Probation violation; Condition prohibiting marijuana use; Motion to dismiss; The Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA); People v Thue (concerning the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)); MCL 333.27954(1)(a) (prohibiting operating motor vehicles under the influence of marijuana); Operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana (MCL 257.625(3)); The Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC)

Concluding the probation condition prohibiting defendant from using marijuana was lawful, the court held that he was “not entitled to protection from penalty under the MRTMA for violating” his probation terms. Thus, it affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss his probation violations. He was on probation after pleading guilty to violating MCL 257.625(3). He did “not dispute that the conviction was related to his use of marijuana, and that he was under the influence of marijuana while driving.” While on probation, he twice tested positive for marijuana, resulting in probation violations that he unsuccessfully moved to have dismissed. The circuit court affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion. Defendant relied on Thue, a case involving the MMMA. The court noted he overlooked the fact that in Thue, it found that the MMMA did not apply to recreational marijuana use and trial courts may impose probation conditions related to such use and “‘revoke probation for such recreational use as well as for marijuana use in violation of the MMMA.’” The court added that the “MRTMA was enacted in 2018, and Thue was decided in 2021. Although this statement was dicta, as the Court was only analyzing the matter in relation to the MMMA, it is clear that the Court believed that a difference exists between imposing conditions of probation prohibiting the use of medical marijuana and those addressing the use of recreational marijuana.” The court noted that while the “MRTMA provides that individuals cannot be directly penalized for recreational marijuana use, the law specifically prohibits the ‘operat[ion] . . . of any motor vehicle . . . while under the influence of marihuana[.]’ MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Here, defendant was not penalized simply for recreational marijuana use, which would certainly violate the MRTMA. Instead, the probation condition prohibiting him from using marijuana was a penalty imposed for violating MCL 257.625(3). Nothing in the MRTMA suggests that it was intended to supersede the” MVC, particularly not those portions “designed to protect the health and safety of the public.” The court further found that the probation condition “was rationally related to” defendant’s rehabilitation, as it addressed “the underlying substance use issue that led to his violation of MCL 257.625(3).”