People v Barber - MMMA Transport Dismissal Transcript - Ingham DC - 03-04-14 Ocr

8/11/2019 People v Barber - MMMA Transport Dismissal Transcript - Ingham DC - 03-04-14 Ocr

1/16

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE 55TH DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

File No. 14-00098 SM

V

9 NICHOLAS EDWARD BARBER,

Defendant.

11

MOTION TO DISMISS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS P. BOYD, DISTRICT JUDGE

Mason, Michigan - Tuesday, March 4, 2014

12

13

14

APPEARANCES:

For the People

For the Defendant

Recorded by:

Mr. Joel Martinez P-69481)Assistant ProsecutorMr. Michael ChalhoubProsecuting Intern303 West Kalamazoo StreetLansing Michigan 48933

517) 483-6108

Ms. Stacia J . Buchanan P-61500)605 South Capitol AvenueLansing, Michigan 48933

517) 482-0222

Ms. Elaine D. Stocking CER 0703Certif ied Electronic Recorder

517) 676-8414

PEN

AD 1

6

6

www.p

c

m

FORM

Z1

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

STATE OF MICHIGAN

2 IN THE 55TH DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM

3

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN4

5F i l e No. 1 4 -0 0 0 9 8 SM

6v

7

8

9 NICHOLAS EDWARD BARBER

10 D e f e n d a n t .1

MOTION TO DISMISS12

BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS P. BOYD DISTRICT JUDGE13

Mason, Michigan - Tuesday, March 4, 201414

15 APPEARANCES:

16 For t h e Peop le

7

18

19

20 For t h e Defendan t

21

22

23

Recorded by :24

25

Mr. J o e l M a r t in e z P-69481)A s s i s t a n t Pr o s e c u t o rMr. Michae l ChalhoubPr o s e c u t i n g I n t e r n303 West KalamazooLans ing , Michigan

517) 483-6108

S t r e e t48933

Ms. S t a c i a J Buchanan P-61500)605 South C a p i t o l AvenueLans ing , Michigan 48933

517) 482-0222

Ms. El a i n e D. S to c k in g CER 0703C e r t i f i e d E l e c t r o n i c R e c o rd e r

517) 676-8414


2/16

P

18

Avw pgaC

M

FOMA13

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

8

WITNESSES:

None

EXHIBITS:

None

Argument by Mr ChaihoubArgumen by Ms BuchananRebutta argument by Mr ChalhoubRuling f the Court

4

5

6

7

39

1010

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

2

T BLE OF CONTENTS

WITNESSES:

3

None4

EXHIBITS:5

None6

Argument by Mr Chalhoub7 Argument by Ms Buchanan

e b u t t a l a rg u men t by Mr Chalhoub8 R u l i n g o f t h e Cour t

9

1

11

2

13

4

15

16

7

8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

9

11


3/16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

P

NGAD 1

3

06

6

www.p

cm 17

18

19

2

21

22

F

RM AZ1

23

24

25

Mason, Michigan

Tuesday, March 4, 2014 - a t 3:20 p.m.

THE COURT: This is 14-98 SM. People of the Stat

of Michigan versus Nicholas Barber. Mr. Barber's before

the Court with Attorney Stacia Buchanan. Mr. Barber, good

afternoon.

THE DEFENDANT: Good af ternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Buchanan, good af ternoon.

MS. BUCHANAN: Good af ternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: People of the State of Michigan are

represented by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Joel Mart ine

and Mr. Michael Chalhoub. Mr. Martinez, good afternoon.

MR. MARTINEZ: Good af ternoon, Judge.

THE COURT: Mr. Chalhoub, good af ternoon.

MR. CHALHOUB: Good af ternoon.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's begin with Mr. Chalhoub.

Why is Ms. Buchanan wrong that Sect ion 7 of the Medical

Marihuana Act , which is 333.26427(e) doesn ' t control , whic

says al l other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with

this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as

provided by this act.

MR. CHALHOUB: Your Honor, the s tatute we are

looking at , MCL 750.474, was enacted subsequent to the

Medical Marihuana. And what it did was--from reading the

plain language, the legislature intended to proscribe

Mason, Michigan

2 Tuesday, March 4 , 2014 - a t 3:20 p .m.

3 THE COURT: T h i s i s 14-98 SM Peo p le o f t h e S t a t

4 o f Mi ch i gan v e r s u s Nicho la s Ba rbe r. Mr. B a r b e r ' s b e f o r e

5 t h e C o u r t wi th A t to r n e y S t a c i a Buchanan. Mr. B a r b e r, good

6 a f t e r n o o n .

7 THE DEFENDANT: Good a f t e r n o o n , y o u r Honor.

8 THE COURT: Ms. Buchanan , good a f t e r n o o n .

9 MS BUCHANAN: Good a f t e r n o o n , your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Peo p le o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi ch i gan a r e

11 r e p r e s e n t e d by A s s i s t a n t P r o s e c u t i n g A t to r n e y J o e l Mart ine

12 and Mr. Michael Chalhoub. Mr. Ma r t in e z , good a f t e r n o o n .

13 MR MARTINEZ: Good a f t e r n o o n , Judge .

14 THE COURT: Mr. Chalhoub , good a f t e r n o o n .

15 MR CHALHOUB: Good a f t e r n o o n .

16THE COURT:

Okay. L e t ' s b e g in w i t h Mr. Chalhoub.7 Why i s Ms. Buchanan wrong t h a t s e c t i o n 7 o f t h e Medi ca l

18 Mar i huana Ac t , which i s 3 3 3 .2 6 4 2 7 e ) d o e s n ' t c o n t r o l , whic

19 s a y s a l l o t h e r a c t s and p a r t s o f a c t s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

20 t h i s a c t do no t a p p ly t o t h e medica l use o f mar ih u an a as

21 p r o v i d e d by t h i s a c t .

22 MR CHALHOUB: Your Honor, t h e s t a t u t e we a r e

23 l o o k i n g a t , MCL 7 5 0 .4 7 4 , was e n a c t e d subsequen t t o t h e

24 Med ica l Mar i huana . And what t d i d w a s - - f r o m r e a d i n g t h e

25 p l a i n l anguage , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o s c r i b e

3


4/16

4

9

1

12

13

14

15

16

PEN

GAD 18

6

6

www.p

c

m 17

18

19

2

2

22

FORM AZ1

23

24

25

methods for transportation of legal marihuana. They

contemplated the Medical Marihuana Act by stat ing that the

could transport the usable marihuana. This isn t

inconsistent with the Medical Marihuana Act as the

defendant s tated.

THE COURT: Isn t inconsistent?

MR. CHALHOUB: I t is not inconsistent because

nowhere in the Medical Marihuana Act does i t s ta te that

there s an unl imited r ight to t ransport , that-- the methods

to transport. This is just clarifying the proscribed

methods to t ransport .

THE COURT: Is there any prohibi t ion against

t ransport ing in the Medical Marihuana Act?

MR. CHALHOUB: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: And this cr iminal izes certain types o

transportat ion?MR. CHALHOUB: I t proscribes the methods that the

can use to t ransport usable--

THE COURT: Criminal izes, r ight?

MR. CHALHOUB: Yes.

THE COURT: So this cr iminal izes something that

isn t a cr ime in the other act?

MR. CHALHOUB: I t doesn t say that i t s not a

crime.

THE COURT: The Medical Marihuana Act doesn t

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

methods f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f l e g a l mar ih u an a . They

2 con templa ted t h e Medica l Marihuana Act by s t a t i n g t h a t t h e

3 c o u l d t r a n s p o r t t h e u s a b l e mar ih u an a . Th i s i s n t

4 i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e Medical Marihuana Act as t h e

5 d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d .

6 THE COURT: I s n t i n c o n s i s t e n t ?

7 MR CHALHOUB: I t i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t b ecau se

8 nowhere i n t h e Medica l Marihuana Act does i t s t a t e t h a t

9 t h e r e s an u n l i m i t e d r i g h t t o t r a n s p o r t , t h a t - - t h e methods

10 t o t r a n s p o r t . T h i s i s j u s t c l a r i f y i n g t h e p r o s c r i b e d

methods t o t r a n s p o r t .

12 THE COURT: I s t h e r e any p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t

13 t r a n s p o r t i n g i n t h e Medica l Mar ihuana Act?

14 MR CHALHOUB: No your Honor.

15 THE COURT: And t h i s c r i m i n a l i z e s c e r t a i n t y p e s

16 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ?

17 MR CHALHOUB: I t p r o s c r i b e s t h e methods t h a t t h e

18 can u s e t o t r a n s p o r t u s a b l e - -

19 THE COURT: C r i m i n a l i z e s , r i g h t ?

2 MR CHALHOUB: Yes.

21 THE COURT: So t h i s c r i m i n a l i z e s something t h a t

22 i s n t a cr ime i n t h e o t h e r a c t ?

23 MR CHALHOUB: I t d o e s n t say t h a t i t s n o t a

24 cr ime .

25 THE COURT: The Medica l Mar ihuana Act d o e s n t

- , 4


5/16

5

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

PENGAD

18

0

www.p

cm 17

18

19

2

21

22

FOR

AZ1

23

24

25

state i t s not a cr ime.

MR. CHALHOUB: Yes.

THE COURT: So is i t a cr ime under the Medical

Marihuana Act?

MR. CHALHOUB: No. It leaves open to

interpretat ion that what is the defini t ion of

transportat ion.

THE COURT: Crimes aren t open to interpretat ion.

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

The penal code is strictly construed. So either it is a

crime or it isn t a crime. And it isn t a crime under the

Medical Marihuana Act , r ight?

MR. CHALHOUB: Correct .

THE COURT: And i t is a cr ime under the penal

code.

MR. CHALHOUB: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let s cal l that inconsistent .

MR. CHALHOUB: The legislature intended to clar if

what--how they could t ransport usable marihuana.

THE COURT: Right. They intended to provide

addit ional information for the subject matter covered by

the Medical Marihuana Act .

MR. CHALHOUB: Correct , your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. You see the hole you re in,

r ight?

MR. CHALHOUB: Yes.

s t a t e i t s n o t a c r ime .

2 MR CHALHOUB: Yes.

3 THE COURT: So i s i t a cr ime unde r t h e Medica l

4 Marihuana Act?

5 MR CHALHOUB: No I t l e a v e s open t o

6 i n t e r p r e t a ti o n t h a t what i s t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f

7 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .

8 THE COURT: Crimes a r e n t open t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

9 The p e n a l code i s s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d . So e i t h e r i t i s a

10 c r i m e o r i t i s n t a cr ime . And i t i s n t a cr ime unde r t h e

11 Medi ca l Marihuana Act r i g h t ?

12 MR CHALHOUB: C o r r e c t .

13 THE COURT: And i t i s a c r ime u n d er t h e p e n a l

14 code .

15 MR CHALHOUB: Yes your Honor.

16 THE COURT: L e t s c a l l t h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t .

17 MR CHALHOUB: The l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o c l a r i f

18 what - -how t h e y c o u ld t r a n s p o r t u s a b l e mar ih u an a .

19 THE COURT: R i g h t . They i n t e n d e d t o p r o v id e

20 a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r co v ered b y

21 t h e Med ica l Marihuana Act .

22 MR CHALHOUB: C o r r e c t , y o u r Honor.

23 THE COURT: Okay. You s e e t h e h o le y o u r e i n ,

24 r i g h t ?

25 MR CHALHOUB: Yes.

5


6/16

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

THE COURT: Because the const i tut ion says you

can t do that .

MR. CHALHOUB: I assume you re ta lking about

Art icle--

THE COURT: The sect ion that I brought to your

at tent ion over the weekend--

MR. CHALHOUB: Art icle IV, Sect ion 25.

THE COURT: Right .

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

P

GAD

18

6

Ww

p

cm

2

21

17

18

19

22

FORM AZ1

23

24

25

MR. CHALHOUB: In footnote 22 of People versus

Koon the Supreme Court s tates that the MMMA is an act

complete in i tself , which fal ls outside the exception,

which is the exception, one of the exceptions to the

Art icle IV, Sect ion 25.

THE COURT: Sure. So People versus Koon isn t in

-I mean, sorry, the Medical Marihuana Act isn t in

violat ion of Art icle IV, Sect ion 25, but that s not the

question. The question is is Public Act 460 of 2012 in

violat ion of Art icle IV, Sect ion 25--

MR. CHALHOUB: Correct .

THE COURT: --which is the section--the act that

added the penal code provision at 750.474.

MR. CHALHOUB: And in Drake v Mahaney the Suprem

Court outlined the purpose of Article IV Section 25. And

i t s ta tes an act which does not assume in terms to revise

but has an amendatory effect by implicat ion is not in

6

THE COURT: Because t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s a y s you

2 c a n t do t h a t .

3 MR CHALHOUB: I assume y o u r e t a l k i n g abou t

4 A r t i c l e - -

5 THE COURT: The s e c t i o n t h a t I brough t t o your

6 a t t e n t i o n ove r t h e weekend- -

7 MR CHALHOUB: A r t i c l e IV S e c t i o n 25.

8 THE COURT: R i g h t .

9 MR CHALHOUB: I n f o o t n o t e 22 o f Peo p le v r s u s

1 Koon t h e Supreme Cour t s t a t e s t h a t t h e MMM i s an a c t

11 co mp le t e i n i t s e l f , which f a l l s o u t s i d e t h e e x c e p t i o n ,

12 which i s t h e e x c e p t i o n , one o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e

13 A r t i c l e IV S e c t i o n 25.

14 THE COURT: Sure . So Pe op l e v r s u s Koon i s n t i n

15 - I mean s o r r y , t h e Medi ca l Marihuana Act i s n t i n

16 v i o l a t i o n o f A r t i c l e IV S e c t i o n 25 b u t t h a t s no t t h e7 q u e s t i o n . The q u e s t i o n i s i s P u b l i c Act 460 o f 2012 i n

18 v i o l a t i o n o f A r t i c l e IV S e c t i o n 2 5 - -

19 MR CHALHOUB: C o r r e c t .

2 THE COURT: - - w h i c h i s t h e s e c t i o n - - t h e a c t t h a t

21 added t h e p e n a l code p r o v i s i o n a t 7 5 0 .4 7 4 .

22 MR CHALHOUB: And i n Drake Mahaney t h e Suprem

23 Co u r t o u t l i n e d t h e purpose o f A r t i c l e IV S e c t i o n 25. And

24 t s t a t e s an a c t which does n o t assume i n t e rms t o r e v i s e

25 b u t h as an am enda t o r y e f f e c t by i m p l i c a t i o n i s n o t i n

6


7/16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

violation of Article 4, Section 25. And here it amends th

const i tut ion sect ion 25--

THE COURT: Tell me again. What s the case you r

citing?

MR. CHALHOUB: People--oh Drake v Mahaney

THE COURT: Okay. And the cite?

MR. CHALHOUB: 13 Mich 481.

THE COURT: And go ahead. What does it stand for

The proposi t ion?

MR. CHALHOUB: I t s tates a const i tut ional

provision must first be a reasonable construction. And

therefore an act which does not assume in terms to revise

al ter or amend any prior act but has an amendatory effect

by implicat ion is not in violat ion of the const i tut ion

Art icle IV Sect ion 25.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. CHALHOUB: And here the act which is in

quest ion has an amendatory effect towards the Medical

Marihuana Act .

THE COURT: Yeah, there s two concepts. One is

amendment by reference and the other is amendment by

implication. Amendment by reference is unconstitutional.

Amendment by implicat ion is s imply not preferred.

Amendment by reference is sort of when you say hey this

other statute out here? It doesn t mean what it used to

PENGAD 1

16

Ykw.pe g d c o m

FOR

AZ 1

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

20

2

23

24

25

v i o l a t i o n o f A r t i c l e 4, S e c t i o n 25. And h e r e t amends t h

c o n s t i t u t i o n , s e c t i o n 2 5 - -

THE COURT: Te l l me a g a i n . Wh at s t h e c a s e y o u r

c i t i n g ?

MR CHALHOUB: Peop le - -oh , Drake v Mahaney

THE COURT: Okay. And t h e c i t e ?

MR CHALHOUB: 13 Mich 481.

THE COURT: And go ah ead . What does t s t a n d f o r

The p r o p o s i t i o n ?

MR CHALHOUB: I t s t a t e s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

p r o v i s i o n must f i r s t be a r e a so n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n . And

t h e r e f o r e an a c t which does no t assume i n t e rms t o r e v i s e ,

a l t e r , o r amend any p r i o r a c t b u t has an amen d a to ry e f f e c t

by i m p l i c a t i o n i s n o t i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ,

A r t i c l e IV, S e c t i o n 25.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.MR CHALHOUB: And, here , t h e a c t which i s i n

q u e s t i o n has an am enda t o r y e f f e c t t o ward s t h e Med ica l

Mar i huana Act .

THE COURT: Yeah, t h e r e s two c o n c e p t s . One i s

amendment by r e f e r e n c e , and t h e o t h e r i s amendment by

i m p l i c a t i o n . Amendment by r e f e r e n c e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

Amendment by i m p l i c a t i o n i s s imply n o t p r e f e r r e d .

Amendment by r e f e r e n c e i s s o r t o f when you say, hey, t h i s

o t h e r s t a t u t e o u t h e r e ? I t d o e s n t mean what t u sed t o

7


8/16


9/16

9

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

FORM AZ1

23

24

25

amendment by implicat ion rather than amendment by

reference.

MS. BUCHANAN: Yes, your Honor. I did--

THE COURT: Mr. Chalhoub argues that this real ly

only changes the Medical Marihuana Act by implicat ion as

opposed to by referencing--by fai l ing to reference i ts

t i t le in the bi l l .

MS. BUCHANAN: I disagree, your Honor. I did loo

at a case myself which is Alan versus County of Wayne 388

Mich 210, a 1972 case which actual ly makes reference to

Drake versus Mahaney. And in that case the court s tates:

Where the legislature real ly intends to amend

previous s tatutes so their operat ion is narrower or

broader than stated or previously construed to be,

this-- then this intent as expressed is not amendment

by implicat ion and cannot be rendered amendment by

implicat ion by the device of fai l ing to point out the

specif ic sect ion intended to be al tered or amended.

And then the next thing that the court says is of most

importance is that the const i tut ional dut ies and

requirements may not be avoided on the ground that may be

lot of work to comply with the constitution. So--and the

were sort of referencing some of the arguments that had

been made in ahaney and prior cases which had said that

republishing an act every t ime you want to amend i t is too

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 amendment by i m p l i c a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n amendment by

2 r e f e r e n c e .

3 MS BUCHANAN: Yes, your Honor. I d i d - -

4 THE COURT: Mr. Chalhoub a rg u e s t h a t t h i s r e a l l y

5 o n l y changes t h e Medi ca l Marihuana Act by i m p l i c a t i o n a s

6 o p p o sed t o b y r e f e r e n c i n g - - b y f a i l i n g t o r e f e r e n c e i t s

7 t i t l i n t h e b i l l .

8 MS BUCHANAN: I d i s a g r e e , y o u r Honor. I d i d 100

9 a t a c a s e my se l f which i s Alan v r s u s County o f Wayne 388

1 Mich 210, a 1972 c a s e which a c t u a l l y makes r e f e r e n c e t o

11 Drake v r s u s Mahaney. And i n t h a t c a s e t h e c o u r t s t a t e s :

12 Where t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e a l l y i n t e n d s t o amend

13 p r e v i o u s s t a t u t e s so t h e i r o p e r a t i o n i s n a r r o w e r o r

14 b r o a d e r t h a n s t a t e d o r p r e v i o u s l y c o n s t r u e d t o be ,

15 t h i s - - t h e n t h i s i n t e n t as e x p r e s s e d i s n o t amendment

16 by i m p l i c a t i o n and can n o t b e r e n d e r e d amendment by

7 i m p l i c a t i o n by t h e d e v i c e o f f a i l i n g t o p o i n t o u t t h e

18 s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n i n t e n d e d t o be a l t e r e d o r amended .

19 And t h e n t h e n e x t t h i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t s a y s i s o f most

2 i m p o r t a n c e i s t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d u t i e s and

21 r e q u i r e m e n t s may n o t b e av o id ed on t h e g ro u n d t h a t may be

22 l o t o f work t o comply w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . So - -an d t h e

23 were s o r t o f r e f e r e n c i n g some o f t h e a rgum en t s t h a t had

24 been made i n Mahaney and p r i o r c a s e s which h ad s a i d t h a t

25 r e p u b l i s h i n g an a c t e v e r y t ime you want t o amend i t i s t o o

9


10/16

1

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

FO

A23

24

25

'm sorry, as the new statute , i t was enacted in 2012 whic

much work. I would think that lan versus County of Wayne

and I read--some of this case, I think, is sort of on

point. In that case there was a statute that specifically

said th at th e powers conferred in th is act sh al l not be

affected or l imited by any other s tatute or by any charter

except as provided h erein, and I th ink th at 's sort of

similar to the provision of the Medical Marihuana Act whic

states that it supersedes all other acts. And I would

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

note, your Honor, that i t s ta tes i t supersedes al l other

acts, not all other prior acts. It s all other acts, your

Honor. And what I think we have here is two separate

issues. One is the one your Honor raised which is whether

they tr ied to amend the s tatute without complying with the

const i tut ion, and then the second is the issue of whether

there ' s ac tua l ly a conf l ic t and whether the Michigan

Medical Marihuana Act supersedes. So it s actually,

guess, two separate arguments .

THE COURT: Sure. I understand that. You re all

set. Thanks.

MS. BUCHANAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Chalhoub, anything else you wante

to argue?

MR. CHALHOUB: Your Honor, as the s tatute , MCL--

demonstrates a clear intent to clar ify the previous s tatute

1 much work. I would t h i n k t h a t A la n v e r s u s Cou n ty o f Wayne

2 and I read- - some o f t h i s c a s e , I t h i n k , i s s o r t o f on

3 p o i n t . In t h a t c a s e t h e r e was a s t a t u t e t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y

4 s a i d t h a t ~ t h powers c o n f e r r e d i n t h i s a c t s h a l l n o t be

5 a f f e c t e d o r l i m i t e d by any o t h e r s t a t u t e o r by any c h a r t e r

6 e x c e p t as p r o v i e h e r e i n , and I t h i n k t h a t ' s s o r t o f

7 s i m i l a r t o t h e p r o v i s i o n o f t h e Medi ca l Marihuana Act whic

8 s t a t e s t h a t i t s u p e r s e d e s a l l o t h e r a c t s . And I would

9 n o te , your Honor, t h a t i t s t a t e s i t s u p e r s e d e s a l l o t h e r

10 a c t s , n o t a l l o t h e r p r i o r a c t s . I t s a l l o t h e r a c t s , your

11 Honor. And what I t h i n k we h a ve h e r e i s two s e p a r a t e

12 i s s u e s . One i s t h e one your Honor r a i s e d which i s wh eth er

13 t h e y t r i e d t o amend t h e s t a t u t e w i t h o u t complying w i t h t h e

14 c o n s t i t u t i o n , and t h e n t h e seco n d i s t h e i s s u e o f whe t he r

15 t h e r e ' s a c t u a l l y a c o n f l i c t and wh eth er t h e Michigan

16 Medi ca l Mar ihuana Act s u p e r s e d e s . So i t s a c t u a l l y , I

7 g u e s s , two s e p a r a t e arg u men t s .

18 THE COURT: S u r e . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t . Yo u re a l l

19 s e t . Thanks.

20 MS BUCHANAN: Okay.

21 THE COURT: Mr. Chalhoub, a n y th in g e l s e you wante

22 t o arg u e?

23 MR CHALHOUB: Your Honor, a s t h e s t a t u t e , MCL

24 I m s o r r y , as t h e new s t a t u t e , i t was e n a c t e d i n 2012 whic

25 d e m o n s t r a t e s a c l e a r i n t e n t t o c l a r i f y t h e p r e v io u s s t a t u t

10


11/16

P

GA

18

6

6

Ww

p

cm 17

18

19

2

21

FOR

A

23

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

22

24

25

as they recognized an ambiguity in the law and that as the

decided to clarify what was proscribed. And--

THE COURT: See, the problem is that the sect ions

in Art icle IV having to do with Sect ion 24 is t i t le ,

object ; Sect ion 25 is amended by reference; Sect ion 26 s

printing and posting. See, the citizens who came together

in the Const i tut ional Convention in 1962 decided that

making laws in private or by trickery was a bad idea. And

so they have these provisions that you have to actual ly-- i

you re going to amend a law, you have to publish i t and

post it. I don t know how it could be too much work. The

have an ent ire pr int ing off ice that that s a l l they do is

print bi l ls .

MS. BUCHANAN: That was discussed.

THE COURT: So the point isn t whether or not the

legislature clearly intended to cr iminal ize certain

possession--certain transportation, excuse me. They

clearly did. The question is did they do it in a way

that s consistent with the const i tut ion and consistent wit

the members of the Const i tut ional Convention s intent that

legislation not be done in secret or by trick. The really

puzzl ing thing is I assumed as soon as I went to look at

this that I would f ind that the bi l l which was House Bil l

4856 of 2011, that s what became Public Act 460 of 2012,

would assume--I assumed that I would f ind that i t didn t

as t h e y r ecogn ized an ambigu i ty i n t h e law and t h a t a s t h e

2 d e c id e d t o c l a r i f y what was p r o s c r i b e d . And- -

3 THE COURT: See, t h e p ro b lem i s t h a t t h e s e c t i o n s

4 i n A r t i c l e IV hav ing t o do w i th S e c t i o n 24 i s t i t l e ,

5 o b j e c t ; Se c t i o n 25 i s amended by r e f e r e n c e ; S e c t i o n 26 i s

6 p r i n t i n g and p o s t i n g . See , t h e c i t i z e n s who came t o g e t h e r

7 i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Co n v en t io n i n 1962 d e c id e d t h a t

8 making l aws i n p r i v a t e o r by t r i c k e r y was a b ad i d e a . And

9 so t h e y have t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s t h a t you have t o a c t u a l l y - - i

1 y o u r e go ing t o amend a l aw, you have t o p u b l i s h i t and

p o s t i t I d o n t know how i t c o u ld be too much work. The

12 have an e n t i r e p r i n t i n g o f f i c e t h a t t h a t s a l l t h e y do i s

13 p r i n t b i l l s .

14 MS BUCHANAN: That was d i s c u s s e d .

5 THE COURT: So t h e p o i n t i s n t w h e t h e r o r no t t h e

16 l e g i s l a t u r e c l e a r l y i n t e n d e d t o c r i m i n a l i z e c e r t a i n

17 p o s s e s s i o n - - c e r t a i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , ex cu se me. They

18 c l e a r l y d i d . The q u e s t i o n i s d i d t h e y do i t i n a way

19 t h a t s c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n and c o n s i s t e n t wi

20 t h e members o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n s i n t e n t t h a t

2 l e g i s l a t i o n n o t be done i n s e c r e t o r by t r i c k . The r e a l l y

22 p u z z l i n g t h i n g i s I assumed as soon a s I went t o l o o k a t

23 t h i s t h a t I would f i n d t h a t t h e b i l l which was House B i l l

24 4856 o f 2011 , t h a t s what became Pu b l i c Act 460 o f 2012,

25 would a s s u m e - - I assumed t h a t I would f i n d t h a t i t d i d n t


12/16

12

9

1

11

2

13

14

5

6

PENGAD 16

6

MWp

ac

m 7

8

19

2

21

22

FOMAZ1

23

24

25

have the requisi te supermajori ty number of votes to amend

an ini t ia ted act , which is a lso a different const i tut ional

provision. But it does. I mean, this bill passed the

House with 93 votes and passed the Senate with 38 votes.

So I m at a loss to know why the legislature was skir t ing

the const i tut ional requirements when they had the votes to

pass the bill. It doesn t make any sense. There s only,

guess, a couple answers. One is sloppiness, which, of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

course, is a lways a possibi l i ty with the term l imit of the

legislature. And the other is that they had a different

reason not to amend the initiated act. Sometimes, because

of the const i tut ional requirement that you can t change an

act without going into i t , once you go into the act , peopl

who want to do things other than the sponsor s intent also

get to amend the act. And they can amend the bill, which

might amend the act and that t ies things up and maybe

that s what s going on. I don t know. I guess it s not

really for us to guess. It doesn t really matter. The

point is the const i tut ion requires that the bi l l , i f you r

going to amend the law, that i t be published so people hav

an opportunity--so people know what s going on. It s a

transparency issue. And while the government in Lansing

often talks about t ransparency, sometimes i t s less

transparent than I would l ike i t to be.

So I m going to grant Ms. Buchanan s motion on

1 have t h e r e q u i s i t e s u p e r m a j o r i t y number o f v o t e s t o amend

2 an i n i t i a t e d a c t , which i s a l s o a d i f f e r e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

3 p r o v i s i o n . But i t does . I mean, t h i s b i l l p a s s e d t h e

4 House w i t h 93 v o t e s and p a s s e d t h e Sena te w i t h 38 v o t e s .

5 So I m a t a l o s s t o know why t h e l e g i s l a t u r e was s k i r t i n g

6 t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s when t h e y had t h e v o t e s t o

7 p a s s t h e b i l l . I t d o e s n t make any s e n s e . T h e r e s o n l y,

8 g u e s s , a co u p le an swers . One i s s l o p p i n e s s , which , o f

9 c o u r s e , i s a l ways a p o s s i b i l i t y w i t h t h e t e rm l i m i t o f t h e

1 l e g i s l a t u r e . And t h e o t h e r i s t h a t t h e y had a d i f f e r e n t

r e a s o n n o t t o amend t h e i n i t i a t e d a c t . Sometimes, b e c a u s e

2 o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t you c a n t change an

3 a c t w i th o u t g o in g i n t o i t , once you go i n t o t h e a c t , peop l

4 who want t o do t h i n g s o t h e r t h a n t h e s p o n s o r s i n t e n t a l s o

5 g e t t o amend t h e a c t . And t h e y can amend t h e b i l l , which

6 mig h t amend t h e a c t and t h a t t i e s t h i n g s up and maybe

7 t h a t s w h a t s g o in g on. I d o n t know. I g u ess i t s no t

8 r e a l l y f o r us t o g u e s s . I t d o e s n t r e a l l y m a t t e r . The

9 p o i n t i s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e b i l l , i f y o u r

2 g o in g t o amend t h e l aw, t h a t i t be p u b l i s h e d so p e o p l e hav

2 an o p p o r t u n i t y - - s o p e o p l e know w h a t s g o in g on. I t s a

22 t r a n s p a r e n c y i s s u e . And w h i l e t h e government i n Lan s in g

23 o f t e n t a l k s abou t t r a n s p a r e n c y, somet imes i t s l e s s

24 t r a n s p a r e n t t h a n I would l i k e i t t o b e .

25 So I m g o in g t o g r a n t Ms B u c h a n a n s mo t io n on

12


13/16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

two grounds: Firs t , i t is c lear that the Medical Marihuana

Act in and of i ts own terms at Sect ion 7 says: All other

acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not

apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by

this act. That's section 333.26427. The Medical

Marihuana Act provides at sect ion 333.26423(f) that

t ransportat ion is a protected act ivi ty under medical use.

I t ' s undisputed-- indisputed--undisputed, excuse me, in thi

case that Mr. Barber is a qual if ied pat ient under the

Medical Marihuana Act , that he had his card and that

didn ' t possess more than the legal amount under that

I t ' s undisputed that he was not in violat ion of that

9

1

11

12

he

act .

act .

Those are

the facts

violat ion

the facts of the case, and I f ind that those

of this case, that Mr. Barber was not in

of the ini t ia ted law of 2008, the Michigan

13

14

15

are

Medical Marihuana Act. So Public Act 460 of 2012 is

inconsistent as i t l imits t ransportat ion, a r ight granted

by the Medical Marihuana Act , to certain cr i ter ia .

Therefore, i t ' s inconsistent with the act pursuant to

Section 7 of the act. The act wins, because it handles al

of medical marihuana, the act being the Medical Marihuana

Act. Okay. Next, Mr. Barber has a defense under section

333.26428, which says a pat ient may assert the medical

purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecutio

involving marihuana. Well, this is clearly a prosecution

FO

A

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

3

two g ro u n d s : F i r s t , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e Medi ca l Marihuana

2 Act i n and o f i t s own t e rms a t S e c t i o n 7 says : A l l o t h e r

3 a c t s and p a r t s o f a c t s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h i s a c t do n o t

4 a p p l y t o t h e medica l u s e o f mar ih u an a as p r o v id e d f o r by

5 t h i s a c t . T h a t ' s s e c t i o n 333 . 26427 . The Medi ca l

6 Marihuana Act p r o v id e s a t s e c t i o n 333 .26423( f ) t h a t

7 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s a p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y u n d er m e d i c a l use .

8 I t s u n d i s p u t e d - - i n d i s p u t e d - - u n d i s p u t e d , ex cu se me, i n t h

9 c a s e t h a t Mr Barb er i s a q u a l i f i e d p a t i e n t u n d e r t h e

1 Med ica l Marihuana Act , t h a t he had h i s c a r d and t h a t he

d i d n ' t p o s s e s s more t h a n t h e l e g a l amount u n d er t h a t a c t .

12 I t s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t he was n o t i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h a t a c t .

13 Those a r e t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , and I f i n d t h a t t h o s e a r

14 t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t h a t Mr. Barbe r was n o t i n

15 v i o l a t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a t e d law o f 2008 , t h e Mi ch i gan

16Med ica l Marihuana Act . So P u b l i c Act 460 o f 2012 i s

17 i n c o n s i s t e n t a s i t l i m i t s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , a r i g h t g r a n t e d

18 by t h e Medi ca l Marihuana Act , t o c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a .

19 T h e r e f o r e , i t s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e a c t p u r s u a n t t o

20 S e c t i o n 7 o f t h e a c t . The a c t win s , because i t hand les a

2 o f m e d i c a l mar ih u an a , t h e a c t b e in g t h e Medi ca l Marihuana

22 Act . Okay. Next , Mr. Barb er h as a d e f e n s e u n d e r s e c t i o n

23 3 3 3 .2 6 4 2 8 , which s a y s a p a t i e n t may a s s e r t t h e m e d i c a l

24 purpose f o r u s in g mar ih u an a a s a d e f e n s e t o any p r o s e c u t i o

25 i n v o l v i n g mar ih u an a . Well , t h i s i s c l e a r l y a p r o s e c u t i o n

13


14/16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

involving marihuana. The effort of Section 460 to try and

you know, nullify that language is ineffective. Finally,

Public Act 460 of 2012 is unconst i tut ional as i t was

enacted contrary to Art icle IV, Sect ion 25, of the Michiga

Const i tut ion which provides that no law shal l be revised,

altered, or amended by reference to its title only. The

sect ion or sect ions of the act a l tered or amended shal l be

reenacted and published at length. It is crystal clear

that Public Act 460 of 2012 is an effort to amend, al ter,

or revise the Medical Marihuana Act which is the ini t ia ted

act of number 1 of 2008. Why the legislature chose to

amend the penal code rather than just go into the ini t ia te

law of 2008 as required by Art icle IV, Sect ion 25, of the

Michigan Constitution? I don't know. I speculated, but

have no idea, and i t ' s not real ly relevant to the purposes

of this inquiry. For all those reasons, the motion is

granted.

MR. CHALHOUB: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything addit ional , Ms. Buchanan?

MS. BUCHANAN: Would your Honor be needing a

wri t ten order from me, or would your Honor be preparing

that?

THE COURT: I think that a wri t ten order from you

would be good, just referencing the s tatements made on the

record. I assume that other people will look at this, so

FORM AZ

3

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

4

~

i n v o l v i n g mar ih u an a . The e f f o r t o f S e c t i o n 460 t o t r y an

2 you know n u l l i f y t h a t l anguage i s i n e f f e c t i v e . F i n a l l y ,

3 P u b l i c Act 460 o f 2012 i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as i t was

4 e n a c t e d c o n t r a r y t o A r t i c l e IV Se c t i o n 25 o f t h e Michiga

5 C o n s t i t u t i o n which p r o v id e s t h a t ~ o law s h a l l be r e v i s e d ,

6 a l t e r e d , o r amended by r e f e r e n c e t o i t s t i t l e on ly. The

7 s e c t i o n o r s e c t i o n s o f t h e a c t a l t e r e d o r amended s h a l l b

8 r e e n a c t e d and p u b l i sh e d a t l e n g t h . I t i s c r y s t a l c l e a r

9 t h a t P u b l i c Act 460 o f 2012 i s an e f f o r t t o amend a l t e r ,

10 o r r e v i s e t h e Medica l Mar ihuana Act which i s t h e i n i t i a t e d

a c t o f number 1 o f 2008. Why t h e l e g i s l a t u r e chose t o

12 amend t h e p e n a l code r a t h e r t h a n j u s t go i n t o t h e i n i t i a t e

13 law o f 2008 a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e IV S e c t i o n 25 o f t h e

14 Michigan C o n s t i t u t i o n ? I d o n ' t know. I s p e c u l a t e d , b u t

15 have no i d e a , and i t s no t r e a l l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e purposes

16 o f t h i s i n q u i r y . For a l l t h o se r e a so n s t h e mo t io n i s

17 g r a n t e d .

18 MR CHALHOUB: Thank you your Honor.

19 THE COURT: An y th in g a d d i t i o n a l , Ms Buchanan?

20 MS BUCHANAN: Would y o u r Honor be need ing a

21 w r i t t e n o r d e r from me o r would y o u r Honor b e p r e p a r i n g

22 t h a t ?

23 THE COURT: I t h i n k t h a t a w r i t t e n o r d e r from yo

24 would b e good j u s t r e f e r e n c i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t s made on t h e

25 r e c o r d . I assume t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e w i l l look a t t h i s , so

.,,_J14


15/16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

we want to get it taken care of. Would you take care of

that , please, r ight away, Ms. Buchanan?

MS. BUCHANAN: I wil l , your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else, Mr.

Chalhoub?

MR. CHALHOUB: No, thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Martinez?

MR. MARTINEZ: Thank you, your Honor, no.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Have a good day.

MS. BUCHANAN: Your Honor, Mr. Barber s case is

dismissed and he s discharged from his bond at this point?

THE COURT: Motion is granted. I have no idea--

is--yes, I guess that s a l l there is to i t .

MS. BUCHANAN: I don t know that there could be

anything else.

THE COURT: There s nothing else. Motion to

dismiss is granted. Make sure that s all reflected in the

order and show i t to Mr. Mart inez and I l l s ign i t r ight

away.

MS. BUCHANAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. MARTINEZ: Thank you, Judge.

(At 3:37 p.m., proceedings concluded)

P

100S

w

p

cm

FO

M AZ 1

9

1

11

12

3

14

15

16

7

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

15

1 we w ant t o g e t i t t a k e n c a r e o f . W o ul d yo u t a k e c a r e o f

2 t h a t , p l e a s e , r i g h t a way , M s. B uc ha na n?

3 M S B U CHA N AN : I w i l l , yo ur H ono r .

4 THE COU RT: Tha n k yo u . A n y t h in g e l s e , Mr

5 C halh oub?

6 M R C H ALH OUB: N o th a n k you , y ou r H o nor .

7 TH E C O UR T: Mr M a rt in e z?

8 M R MAR T IN E Z : Th a nk y ou , yo ur H ono r, n o .

9 TH E CO U RT: Oka y. Th an k y o u . H av e a go od da y .

1 0 MS . BUC H ANA N : Y o ur Hon o r, Mr B a r b e r s c a s e i s

11 d i s m i s s e d an d h e s d i s c h a r g e d fro m h i s b ond a t t h i s p o i n t ?

12 THE COU RT: Mo ti on i s g r a n t e d . I ha v e n o i d e a - -

1 3 i s - - y e s , I g u e s s t h a t s a l l t h e r e i s t o i t

1 4 M S B UC HA N AN: I d o n t k n ow t h a t t h e r e c o u ld b e

1 5 a n y th i n g e l s e .

16THE CO UR T:

T h e r e s n o t h in g e l s e . M oti o n t o 1 7 d is m is s i s g ra n te d . M a k e s u r e t h a t s a l l r e f l e c t e d i n t h

1 8 o r d e r a nd s h ow i t t o M r M ar t i n e z and I l l s i g n i t r i g h t

1 9 aw a y.

20 MS. B UC HA NA N : T han k yo u , y o u r H on o r.

21 T H E C OU RT : T hank you .

22 MR MAR TINE Z: T han k y ou , Ju d g e .

23 A t 3:3 7 p . m . , p r o c e e d in g s co n c lu d ed )

24

25

15


16/16

Date: March 7, 2014

P

GA1

18

8

FORM AZ 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN)

COUNTY OF INGHAM )

I cert i fy that this t ranscript , consist ing of 16 pages, is a

complete, t rue, and correct t ranscript of the motion to dismiss

proceedings and test imony taken in this case on Tuesday, March 4,

2014

Elaine D. Stocking CER 07`0355th Dis t r ic t Court700 Buhl AvenueMason, Michigan 48854

517) 676-8414

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

3

14

15

16

7

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

16

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF INGH M

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s t r a n s c r i p t c o n s i s t i n g o f 16 p a g e s , i s a

c o m p l e t e , t r u e an d c o r r e c t t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e mot ion t o d i s mi s s

p ro c e e d in g s an d t e s t imo n y ta k e n i n t h i s c a s e on Tuesday, March 4 ,

2014 .

Date : March 7, 2014

16

E l a i n e D. S to c k in g CER 0 035 5 th D i s t r i c t C o u r t700 Buhl AvenueMason, Michigan 48854

517) 676-8414

Documents

People v Barber - MMMA Transport Dismissal Transcript - Ingham DC - 03-04-14 Ocr