Pot Law's Fate Now Unclear

YPSILANT1 - The decision by 14th District Court Thomas F. Shea Thursday which voided Ypsilanti's $5 marijuana law, has launched that ordinance on a journey through the court that could end in Circuit Court, or go further. But when that journey is ended, the strength of such ordinances on the local level may finally be established. Such a path was mapped out for a similar ordinance in Ann Arbor last year, but that case ended without a decision in circuit court when the new City Council rescinded the ordinance. In the April general election, the $5 marijuana provision was again adopted in Ann Arbor, this time as a charter' amendment. Shea ruled the Ypsilanti ordinance unconstitutional because, he said, it contravenes state law by making possession of marijuana with intent to deliver a misdemeanor offense, and that it attempts to control the actions of a state-supervised court. Shea's decision, which came during a preliminary examination of David Gray, 19, of 301 N. Adams, who was charged by Ypsilanti Police with marijuana possession under Michigan Law, rather than the local ordinance, is, at this point, not the final word on the ordinance. His ruling did have the effect of binding Gray over to circuit court, where his attorney, Thomas Truesdell, has acknowledged that a similar defense, citing the existence of the city ordinance, will probably be used again. An adverse decision from the circuit court could be appealed, but according to Truesdell it is to early to tell if his client will want to go that route. Shea's decision was expected by many, especially in view of what happened to the same ordinance in Ann Arbor just a year ago. The .view that the ordinance would eventually end up in court, because of its conflict with state law, was expounded by City Attorney Kenneth Bronson on numerous occasions. However, the ordinance was placed on the lot by petitions and approved in the April general election. The city was saved the expense, of possibly having to defend the ordinance in court by the advent of the Gray case. Before the Gray case, the city could have ended up in court if someone had challenged the city's right to enforce the ordinance. Or the city could have filed for a declaratory judgement, asking the court to rule on the validity of the ordinance. Both these alternatives were shunted asidê with the Gray case, which should have the effect of determining the legality of the ordinance. If Gray does not exhaust all of his appeals, any supporter of the ordinance could then seek a declaratory judgement. However, according to Assistant City Attorney Ronald Egnor, the court could refuse to render such a judgment.