Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - US MI: Hearing Delayed on Medical-Marijuana Case After Compassion Clubs Objects
Title:US MI: Hearing Delayed on Medical-Marijuana Case After Compassion Clubs Objects
Published On:2011-01-12
Source:Grand Rapids Press (MI)
Fetched On:2011-03-09 17:22:29
HEARING DELAYED ON MEDICAL-MARIJUANA CASE AFTER COMPASSION CLUBS
OBJECTS TO DEA OBTAINING CONFIDENTIAL STATE RECORDS

GRAND RAPIDS - The Michigan Association of Compassion Clubs today
filed an emergency motion to halt the federal government's efforts to
gain access to confidential medical-marijuana records compiled by the state.

The action postpones Wednesday's hearing in U.S. District Court in
which the federal government planned to ask a judge for access to
records as part of an investigation of seven people in the Lansing area.

The state Department of Community Health said it would release the
information, originally requested in a U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration subpoena, only if ordered to do so by a judge. Those
who release such information are subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Traverse City attorney Jesse Williams filed the emergency motion to
intervene as a respondent, and to stay proceedings, on behalf of the
compassion clubs and "John/Jane Does 1 through 42."

"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 those who registered as medical-marijuana patients or
providers gave information to the state "because of the
confidentiality guarantees" in the law that won overwhelming support
by voters in 2008.

The government said it is seeking only records linked to the investigation.

Williams said that state Attorney General Bill Schuette should have
defended the state law's confidentiality provisions.

"However, because of the AG's publicly stated adverse opinions, and his personal biases, he did not do so here."
Member Comments
No member comments available...