Banks in California are feeling the squeeze from the federal government.  Presently, several government agencies are asking banks to report any suspicious activity pertaining to the sale of marihuana.  Instead of complying with the requests, banks have opted to take the easier route and close all accounts of medical marihuana dispensaries.  Further, a recent push by the IRS to audit the books of medical marihuana dispensaries has resulted in an overall denial of business tax deductions.  The federal tax code precludes business deductions to those engaged in activities connected with the manufacture and delivery of drugs listed in Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act.  Marihuana is such a drug.  One dispensary in California plans to fight the IRS in court.  The dispensary would like the court to review whether marihuana should continue to be classified as a Schedule I drug. 

     Other advocacy groups are working with legislators to introduce five new marihuana reform bills.  One proposed bill, the Truth in Trials Act, would make evidence of the medical use of marihuana admissible in federal court.  Others bills include an effort to declassify marihuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance, a federal decriminalization bill, an outright legalization bill, and a bill that would shape the way banks treat dispensaries.  For more information, please read the following article.

     On May 21, 2010 Rodney Koon was charged with driving under the influence of a drug (OUID).  After being pulled over for speeding, Koon admitted to smoking marihuana earlier in the day.  A blood test revealed that Koon had active THC in his system.  At trial, the judge required the Grand Traverse County Prosecutor prove Koon was actually impaired.  Unlike alcohol, there is currently no objective standard to establish that a driver of a vehicle is impaired by marihuana. The Prosecutor has requested leave to appeal the trial court's decision.  Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schuette, filed a brief in support urging the Court of Appeals to grant leave and reverse.  Schuette argues that any amount of THC in a driver's system is a crime.  This case presents a difficult balance between public safety and the rights of patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.  On one hand, Michigan drivers should not be put at risk by those who choose to operate a vehicle while under the influence of marihuana.  On the other, THC may stay in a patient's system for up to a month after ingestion and long after the psychotropic effects of the drug have worn off.  If adopted, Schuette's interpretation would make it generally unlawful for medical marihuana patients to operate motor vehicles.

     On March 7, 2011, the 19th Judicial District Court held that the entire Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) is void under preemption principles.  The defendant was stopped by police on January 19, 2010 and charged under a Dearborn municipal ordinance for illegal possession of marihuana.  Defendant did not obtain a doctor's recommendation that he would benefit from the medical use of marihuana until 4 months after his arrest.  Instead of resolving the issue by resort to the Court of Appeals' January decision in People v Kolanek (i.e., in order to assert the affirmative defense, an individual must receive a physician recommendation to use marihuana prior to his arrest and subsequent to the MMMA's effective date) the District Court concluded that the entire MMMA was preempted by federal legislation.

     In the court's view, because Congress banned the manufacture, distribution, and possession of all schedule I narcotics there is no room for States to regulate those substances.  Secondly, the court stated that "it is simply beyond credulity to believe the MMMA has any practical effect other than to officially sanction, encourage and facilitate the manufacture, distribution and possession of a Schedule I narcotic in direct violation of federal law.  Therefore, not only has Congress expressed its intent to preempt the field, but the MMMA is in direct conflict with Congressional efforts to ban those substances from interstate commerce.  As a consequence, it is impossible to comply with both the MMMA and Federal law. 

     Recently, the Court of Appeals begrudgingly held that the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) was immune from liability because plaintiff failed to give notice as required by statute.  On August 9, 2007, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with an MDOT vehicle.  Two months later, plaintiff sent a "statutory notice of claim" by certified mail to MDOT.  The notice provided details regarding the date, time, location, name of MDOT employee involved, vehicle identification number, how the accident happened, and described the injuries sustained by plaintiff.  However, plaintiff did not file a notice of intent to file a claim with the court of claims as required by MCL 600.6431

      MCL 600.6431 requires in all actions for property damage or personal injury that notice of intent to file a claim be filed with the clerk of the court of claims within 6 months of the date of injury.  Plaintiff did not file the required notice until April 15, 2008, 8 months after the August accident.

     Plaintiff argued that the notice sent directly to MDOT was sufficient to satisfy the statutes requirements; therefore, MDOT was not prejudiced by the late filing.  Constrained by recent precedent, the Court refused to read a prejudice exception into the statute and held that plaintiff was required to satisfy the strict notice requirement.  The Court of Appeals encouraged the Supreme Court to review the applicable case law, stating that it would have allowed plaintiff to proceed if it were not obligated to follow precedent.   For more information, please read the following opinion.