898 N.W.2d 229
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Callen Trent Latz charged under Michigan's illegal transportation of marijuana statute (MCL 750.474) after being stopped with marijuana in a motor vehicle.
- The case raises whether the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., preempts or provides immunity from prosecution under the transportation statute.
- The majority opinion (not included here) applied a traditional preemption/conflict analysis and concluded the MMMA preempts the transportation statute; Judge O’Connell dissents.
- O’Connell argues the MMMA is an "anti-enforcement" statute that grants immunity to compliant patients rather than creating affirmative rights or repealing penal statutes.
- He contends the transportation statute is valid but does not conflict with the MMMA if the defendant is compliant; therefore the proper remedy is remand for a factual determination of MMMA compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MMMA preempt or invalidate the illegal transportation statute? | Transportation statute is valid and enforceable. | MMMA preempts or immunizes medical users from prosecution under the transportation statute. | O’Connell: Transportation statute is valid; MMMA does not universally repeal it but provides immunity for MMMA-compliant individuals. Remand for compliance determination. |
| What is the proper analytic framework to resolve conflicts between MMMA and later statutes? | Apply traditional statutory preemption/positive conflict analysis. | MMMA is an anti-enforcement statute; use a presumption of constitutionality and ask whether immunity applies to compliant conduct. | O’Connell: Rejects purely traditional approach; presumes new law constitutional and asks whether an MMMA-compliant individual would be immune. |
| Does the MMMA create an affirmative right to possess/use marijuana or merely immunity from prosecution? | (Plaintiff implicitly treats it as not creating a blanket defense.) | MMMA provides limited immunity, not an affirmative right; penal statutes remain in force. | O’Connell: MMMA grants limited immunity to those who comply; it does not repeal penal statutes. |
| What remedy is appropriate when preemption/conflict is disputed as to a defendant? | Enforce the transportation statute if not preempted. | If defendant is MMMA-compliant, dismiss charges based on immunity. | O’Connell: Remand to trial court to determine MMMA compliance; if compliant, dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kolanek, 491 Mich 382; 817 NW2d 528 (2012) (MMMA does not create affirmative state-law right and does not repeal penal or public health code drug prohibitions)
- People v. Redden, 290 Mich App 65; 799 NW2d 184 (2010) (MMMA construed as providing a procedure to identify and protect seriously ill users from prosecution)
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1; 846 NW2d 531 (2014) (analysis of positive conflict between laws—laws cannot consistently stand together to the extent of irreconcilable conflict)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 US 739 (1987) (facial constitutional challenges require showing no set of circumstances in which the statute would be valid)
- Phillips v. Mirac, Inc., 470 Mich 415; 685 NW2d 174 (2004) (presumption of constitutionality of statutes)
- Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby, 423 Mich 188; 378 NW2d 337 (1985) (Bill of Rights analogy limiting governmental power)
- Jott, Inc. v. Clinton Charter Twp., 224 Mich App 513; 569 NW2d 841 (1997) (time, place, and manner restrictions as permissible regulations)