E.D.Mich.: State’s MMJ law doesn’t create immunity from car search on PC

The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act does not create immunity from a search when an officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle has marijuana in it. United States v. Hinds, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72379 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2019):

Had Hinds been arrested, prosecuted, and/or punished for the illegal transport of marijuana under the MMMA, Latz would be applicable. However, whether probable cause exists to search and arrest under the Fourth Amendment is a separate inquiry. Regardless of whether a person was allowed under state law to the medical use of marijuana, at the time of Hinds’ search, federal and Michigan state law prohibited smoking marijuana in any public place. MCL 333.26427(b); People v. Anthony, No. 337793, 2019 Mich. App. LEXIS 133, 2019 WL 290026 (Mich. App. Jan. 22, 2019); People v. Brown, 297 Mich. App. 670, 825 N.W.2d 91 (2012); People v. Johnson, No. 329742, 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 3136, 2018 WL 4577295 (Mich. App. Sept. 13, 2018). Whether Hinds was in compliance with the MMMA or not has no bearing on whether probable cause to execute the search existed under the Fourth Amendment.

Importantly, the MMMA does not address, nor prohibit, searches of spaces for marijuana. MCL § 333.26424. The court in Johnson v. Williams, No. 14-cv-12790, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48776, 2016 WL 1425706, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 12, 2016) (Levy, J.), dismissed the argument that the MMMA protected against a warrantless search of a hotel room following the identification of strong marijuana smells “because the protections of the MMMA do not extend so far as to completely decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana in Michigan, or prohibit searches when a valid MMMA card is a potential defense to arrest or other punishment.” 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48776, [WL] at *2.

The Court finds the MMMA: (1) only protects patients who comply with it; (2) only protects patients as outlined in the statute; and (3) is silent on whether the statute provides protection from: (a) determinations of probable cause, (b) searches of automobiles under exigent circumstances, and (c) violation of federal laws. The Government’s second objection is sustained.