Signed into law on October 16, 2012, 2012 PA 341 gives transit service providers the ability to require certain employees to be fingerprinted and undergo a state and federal criminal history check. Moreover, once fingerprinted, the agencies will receive automated notification if the fingerprinted employee is arrested in the future.

If a transit agency chooses to obtain such criminal history checks, the new law requires the agency to develop a written fingerprint policy describing how fingerprints are takes, to whom the fingerprints are sent, and how the fingerprints are used. Any criminal history data regarding employees kept on file by a transit agency is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

This new law goes into effect 91 days after the final adjournment of the 2012 Regular Session of the Michigan Legislature.

For more information about this new law and the policy required if a transit agency determines to implement it, contact Attorney This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Joseph Casias became a well-recognized name in Michigan’s Medical Marihuana circuits after being fired from his position at Wal-Mart for failing a drug test. With ACLU’s legal support, Mr. Casias sued his employer for wrongful discharge and violation of the MMMA. The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Mr. Casias’ complaint finding that the MMMA did not regulate private employment. Mr. Casias appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral arguments were held on April 18, 2012. Almost five months after hearing the arguments, the Court released its opinion AFFIRMING the lower court’s decision .

In its analysis, the Court not only addressed the statutory interpretation of the language used in the act, but drew supporting conclusions from sister states’ judicial decisions on similar employment cases. The Court also concurred with the District Court in responding to Casias’ public policy argument, refusing to broaden the MMMA’s reach to private employment and business settings .

The Casias opinion fell short of addressing the much awaited “federal law” vs “state law” preemption analysis, leaving that chapter in the medical marihuana saga to another day.

The opinion of the Court can be found at: Casias v Wal-Mart.

Shortly after the now infamous Dispensary case’s publication (State v McQueen,, 293 Mich App 644 (2011)), the Michigan Court of Appeals published its opinion in People v Bylsma, 294 Mich App 219 (2011), striking the last nail in the coffin of Michigan’s then booming medical marihuana business.

Now, almost a year later, Michigan’s Supreme Court has granted leave to Ryan Bylsma to present his case to its seven justices. Readers may recall Bylsma as the caregiver with the green thumb who was helping other MMMA card holders grow marihuana plants in a common, but enclosed and locked facility. Having access to the entire growth facility, Ryan Bylsma had argued that he was assisting others in proper growth methods of the marihuana plants, and the common growth facility was not in violation of the MMMA.

On what is expected to be the same hearing date for both McQueen and Bylsma, the attorneys in Bylsma are asked to address whether the MMMA permits qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana in a collective or cooperative and whether Bylsma was entitled to a §4 immunity, or a § 8 affirmative defense.

The Attorney General, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan have been invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other interested persons or groups may apply for a permission to do the same.

On May 1, 2012, a new house bill intended to clear the murky waters surrounding the State's Medical Marihuana Act was introduced by Representatives Callton, Daley and Cavanagh.  Unlike many bills introduced in the last year and a half, HB 5580 allows for protected acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, delivery, transfer, transportation and sale of medical marihuana in the State.  The new bill allows for distribution and cultivation sites called "Medical Marihuana Provisioning Centers" ("MMP Centers") to be located at municipalities allowing such businesses.  State criminal law immunities are provided for these centers and their employees as long as their conduct is within the limits of the bill and allowed by the municipalities in which they occur.  Included in the list of protected activities are sales of medical marihuana by the qualified patients and registered caregivers to the MMP Centers and vice versa and transportation of medical marihuana to qualified patients' homes or MMP Centers.  A primary concern of most local governments with respect to physical locations of medical marihuana growth and distribution centers is also addressed in the bill.  It would prohibit their existence within 1,000 feet from any preexisting school and ban the sharing of a building with a physician.

The Act also introduces "Safety Compliance Facilities" for testing medical marihuana for contaminants or potency.  The employees and owners of these facilities are also granted immunities.  Local municipalities are given the right to regulate and license both the MMP Centers and Safety Compliance Facilities. Access to cultivation and growth sites are limited to business employees and in limited instances, others including employees of a municipality required to inspect the activities.  In case of transportation and transfer of medical marihuana, such activities are granted immunity only through those localities where they are allowed.  Non-resident medical marihuana card holders from other states, the definition of usable marihuana and record keeping requirements in relation to confidentiality concerns are also addressed in the proposed bill.

The language of HB 5580 addresses many of the hurdles the Michigan medical marihuana community, law enforcement and the judiciary have tried to navigate since the passage of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.  Although acceptance as proposed is highly doubtful within the current mosaic of State legislation, the Bill would provide for some balance between the medical marihuana community and the State and local government.

A full text of the proposed bill can be found here.