ÿþ<html> <head> <title>Opinion #7262</title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" leftmargin="20" topmargin="20"> <BASEFONT size=2 face=Times> <P><FONT size=2 face=Times>The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich. Dept. of Attorney General Web Site - http://www.ag.state.mi.us) </FONT><BR></P> <P> <HR SIZE=3> <BR> <P></P> <P></P> <P align=center>STATE OF MICHIGAN </P> <P align=center></P> <P align=center><B>BILL SCHUETTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL</B> </P> <P align=center></P> <TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" border=0 cellSpacing=0 borderColor=#111111 cellPadding=7 width=630> <TBODY> <TR> <TD vAlign=top width=308> <P align=left><FONT size=2>MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT:</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2>PREEMPTION:</FONT></P></TD> <TD vAlign=top width=288> <P align=left><FONT size=2>Return of marihuana to patient or caregiver upon release from custody</FONT></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <P align=left></P> <P align=left></P> <P align=left>Section 4(h) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26424(h), which prohibits the forfeiture of marihuana possessed for medical use, directly conflicts with and is thus preempted by, the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801 <EM>et seq</EM>., to the extent section 4(h) requires a law enforcement officer to return marihuana to a registered patient or primary caregiver upon release from custody.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </P> <P align=left>Opinion No. 7262</P> <P align=left></P> <P align=left>November 10, 2011</P> <P align=left></P> <P align=left>Honorable Kevin Cotter<BR>State Representative<BR>The Capitol<BR>Lansing, Michigan </P> <P align=left></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">You have asked whether a law enforcement officer</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>1</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> who arrests a patient or primary caregiver registered under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA or Act), Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26241 <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">et seq.,</I> must return marihuana</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>2 </SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman">found in the possession of the patient or primary caregiver upon his or her release from custody. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<BR></FONT></o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">Under the MMMA, the medical use of marihuana is permitted by "state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the] act." <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>MCL&nbsp;333.26427(a), 333.26424(d)(1) and (2).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Pursuant to section 7(e), "[a]ll other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with [the MMMA] do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26427(e).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The Act "constitutes a determination by the people of this state that there should exist a very limited, highly restricted exception to the statutory proscription against the manufacture and use of marihuana in Michigan."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">People v King</I>, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 294682, issued February 3, 2011), lv gtd 489 Mich 957 (2011). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>"All the MMMA does is give some people limited protection from prosecution by the state, or from other adverse state action in carefully limited medical marijuana situations." <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Casias v Wal Mart Stores, Inc</I>, 764 F Supp 2d 914, 922 (WD Mich, 2011). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>Thus, by enacting the MMMA, the people did not repeal any statutory prohibitions regarding marihuana.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The possession, sale, delivery, or manufacture of marihuana remain crimes in Michigan. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id</I>., citing <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">People v Redden</I>, 290 Mich App 65, 92; 799 NW2d 184 (2010) (O'Connell, J., concurring.).</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-fareast-font-family: Times"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Times; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>3</SUP> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman">The same is true under federal law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC 801 <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">et seq.</I>, makes all marihuana-related activity illegal, including the possession, manufacture, and distribution of marihuana. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>See 21 USC 812(c), 823(f), and 844(a).</FONT><SUP><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2>4</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> <BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></SUP><FONT face="Times New Roman">The MMMA protects from state prosecution or other penalty registered qualifying patients, MCL 333.26424(a), and registered primary caregivers, MCL 333.26424(b), who engage in the "medical use" of marihuana in accordance with all conditions of the Act. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>MCL 333.26427(a), 333.26424(d)(1) and (2).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The term "medical use" is broadly defined and includes the "acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26423(e). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>In order to qualify for full protection under the Act, patients and caregivers must apply for and receive a registry identification card from the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26424(a) and (b).</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>5</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <BR><BR></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">A qualifying patient with a valid registry identification card may possess up to 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and cultivate up to 12 marihuana plants, unless the patient has designated a primary caregiver and specified that the caregiver will cultivate marihuana for the patient.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26424(a).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>A primary caregiver who has a valid registration card may possess up to 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana per patient, and may also cultivate 12 marihuana plants per patient if the patients have so specified.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26424(b), 333.26426(d).</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>6</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Thus, registered patients and primary caregivers are not subject to arrest, prosecution, or other penalty as long as they are in possession of the statutorily permitted amounts of marihuana, and are in compliance with the remaining provisions of the Act. <o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">Relevant to your question, the MMMA specifically prohibits the forfeiture of marihuana possessed in connection with the medical use of marihuana.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Section 4(h) of the Act provides:<o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt" class=AGQuote><FONT face="Times New Roman">Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">shall not be</I> seized or <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">forfeited</I>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>[MCL 333.26424(h); emphasis added.] <o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">The term "forfeited" is not defined in the Act.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>An undefined statutory term must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>MCL 8.3a; <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">People v Thompson</I>, 477 Mich 146, 151; 730 NW2d 708 (2007).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Resort to lay or legal dictionaries is appropriate in interpreting statutes.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Oakland County Bd of County Rd Comm'rs v Michigan Prop &amp; Cas Guaranty Ass'n</I>, 456 Mich 590, 604; 575 NW2d 751 (1998).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The word "forfeit" has a well-understood meaning in the law. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>It means "[t]o lose, or lose the right to, by some error, fault, offense, or crime."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Black's Law Dictionary<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> </I>(6th ed), p 650.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Thus, as used in section 4(h), "forfeited" means the permanent loss of marihuana or related property as a consequence of having done something improper.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">According section 4(h) its plain meaning, and reading it in conjunction with section 7<SPAN class=documentbody>(e), MCL 333.26427(e), which renders conflicting state statutes subject to the MMMA</SPAN>, section 4(h) prohibits the forced or involuntary surrender of marihuana if the person in possession is a registered patient or caregiver in complete compliance with all other provisions of the MMMA.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Therefore, if a registered patient or caregiver's marihuana is confiscated by law enforcement during the course of an arrest, if the person's registration card is valid and the possession complies with the MMMA, the officer must return the marihuana to the patient or caregiver upon release from custody.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">But this does not conclude the analysis because, as stated above, federal law prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marihuana.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The CSA provides that "[e]xcept as authorized by this title, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally -- <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance . . . ." <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>21 USC 841(a)(1). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>The CSA categorizes marihuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>21 USC 812(c) (Schedule I) (c)(10).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>And its use remains a federal crime. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>See 21 USC 812(c)(10).</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>7</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Simple possession of marihuana is also a crime, 21 USC 844(a), and </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">possession for "personal use" renders the offender "liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>21 USC 844a(a).</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>8</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<BR></FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">"As a state law authorizing the use of medical marihuana, the MMMA cannot negate, nullify or supersede the federal Controlled Substances Act, which criminalized the possession and distribution of marihuana throughout the entire country long before <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Michigan</st1:place></st1:State> passed its law."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">United States v Michigan Dep't of Community Health,</I> ___ F Supp 2d ___ (WD Mich, amended opinion, June 9, 2011), (2011 US Dist LEXIS 59445; 2011 WL 2412602).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>"Thus, the MMMA has no effect on federal law, and the possession of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, even if it is possessed for medicinal purposes in accordance with state law."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">United States v Hicks</I>, 722 F Supp 2d 829, 833 (ED Mich, 2010). <o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">The question thus centers on the relationship between section 4(h) of the MMMA, which prohibits the forfeiture of marihuana, and the provisions of the CSA. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<BR></FONT></o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">"The doctrine of federal </FONT><A name=SearchTerm></A><A name=SR;2463></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: SearchTerm"><FONT face="Times New Roman">preemption has its origin in the </FONT></SPAN><A name=SR;2469></A><FONT face="Times New Roman">Supremacy Clause of </FONT><A href="http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&amp;docname=USCOARTVICL2&amp;rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&amp;sv=Split&amp;rs=WLW11.10&amp;db=1000546&amp;tf=-1&amp;findtype=L&amp;fn=_top&amp;mt=57&amp;vr=2.0&amp;pbc=6899FF69&amp;ordoc=2015962888" target=_top><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none"><FONT face="Times New Roman">article VI, cl 2</FONT></SPAN></A><FONT face="Times New Roman">, of the United </FONT><A name=sp_542_36></A><A name=SDU_36></A><A name=citeas((Cite_as:_481_Mich._29,_*36,_748_></A><FONT face="Times New Roman">States Constitution, which declares that the laws of the United States 'shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . .'"<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Ryan v Brunswick Corp</I>, 454 Mich 20, 27; 557 NW2d 541 (1997), abrogated in part on other grounds by <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Sprietsma v Mercury Marine</I>, 537 US 51; 123 S Ct 518; 154 L Ed 2d 466 (2002).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Whether a federal statute preempts state law is a question of federal law. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Allis Chalmers Corp v Lueck</I>, 471 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> 202, 214; 105 S Ct 1904; 85 L Ed 2d 206 (1985).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>There is a strong presumption against preemption of state law, and preemption may be found only where it is the clear and unequivocal intent of Congress.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc,</I> 505 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> 504, 516; 112 S Ct 2608; 120 L Ed 2d 407 (1992). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>This is especially true in the area of health and safety, which has historically been left to state regulation.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Ryan</I>, 454 Mich at 27, citing <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Hillsborough County v Automated Medical Labs, Inc, </I>471 US 707, 715; 105 S Ct 2371; 85 L Ed 2d 714 (1985). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>Nevertheless, "[w]here state and federal law 'directly conflict,' state law must give way."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">PLIVA, Inc v Mensing</I>, ___US ___; 131 S Ct 2567, 2577; 180 L Ed 2d 580 (2011) (citation omitted); <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Gonzales</I>, 545 US at 29.</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>9</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1>In any preemption case, the ultimate test is the intent of Congress in passing the federal law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Wyeth v Levine</I>, 555 US 555, 565; <SPAN class=AGReg2Char>129 S Ct 1187;</SPAN> 173 L Ed 2d 51 (2009); <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Medtronic, Inc v Lohr</SPAN></I><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">, 518 US 470, 494; </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt">116 S Ct 2240; 135 L Ed 2d 700</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"> (1996)</SPAN>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Congress's intent may be express or implied; either through express language in the federal statute or through the federal statute's structure and purpose.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Altria Group v Good</I>, 555 US 70, 76; 129 S Ct 538; 172 L Ed 2d 398 (2008)<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">.</I> <o:p></o:p></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg2></FONT><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1>Under conflict preemption principles,<SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>10</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9.5pt"> </SPAN>where state and federal law "directly conflict," state law must give way. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN class=AGReg2Char><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Wyeth</I>, 555 <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> at 583</SPAN> (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); see also<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> <SPAN class=AGReg2Char>Crosby v Nat'l Foreign Trade Council</SPAN></I><SPAN class=AGReg2Char>, 530 US 363, 372; 120 S Ct 2288; 147 L Ed 2d 352 (2000)</SPAN> ("state law is naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute"). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>State and federal law conflict where it is "impossible" to "comply with both state and federal requirements.</FONT><A name=FN4></A><A name=F00642025536613></A>" <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">PLIVA, Inc,</I>131 S Ct at 2577, quoting <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Freightliner Corp v Myrick</I>, 514 US 280, 287; 115 S Ct 1483; 131 L Ed 2d 385 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).<A name=FN5></A><A name=F00752025536613></A><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9.5pt"><FONT size=2> <BR><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman">Section 4(h) of the MMMA, forbidding forfeiture of marihuana, directly conflicts with the CSA's prohibition against possession or distribution of marihuana because it is impossible for a law enforcement officer to comply with both federal and state law. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">As discussed above, under section 4(h) a law enforcement officer must return marihuana to a registered patient or caregiver if the individual's possession complies with the MMMA.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>But the CSA prohibits the possession or distribution of marihuana under any circumstance.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>If a law enforcement officer returns marihuana to a patient or caregiver as required by section 4(h), the officer is distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution or possession of marihuana by the patient or caregiver in violation of the CSA.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Thus, a Michigan law enforcement officer cannot simultaneously comply with the federal prohibition against distribution or aiding and abetting the distribution or possession of marihuana and the state prohibition against forfeiture of marihuana.</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>11</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>In other words, it is "impossible" for state law enforcement officers to comply with their state-law duty not to forfeit medical marihuana, and their federal-law duty not to distribute or aid in the distribution of marihuana.<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN></I>See <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">PLIVA, </I>131 S Ct at 2577-2578 (holding state statutes preempted where it was impossible for drug manufacturers to comply with state law and applicable federal law).</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>12</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>Under these circumstances, the unavoidable conclusion is that section 4(h) of the MMMA is preempted by the CSA to the extent it requires law enforcement officers to return marihuana to registered patients or caregivers.</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>13</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>As a result, law enforcement officers are not required to return marihuana to a patient or caregiver.<o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">By returning marihuana to a registered patient or caregiver, a law enforcement officer is exposing himself or herself to potential criminal and civil penalties under the CSA for the distribution of marihuana or for aiding or abetting</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>14</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> the possession or distribution of marihuana.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Section 841(a) of the CSA applies to "any person," which, courts have presumed, covers government employees as well as private citizens.</FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>15</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>While section 885(d) of the CSA, 21 USC 885(d), confers immunity on state law enforcement officers who violate its provisions while "lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law&nbsp;. . . relating to controlled substances," returning marihuana to a registered patient or caregiver under the MMMA could not be considered lawful "enforcement" of a law related to controlled substances.&nbsp; "Enforcement" in this context means the prosecution of unlawful possession or distribution of controlled substances.&nbsp; See <I>United States v Rosenthal</I>, 266 F Supp 2d 1068, 1078-1079 (ND Cal, 2003), aff d in part, reversed in part 445 F3d 1239, opinion amended and superseded on denial of rehearing 454 F3d 943 (2006). &nbsp;Otherwise, a state could contradict the fundamental purpose of the CSA and immunize any state officials who participate in the competing state regime.&nbsp; <I>Id.</I></FONT><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>16</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Moreover, the state officers' conduct would remain "unlawful" in any event because immunity does not decriminalize the underlying conduct, it only provides protection from prosecution or other penalty.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">The people of this State, even in the exercise of their constitutional right to initiate legislation, cannot require law enforcement officers to violate federal law by mandating the return of marihuana to registered patients or caregivers.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>This conclusion is consistent with the federal district court's opinion in <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">United States v Michigan Dep't of Community Health, </I>___ F Supp 2d ___</FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9.5pt">, </SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="COLOR: black">supra</SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: black">,</SPAN></FONT><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9.5pt"> </SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman">which held that the MMMA's confidentiality provision, MCL 333.26426(h), was preempted by 21 USC 876 to the extent it precluded compliance with a federal subpoena sought in conjunction with an investigation under the CSA. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>It also accords with the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc v Bureau of Labor and Industries</I>, 348 Or 159; 230 P3d 518, 529 (2010), which held that Oregon's medical marihuana law authorizing the use of marihuana and exempting its use from prosecution, was preempted by the CSA to the extent it "affirmatively authorizes the use of medical marijuana, . . . leaving it without effect." <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent2><FONT face="Times New Roman">It is my opinion, therefore, that section 4(h) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26424(h),<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> </I>which prohibits the forfeiture of marihuana possessed for medical use, directly conflicts with and is thus preempted by, the federal Controlled </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">Substances Act, 21 USC 801 <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">et seq</I>., to the extent section 4(h) requires a law enforcement officer to return marihuana to a registered patient or primary caregiver upon release from custody.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; <BR></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent1><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGIndent1><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">BILL SCHUETTE<BR></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">Attorney General<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><FONT face="Times New Roman"><A href="../../attachments/7262.Att.1.pdf" target=_blank>Atts.1</A></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><FONT face="Times New Roman"><A href="../../attachments/7262.Att.2.pdf" target=_blank>Atts.2</A></FONT></P><o:p></o:p></SPAN> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote-list"></FONT><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"><BR> <HR align=left SIZE=1 width="33%"> </FONT></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote-list"> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn1> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><SUP><FONT size=2>1</FONT></SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3> </FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Although this opinion uses the term "officer," the discussion applies to any employee or agent of a state or local law enforcement agency responsible for returning confiscated or seized items. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn2> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SUP>2</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"> "Marijuana" and "marihuana" are both acceptable spellings for the name of this drug. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>The spelling "marihuana" is used in the MMMA and the Public Health Code, MCL 333.1101 <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">et seq</I>., but "marijuana" is the more commonly used spelling.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The statutory spelling is used here except in quotes that use the more common spelling.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn3> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3><SUP><FONT size=2>3</FONT></SUP>&nbsp;</FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Marihuana remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Michigan Public Health Code, MCL 333.7212(1)(c), meaning that "the substance has a high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision," MCL 333.7211. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>Similarly, the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to deliver marihuana remains a felony, MCL 333.7401(1) and (2)(d), and possession of marihuana remains a misdemeanor offense, MCL 333.7403(2)(d).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn4> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><SUP><FONT size=2>4</FONT></SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3> </FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The MMMA acknowledges that it does not supersede or alter federal law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26422(c) provides, "[a]lthough federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law."</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn5> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><SUP>5</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The MMMA expressly refers to the Department of Community Health.</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">However</SPAN>, <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">the authority, powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities under the Act were transferred from the Department of Community Health to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs under Executive Order 2011-4.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn6> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><FONT size=2><SUP>6</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3><SUP> </SUP></FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">A qualifying patient may designate one primary caregiver "to assist with [the] patient's medical use of marihuana."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26423(g), 333.26424(b).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>A primary caregiver may only assist up to five registered patients, to whom he or she is connected through the registration process.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>MCL 333.26424(b) and 333.26426(d).</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn7> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><SUP>7</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">"For marijuana (and other drugs that have been classified as 'schedule I' controlled substances), there is but one express exception, and it is available only for Government-approved research projects, &#0167; 823(f)."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">United States v Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop</I>, 532 US 483, 490; 121 S Ct 1711; 149 L Ed 2d 722 (2001).</SPAN> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn8> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SUP>8</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">A registered patient or caregiver has no right to the return of marihuana under federal law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>First, 21 USC 881(a)(1) provides that "[a]ll controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of this title" "shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Second, the Supreme Court has held that no person can have a legally protected interest in contraband per se.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>See <st1:country-region w:st="on"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">United States</I></st1:country-region><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> v Jeffers</I>, 342 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> 48, 53; 72 S Ct 93; 96 L Ed 59 (1951).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>And in <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Cooper v City of Greenwood, MS</I>, 904 F2d 302, 305 (CA 5, 1990), the court held, "[c]ourts will not entertain a claim contesting the confiscation of contraband <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">per se</I> because one cannot have a property right in that which is not subject to legal possession."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>As explained in <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">United States v Harrell</I>, 530 F3d 1051, 1057 (CA 9, 2008), "[a]n object is contraband per se if its possession, without more, constitutes a crime; or in other words, if there is no legal purpose to which the object could be put."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Given that it is illegal under federal law for any private person to possess marihuana, 21 USC 812(c), 841(a)(1), 844(a), marihuana is contraband per se as a matter of federal law, which means no person can have a cognizable legal interest in it.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>See <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Gonzales v Raich</I>, 545 US 1, 27; 125 S Ct 2195; 162 L Ed 2d 1 (2005) ("[t]he CSA designates marihuana as contraband for <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">any</I> purpose") (emphasis in original).<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn9> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SUP>9</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"> The Supreme Court, however, has clarified that Congress does not have the authority to commandeer the processes of states "by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">New York v United States</I>, 505 US 144, 161; 112 S Ct 2408; 120 L Ed 2d 120 (1992) (citation omitted).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Thus, the preemption power is constrained by the Supreme Court's anti-commandeering rule.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The CSA, however, contains no language compelling state action or attempting to commandeer state law enforcement employees.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn10> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2><SUP>10</SUP></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In answering your question, it is not necessary for this opinion to address other forms of preemption, such as express, field, or obstacle preemption. <BR></SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn11> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><SUP>11</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">While appellate courts in California and Oregon have upheld the return of medical marihuana, <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">City of Garden Grove v Superior Court of Orange County</I>, 157 Cal App 4th 355; 68 Cal Rptr 3d 656 (2007), <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">State v Kama</I>, 178 Or App 561; 39 P3d 866 (2002), these decisions are of questionable value in light of<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>recent decisions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>See <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Pack v Superior Court of Los Angeles County</I>, 199 Cal App 4th 1070 (2011), and <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc v Bureau of Labor and Industries</I>, 348 Or 159; 230 P3d 518, 529 (2010).</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn12> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SUP>12</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Section 903 of the CSA contemplates that conflicting state laws will be preempted where "there is a positive conflict between that provision of this title and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>21 USC 903.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><o:p><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn13> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SUP>13</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">This office has previously found other state statutes preempted by federal law. </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">See, e.g., OAG 2001-2002, No 7074, p 9 (January 24, 2001) (finding section 1905(3) of the Insurance Code preempted by the federal Liability </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Risk Retention Act of 1986);</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> OAG 1991-1992, No 6679, p 28 (April 29, 1991) (finding section 23 of the Michigan Mortgage Brokers, Lenders and Services Licensing Act deali</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">ng with loan processing fees </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">preempted by the federal Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980.</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">); and OAG 1989-1990, No 6649, p 351 (July 11, 1990) (concluding that </SPAN></FONT><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">section 301(a) of the federal Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 preempted the Michigan Department of Labor from determining state law claims for wages and fringe benefits brought by employees under 1978 PA 390).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=AGReg1><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn14> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SUP>14</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"> 18 USC 2(a) states: <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>"Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn15> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><FONT size=2><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><SUP>15</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The CSA defines "distribute" as "to deliver . . . a controlled substance," and it further defines the terms "deliver" or "delivery" as "the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>21 USC 802(11), 802(8). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>In <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">United States v Vincent</I>, 20 F3d 229, 233 (CA 6, 1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that in order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, "the government needed only to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>21 USC &#0167; 802(11).</SPAN> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It was irrelevant for the government to also show that defendant was paid for the delivery." <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>Distributing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration is treated as simple possession, and is a misdemeanor offense.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>See 21 USC 841(b)(4).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV style="mso-element: footnote" id=ftn16> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt" class=MsoFootnoteText><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SUP>16</SUP></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"> This analysis is consistent with the views expressed by the United States Department of Justice.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>An April 14, 2011, letter from the two federal prosecutors in the State of Washington, advised the Governor of Washington that if a medical marihuana proposal became law that "state employees who conduct[ ] activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under CSA."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Similarly, a June 29, 2011, memorandum issued by United States Deputy Attorney General James Cole provides that "[s]tate laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law . . . including enforcement of the CSA."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The letter and memorandum are attached to this opinion.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV> <P align=left>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </P> <P align=left></P> <HR SIZE=3> <SCRIPT language=JavaScript> <!-- Start of JavaScript document.write('<font size=1 face="Arial">http:/' + unescape(self.document.location.pathname) + '<font size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp<br />State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General</font></font><br />'); document.write('<font size=1 face="Arial">Last Updated ' + document.lastModified + '</font>'); // End of JavaScript --> </SCRIPT> </BASEFONT> </body> </html>