FEDERAL PROSECUTORS SAY FOCUS IS NARROW IN REQUEST FOR
MEDICAL-MARIJUANA RECORDS

GRAND RAPIDS - Federal prosecutors say the Drug Enforcement
Administration has a narrow focus in its demand for state records of
seven people related to use of medical marijuana.

"For purposes of this investigation ... the DEA does not need nor
care about the target's medical information," Assistant U.S. Attorney
John Bruha said in court documents filed Tuesday.

He said that "current Department of Justice policy discourages
expenditure of investigative or prosecutorial resources on
individuals or caregivers 'whose actions are in clear and unambiguous
compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of
marijuana.'"

The DEA in June issued a subpoena requesting information for Michigan
Department of Community Health, which compiles records on users and
providers of medical marijuana. In December, Bruha filed a motion in
U.S. District Court to enforce the subpoena.

State Attorney General Bill Schuette said the state would hand over
the information if ordered to do so by a judge. He also requested
immunity for state workers who provided the information to federal agencies.

As a judge was to act on the motion to enforce the subpoena, Michigan
Association of Compassion Clubs and unnamed individuals filed an
emergency motion to intervene. A hearing is set for Feb. 1 on that
request, which is opposed by prosecutors.

On Tuesday, Cannabis Patients United filed a brief supporting MACC.
It said the records of medical-marijuana records are expected to be
confidential. Any release would violate state law, and discourage
others from taking part in the program.

"There is obvious tension between the State's authorization of the
production and use of of marijuana as a medicine and the federal
authority to make such an activity a crime," attorney Daniel Grow
wrote on behalf of Cannabis Patients United.

"This court may be faced with the question of at what point should
that tension be broken by the compelled production of records," he wrote.

Bruha said: "The 'emergency' motion to intervene has already delayed
this proceeding, and will continue to do so if granted. If permissive
intervention is granted in this proceeding, it will likely be sought
in every such proceeding, which would (and is probably intended to)
delay and frustrate the enforcement of federal law."