388 Indeed the court pointed out that the MMMA does not permit all types of

388 Indeed, the court pointed out that the MMMA does not permit all types of medical marijuana use under all circumstances. 389 There are situations in which it is inappropriate, such as on a school bus, or on public transportation. 390 The court explained that if the drafters of the MMMA wanted to immunize those who use marijuana while driving, they would have explicitly done so. 391 Because the MMMA does not include such immunity, the “defendant was properly charged,” the court concluded. 392 E. Immunity From Prosecution In People v. Bylsma , a search warrant executed at the defendant’s apartment yielded eighty-eight marijuana plants. 393 The defendant had 381. Koon , 296 Mich. App. at 225 (citing M ICH . C OMP . L AWS A NN . § 333.26424 (West 2012)). 382. Id. 383. Id. 384. Id. at 230 (citing M ICH . C OMP . L AWS A NN . § 333.26427(b)(4) (West 2012)). 385. See M ICH . C OMP . L AWS A NN . § 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 M ICH . C OMP . L AWS A NN . § 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. 394 He was charged with manufacturing marijuana, 395 but “moved to dismiss the charge under § 4 of the MMMA,” 396 asserting that “as the registered [primary] caregiver of two qualifying patients, he was allowed to possess 24 marijuana plants.” 397 He stated that the rest of the plants “belonged to other primary caregivers and qualifying patients.” 398 The other caregivers and patients that had plants growing in the defendant’s apartment testified at the evidentiary hearing. 399 However, the court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant had not complied with the strict requirements of the MMMA. 400 Under 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.” 401 The 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. 402 Thus, the trial court held that the defendant could not invoke the immunity provision of Section 4 of the MMMA. 403 The 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. 405 The MMMA allows a primary caregiver to possess twelve plants for each patient, but a caregiver cannot have more than five patients. 406 At the time of defendant’s arrest, he was the “primary caregiver for two qualifying patients.” 407 Therefore, he had immunity under the statute as long as “he did not possess more than 24 marijuana plants,” the court stated. 408 The court found it clear that the defendant possessed all eighty-eight plants found in his grow operation, 394. Id.