The appellate courts will have no choice but to invalidate ordinances that limit the scope of the Act, or criminalize it’s legitimate purposes.

Once again, we pose the question: should marijuana just be outright legalized in Michigan?  We are interested in your view on this subject.  To weigh in, simply comment on this post or register a comment on the discussion board of our FaceBook fan page.

For more information about the MMA and its certification process, click on this link.

Ludington Update:  Bloomfield Hills is not the only municipality seeking to restrict the use of medical marijuana; check out the moratorium proposed in Ludington.

Royal Oak Update: Feb 3, 2011.  Now, Royal Oak is getting in on the act of restricting patients' rights under the MMA by proscribing grow operations within the city limits.

Ann Arbor Update:  Of all places, Ann Arbor is also getting in on the ordinance dance.  For its part, however, there seems to be a delay in bringing the issue to a vote, as the AA City Council continues to revise the proposed ordinance.  Compared to other municipalities, the ordinance proposed in Ann Arbor seems much more in-tune with the MMA.  As the city attempts to properly define the terms of its ordinace, one medical marijuana entrepreneur is challenging the ordinance in a law suit before it has even passed, claiming unconstitutional vagueness.

Montana Update:  For it's part, the Republican-controlled state legislature is poised to pass a bill repealing the MMA in that state.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/