Medical marijuana grown in Grand RapidsGRAND 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.”
E-mail John Agar: jagar@grpress.com