Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state, 237 Ariz. 119

Background

Reed-Kaliher pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for sale and attempted possession of a narcotic for sale; he was sentenced to prison on the marijuana count and received suspended sentence with probation on the narcotic count.
While incarcerated, Arizona voters enacted the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), which allows registered qualifying patients to use medical marijuana for debilitating conditions and includes an immunity provision shielding qualifying patients from arrest, prosecution, penalty, or denial of rights or privileges for AMMA-compliant use.
After release, Reed-Kaliher obtained an AMMA registry card for chronic pain from a hip fracture. His probation officer added a condition prohibiting any possession or use of marijuana.
Reed-Kaliher sought to remove the probation condition, arguing AMMA’s immunity prevents revocation or penalty for AMMA-compliant medical marijuana use; the superior court denied relief.
The court of appeals granted relief, holding probation cannot be revoked solely for AMMA-compliant use; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide AMMA’s scope as to probationers.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AMMA’s immunity applies to persons on probation	Reed-Kaliher: AMMA immunizes any registered qualifying patient from arrest, prosecution, penalty, or denial of rights or privileges, so it covers probationers	State: statutes governing probation and drug-sentencing conditions can prohibit marijuana use by probationers and should control	Held: AMMA’s immunity applies to qualifying patients on probation; AMMA does not exclude probationers and protects AMMA-compliant use from penalty or denial of privileges
Whether a probation condition forbidding AMMA-compliant marijuana use is lawful	Reed-Kaliher: Such a condition is illegal because AMMA bars penalties for compliant use	State: Courts may impose wide-ranging probation conditions (including abstaining from otherwise lawful conduct) and §13-3408(G) bars marijuana use by those convicted of drug offenses	Held: A probation condition that threatens revocation for AMMA-compliant use is unenforceable and illegal under AMMA; courts cannot impose or enforce it
Whether AMMA is preempted by federal law (Controlled Substances Act) so state courts must enforce federal marijuana prohibition as probation conditions	State: Federal law prohibits marijuana; federal supremacy means state officers must comply with federal law, so AMMA conflicts with CSA	Reed-Kaliher: AMMA creates only limited state-law immunity and does not prevent federal enforcement; CSA does not expressly occupy the field	Held: CSA does not preempt AMMA; AMMA’s limited state-law immunity does not stand as an obstacle to Congress’s purposes, so Arizona courts need not impose probation terms forbidding AMMA-compliant use
Whether Reed-Kaliher waived AMMA rights by agreeing to a probation term to "obey all laws"	State: The probation term to obey all laws implies waiver of later claims	Reed-Kaliher: AMMA did not exist when he agreed to the term, so he could not waive rights that did not yet exist; even if attempted, such a waiver would be ineffective because AMMA forbids imposing that condition	Held: No valid waiver; a right cannot be waived before it exists, and AMMA precludes courts from imposing the challenged condition

Key Cases Cited

Gutierrez v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 226 Ariz. 395 (2011) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
State v. Gomez, 212 Ariz. 55 (2006) (give effect to electorate intent for initiative statutes)
State v. Jordan, 120 Ariz. 97 (1978) (court’s probation powers are statutory)
State v. Montgomery, 115 Ariz. 583 (1977) (probation is a privilege)
State v. Lyons, 167 Ariz. 15 (1990) (revocation of probation is a penalty)
Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (preemption principles; presumption against preempting traditional state police powers)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal CSA objectives and scope)
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014) (state medical-marijuana immunity not preempted by CSA)