Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state
237 Ariz. 119, 347 P.3d 136, 710 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 6 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act's (AMMA) immunity provision prohibits a court from imposing a probation condition that forbids a registered qualifying patient from using medical marijuana in compliance with the Act, as such a condition constitutes an illegal penalty or denial of a privilege under state law.
Facts:
- Keenan Reed-Kaliher was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale and attempted possession of a narcotic drug for sale.
- As part of his sentence, he was placed on probation with a condition that he 'obey all laws.'
- Reed-Kaliher suffers from chronic pain resulting from a fractured hip.
- While Reed-Kaliher was incarcerated, Arizona voters passed the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).
- After AMMA became law, Reed-Kaliher obtained a registry identification card from the state, identifying him as a 'registered qualifying patient' eligible to use medical marijuana for his chronic pain.
- Reed-Kaliher's probation officer subsequently added a new, specific condition to his probation stating that he 'not possess or use marijuana for any reason.'
Procedural Posture:
- Keenan Reed-Kaliher moved the superior court (trial court) to amend his probation conditions to remove the 'no marijuana' term.
- The superior court denied the motion.
- Reed-Kaliher filed a special action in the Arizona Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals granted relief, finding the probation condition invalid.
- The State of Arizona (Hoggatt) petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court (highest court) for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) prevent a court from imposing a condition of probation that prohibits a registered qualifying patient from using medical marijuana in compliance with the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Berch
Yes, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) prevents a court from imposing this condition. A probation term that threatens to revoke probation for medical marijuana use that complies with AMMA is illegal and unenforceable. AMMA's immunity provision broadly protects registered qualifying patients from 'arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege.' The court reasoned that probation is a 'privilege' and its revocation is a 'penalty.' Therefore, threatening to revoke probation for lawful medical marijuana use is exactly what AMMA prohibits. The court found that AMMA's text does not exclude probationers or those with prior drug convictions from becoming qualifying patients. While courts have authority to set probation conditions, they cannot impose an illegal term, and AMMA renders this specific term illegal under state law. The court also rejected the state's federal preemption argument, holding that while marijuana remains illegal federally, the federal Controlled Substances Act does not compel state courts to enforce federal law or prohibit states from decriminalizing certain conduct under their own laws.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the robust protections afforded by Arizona's voter-enacted medical marijuana law, extending its immunity to individuals within the criminal justice system. It establishes that the statutory immunity granted by AMMA supersedes the discretionary authority of courts and probation officers to set probation conditions related to marijuana use for qualifying patients. The ruling clarifies that state-level medical marijuana laws create an effective shield against state-imposed penalties, even if the underlying conduct remains illegal under federal law. This precedent significantly limits the state's ability to restrict medical marijuana access for probationers and reinforces the principle that state courts cannot be compelled to enforce federal drug policy in contravention of state statutes.
