CHALLENGE TO MICHIGAN'S MEDICAL-MARIJUANA LAW RAISES PRIVACY CONCERNS

GRAND RAPIDS - Medical-marijuana proponents say confidentiality of
patient records is at risk if the federal government can obtain
state-compiled records as part of a federal drug investigation.

"It would set a pretty significant precedent against patient-privacy
rights," Kris Hermes, spokeswoman for California-based Americans for
Safe Access. "It's not just a problem in Michigan, it's all over the country."

His group had planned to protest this morning outside of U.S.
District Court in Grand Rapids, where the federal government's
request was to be heard, but canceled when the hearing was postponed
by a last-minute filing by Michigan Association of Compassion Clubs.

MACC filed an emergency brief to try to halt the federal government's
access to confidential medical-marijuana records held by the state
Department of Community Health. The U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration subpoenaed records as part of an investigation of
seven people in the Lansing area.

The state, represented by Attorney General Bill Schuette, has refused
to release the records without an order from a judge. The state also
wants the judge to provide immunity against any potential civil or
criminal action for releasing the records.

Traverse City attorney Jesse Williams, on behalf of MACC and
"John/Jane Does 1 through 42," asked to intervene, and stay
proceedings. The hearing was postponed until Feb. 1.

He wrote: "It is highly likely that the DEA's subpoena will
unwarrantedly reach not only into the confidential physician-patient
records of the seven targets of the DEA's investigation, but also
into 35 other physician-patient confidential records that have
nothing to do with the DEA's case. DEA's subpoena also asks DCH to
'give testimony' about the records of the 42 potential medical
(marijuana) patients at issue in this case."

He said that confidentiality guarantees written into the law,
approved by 63 percent of votes in 2008, led patients and providers
to provide information.

The government says it is only looking for records linked to its
investigation. Williams contends the DEA is on a "fishing
expedition," and said Schuette should have defended the law's
confidentiality provisions.

Schuette has been an outspoken opponent to medical marijuana, which
Williams said affected his decision.

While state voters backed the use of medical marijuana, the drug
remains illegal under federal law, which supersedes state law.

Schuette's office wrote in court documents that it recognizes that it
has to comply with a valid court orders to provide information.

"Accordingly, DCH will comply with a valid order from this court
requiring DCH to comply with the DEA subpoena. The order should also
make clear that, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, DCH, its employees and agents will be immunized from
liability for providing information that is confidential" under the
medical-marijuana law.

The Press left a request for comment with Schuette's office.

The DEA wants "copies of any and all documents, records,
applications, payment method of any application for Medical Marijuana
Patient Cards and Medical Marijuana Caregiver cards and copies of
front and back of any cards located for the seven named individuals"

The names of the seven are redacted in court records.

Williams, the attorney for the compassion clubs and the 42 seeking to
be respondents in the legal action, said he spoke with both the
federal and state attorneys asking for their consent to intervene in
the proceedings, but at this point has not won approval. He asked for
the stay to further research his clients' claims, defenses and
grounds for intervention.

He said his clients legal interests "will not be adequately
represented by the existing parties."

Americans for Safe Access is considering joining the legal action.