388Indeed, the court pointed out that the MMMA does not permit all types of medical marijuana use under all circumstances.389There are situations in which it is inappropriate, such as on a school bus, or on public transportation.390The court explained that if the drafters of the MMMA wanted to immunize those who use marijuana while driving, they would have explicitly done so.391Because the MMMA does not include such immunity, the “defendant was properly charged,” the court concluded.392E. Immunity From Prosecution In People v. Bylsma, a search warrant executed at the defendant’s apartment yielded eighty-eight marijuana plants.393The defendant had 381.Koon, 296 Mich. App. at 225 (citing MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 333.26424 (West 2012)). 382.Id.383.Id.384.Id.at 230 (citing MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 333.26427(b)(4) (West 2012)). 385.SeeMICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 333.26427(b)(4). 386.Koon, 296 Mich. App. at 227-28. 387.Id.at 230. 388.Id. at 229. 389.Id.at 230. 390.Id.at 228 (citing MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 333.26427 (West 2012)). 391.Id.at 230. 392.Koon, 296 Mich. App. at 230. 393. 294 Mich. App. 219, 222; 816 N.W.2d 426 (2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 493 Mich. 17; 825 N.W.2d 543 (2012).
626 THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58: 593 registered as the primary caregiver for two medical marijuana patients.394He was charged with manufacturing marijuana,395but “moved to dismiss the charge under § 4 of the MMMA,”396asserting that “as the registered [primary] caregiver of two qualifying patients, he was allowed to possess 24 marijuana plants.”397He stated that the rest of the plants “belonged to other primary caregivers and qualifying patients.”398The other caregivers and patients that had plants growing in the defendant’s apartment testified at the evidentiary hearing.399However, the court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant had not complied with the strict requirements of the MMMA.400Under the statute, each set of twelve plants allowed for a patient must be designated to meet the medical needs of a specific person, and “be kept in an enclosed, locked facility that can only be accessed by one person.”401The apartment at issue “was secured by a single lock,” and the defendant had access to all of the plants, even the ones for other patients.402Thus, the trial court held that the defendant could not invoke the immunity provision of Section 4 of the MMMA.403The court of appeals affirmed.404“Section 4 of the MMMA provides immunity from arrest and prosecution to qualifying patients and primary caregivers who have been issued and possess a registry identification card,” the court wrote.405The MMMA allows a primary caregiver to possess twelve plants for each patient, but a caregiver cannot have more than five patients.406At the time of defendant’s arrest, he was the “primary caregiver for two qualifying patients.”407Therefore, he had immunity under the statute as long as “he did not possess more than 24 marijuana plants,” the court stated.408The court found it clear that the defendant possessed all eighty-eight plants found in his grow operation, 394.Id.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 64 pages?
Test, criminal law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court