Residents of Lima Township, Michigan, are currently embroiled in a legal battle against the township's trustees, alleging that the trustees actively obstructed the opening of a cannabis dispensary, thereby infringing on their constitutional rights. The group, Citizens of Lima for Cannabis, argues in their lawsuit that their 14th Amendment rights were violated by the trustees' refusal to engage with their proposals and initiatives over a period of three years.
According to a memorandum filed in federal court, the township's motion to dismiss the lawsuit overlooks the valid 14th Amendment claims raised by the residents. The plaintiffs contend that despite their efforts and compliance with Michigan's legal requirements for opening a dispensary, the trustees never formally addressed their initiative. The situation escalated when the group successfully gathered sufficient signatures to place their initiative on the May 2024 ballot, only to face further opposition as the trustees allegedly instructed their attorney to prevent the initiative's inclusion on the ballot.
The lawsuit, initiated in March by Citizens of Lima for Cannabis, points to a pattern of behavior by the trustees aimed at hindering the establishment of any cannabis dispensary in the area. The complaint highlights the support from the community and several local entrepreneurs and developers, including Andrew Sereno, CEO of Michigan-based Glacier Cannabis. Despite this backing, the trustees have reportedly thwarted the initiative, causing the community to miss out on estimated tax revenues of $28,000 to $59,000, based on financial data from other Michigan municipalities since 2021.
The township defended its actions in early April, seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed by arguing the claims were rooted in state law and only insinuated federal constitutional violations, thus questioning the federal court's jurisdiction over the matter. In response, the Citizens of Lima for Cannabis detailed in their brief a clear violation of Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, which pertains to civil rights infringements, by alleging that the trustees deliberately denied them the opportunity to discuss their proposal at public meetings.
Moreover, the residents' group suggests that if the federal court rules in favor of the township, they should be permitted to amend their complaint to include an additional Section 1983 claim. This would assert that the trustees not only failed to vote on the proposed ordinance but also actively blocked the initiative from the ballot, further violating the residents' rights.
As the case progresses, a spokesperson for the residents has confirmed they are awaiting a decision from the court on this pressing issue.
Demar Garrison, a 45-year-old man, faces legal challenges after being arrested in La Porte County, Indiana, with a significant amount of cannabis that reportedly originated from Michigan. Garrison has been charged with a Level 5 felony for Dealing in Marijuana, which could result in a sentence of up to six years.
The incident unfolded on April 17th when Garrison, driving a rented vehicle westbound on Interstate 94, was pulled over by La Porte County Police just outside of Michigan City for tailgating. Officers noted an overpowering scent of air freshener from the vehicle, which they suspected was used to mask the smell of cannabis.
Further investigation revealed that Garrison had traveled from Racine, Wisconsin—where he resides—to Grand Rapids, Michigan, the day before the arrest. The court documents suggest that the cannabis found in his possession might have been obtained from a dispensary in Michigan, indicating a possible interstate transport of the substance.
During the search, law enforcement, aided by a K-9 unit, discovered nearly twelve one-pound packages of cannabis, over three pounds of THC cartridges, and THC edibles in the trunk of the car. All items were concealed within a large, odor-proof duffle bag, a type often associated with bulk cannabis smuggling.
While cannabis is legally purchasable in Michigan dispensaries, it remains illegal in Indiana, both for sale and possession. This incident highlights the legal discrepancies between states and the complications that arise from them, particularly affecting individuals who traverse state lines.
A Sanford man was convicted on multiple felony charges for his predatory actions involving two 13-year-old sisters, including the use of cannabis to facilitate sexual abuse. The verdict was delivered on Wednesday following a three-day trial in the Midland County Circuit Court under Judge Stephen Carras.
Dwayne Acklin, 39, faced serious accusations, culminating in convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC), three counts of second-degree CSC, and two counts of delivering cannabis to minors. These charges detailed Acklin's exploitation of the minors during family visits, where he not only engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct but also provided them with cannabis, thereby using the substance as a means to commit his crimes.
The jury, which began deliberations on Tuesday afternoon, heard that Acklin leveraged the cannabis to manipulate and sexually abuse one of the sisters. This disturbing strategy played a central role in the case, highlighting the severe misuse of controlled substances to exploit vulnerable individuals.
Acklin's history of criminal behavior, including a 2010 conviction for larceny and a prior acquittal on charges related to child sexual abuse, contributed to his current status as a habitual offender. This designation may extend his sentencing by an additional 25%.
Following the jury's decision, Acklin was remanded to the Midland County Jail, where he awaits sentencing scheduled for July 3rd at 2 p.m. by Judge Carras.
The case was brought to light after the mother of one of the victims uncovered incriminating text messages from Acklin to her daughter, prompting immediate law enforcement intervention. Midland County Prosecutor J. Dee Brooks underscored the tragic and lasting emotional impact such crimes have on victims, while acknowledging the efforts of Assistant District Attorney Courtney Driscoll and Sheriff's Office Detective Scott Holzinger for their roles in securing the conviction.
Midland County Sheriff Myron Greene remarked on the swift action taken by deputies following the mother's alert, leading to Acklin's arrest and the subsequent legal proceedings that confirmed the grievous nature of his offenses.
This case serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers posed by the misuse of substances like cannabis in criminal acts against minors, emphasizing the need for vigilant community and legal oversight.
In a notable legal decision that reiterates the stringent boundaries of disability and age discrimination under U.S. law, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of L. Perrigo Company, dismissing claims filed by former employee Steve Arndt. Arndt had contested his termination, arguing it was due to age and wrongful perception of disability. This article delves into the complexities of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications of the court's decision.
Steve Arndt, a 61-year-old facilities electrician turned vision system technician, was terminated from Perrigo after testing positive for marijuana—a result he attributed to the use of a lip balm containing hemp oil. Perrigo, a leading U.S. manufacturer of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, maintains a zero-tolerance stance on drug use, employing third-party testing to enforce this policy.
Arndt's legal challenge revolved around the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), contending that his dismissal was based on the company's misperception of him as a drug user, equating this misperception with disability. Additionally, he suggested that age discrimination was a contributing factor to his termination.
The crux of the Sixth Circuit's decision lay in the interpretation of what constitutes a "disability" under the ADA. The court emphasized that merely perceiving an employee as a user of illegal drugs does not equate to perceiving them as having a disabling impairment. Moreover, Arndt failed to demonstrate that Perrigo regarded him as having a disability that substantially limited one or more major life activities, a key component of the ADA's protection scope.
Regarding the age discrimination claim under the ADEA, the court noted that Arndt could not prove that his age was the basis for his dismissal. The company's honest belief that Arndt violated its drug policy—regardless of the lip balm's potential effects—served as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination.
The court's ruling underscores the rigorous standards required to establish claims of discrimination based on perceived disability and age. It highlights the significance of employers maintaining clear, well-documented policies and procedures, especially concerning compliance issues like drug testing.
For employees, the decision serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of protection under employment discrimination laws, particularly in cases involving compliance with workplace policies. It also sheds light on the importance of evidence and the burden of proof in discrimination claims.
The Sixth Circuit's affirmation of Steve Arndt's case dismissal provides a clear message on the boundaries of the ADA and ADEA. It reinforces the principle that without concrete evidence of discrimination or a substantial legal basis, employee claims against terminations that align with established company policies are unlikely to succeed.
This decision not only clarifies aspects of employment law concerning drug use and discrimination but also stresses the judicial system's role in interpreting statutory protections in the context of evolving workplace norms and societal values.
In recent times, Pleasantrees, a cannabis retailer in Michigan, has found itself in a swirl of controversy over its checkout practices. Reports from customers suggest that the retailer may be engaging in illegal rounding-up of transaction totals, leading to allegations of violating Michigan Consumer Protection laws.
A compilation of customer experiences shared on Reddit highlights growing dissatisfaction with Pleasantrees. Several patrons have noted that their bill totals at checkout were higher than the amounts confirmed during online ordering. Notably, these discrepancies arise from the company's purported policy of rounding up totals to the nearest dollar due to an alleged coin shortage triggered by the pandemic.
According to one account, a customer who expected to pay the exact total as shown on their online order was surprised at the counter when the amount demanded was higher. Even the printed receipt displayed the correct total, including taxes, but the computer system rounded up. When questioned, the management referred to a policy that mandates rounding up totals exceeding fifty cents to the nearest dollar post-tax.
In defense of its practices, Pleasantrees points to notices on its website and online ordering platform. These notices explicitly state that due to a federal coin shortage, all transactions will be rounded to the nearest dollar, and that the store does not accept coins. This policy, which has been in place for nearly two years, suggests that customers are forewarned about the rounding up practice at the point of online purchase.
However, legal experts and consumer rights advocates argue that even if such a policy is disclosed, the manner of its implementation may still fall foul of the law. Michigan statutes demand that any rounding policy must be clearly and conspicuously communicated to consumers, ideally at the physical point of sale or verbally during the transaction. The apparent lack of such disclosures at physical checkout points may constitute a violation of consumer protection laws.
This issue has sparked considerable debate among customers and industry observers. Some defend the company's policy as a legitimate response to logistical challenges posed by coin shortages during the pandemic. Others view it as an opportunistic move that exploits consumers, comparing it unfavorably with competitors who either round down or maintain exact change policies.
Moreover, past actions by Pleasantrees attempting to limit the operations of smaller cannabis caregivers have also colored public perception, contributing to a narrative of a corporation that might prioritize profits over fairness.
From a legal standpoint, the rounding up of prices without explicit consent at the point of sale is questionable. Michigan's consumer protection laws provide avenues for redressal, including compensation up to ten times the difference between the charged and actual price, capped at $5 per incident. These provisions aim to deter deceptive pricing practices and protect consumer rights.
As Pleasantrees navigates this controversy, the broader implications for trust and transparency in the retail cannabis market in Michigan are clear. Retailers must balance operational challenges with strict adherence to consumer protection laws to maintain credibility and trust with their customer base.
Joseph S. Dulak, a council member in Menominee, Michigan, is at the center of controversy over his alleged ties to a real estate transaction benefiting from the town's thriving cannabis market. Menominee, situated on the Upper Peninsula border, has been a hotspot for cannabis-related business due to its strategic location.
According to public records, a real estate firm associated with Dulak profited significantly from selling a property to a cannabis business. This firm, identified as Keeko LLC, is reportedly linked to Dulak's son, Joseph M. Dulak, who serves as its president. The property in question was purchased for $160,000 and sold a mere week later for $229,000, netting a $69,000 profit.
While no laws or local ethical guidelines were breached, the optics of the transaction have raised concerns among Dulak's peers on the city council. Councilman Michael DeDamos expressed discomfort with the situation, suggesting that although not illegal, the deal could exacerbate public suspicions and confirm doubts within the community.
The timing of the sale coincides with an intense and prolonged battle over cannabis profits in Menominee, involving legal, political, and commercial stakes. Councilman Dulak, despite his claims of non-involvement in Keeko's operational decisions, admitted in a court deposition that he is authorized to conduct property transactions on behalf of Keeko.
The city council's reaction has been mixed, with some members demanding more transparency and even calling for an external investigation into Dulak's real estate dealings with cannabis companies. The Michigan Attorney General's Office, however, has not indicated whether it will pursue an investigation into these allegations.
Further complicating matters, Upper Shelf Farms, the cannabis business that purchased the property from Keeko, has been granted a temporary occupancy permit to renovate the building. The company plans to open its doors this summer, which could bring more attention to the transaction.
Councilman Dulak defends his position, stating the real estate deal was straightforward and not influenced by any personal or professional ties to the cannabis industry. Nevertheless, the controversy persists, highlighting the challenges and scrutiny often associated with the intersection of public service and private business interests in the burgeoning cannabis market.
Helpful Links Categories Recent News