GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- A Kent County prosecutor says his opposition to decriminalizing marijuana in Grand Rapids is not about usurping "voters' rights."

"I don't think this case is about voters' rights," Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Tim McMorrow said Friday, Nov. 14.

"The voters do not have a right to adopt anything they want," he said. "Something doesn't become valid because the voters voted for it."

Related: Grand Rapids marijuana decriminalization: No spike in cases

McMorrow made the argument to a three-judge panel of state Court of Appeals justices in Grand Rapids.

He argued on behalf of Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth, who is fighting the 2012 voter-approved city charter amendment to make possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil infraction.

In 2012, more than 44,000 Grand Rapids voters approved the amendment. Police began applying the civil infraction in May 2013.

Kent County Circuit Court Judge Paul Sullivan last year rejected a legal effort by Forsyth to overturn the amendment.

Now at the Court of Appeals, justices may take several months to issue an opinion.

Whatever the decision, attorneys for both the prosecutor's office and city say the case is likely headed to the state Supreme Court.

McMorrow and Grand Rapids City Attorney Catherine Mish took turns arguing their positions today.

McMorrow said the city, even with voter consent, cannot make an offense a civil infraction if it is a crime at the state level. He suggested there could be issues with "double jeopardy."

Related: Grand Rapids man gets first citation after marijuana decriminalized

"I do not see how they can possibly get around that. No provision of any city charter shall conflict with any given law of the state," he said.

"What the city has done is really create a safe haven for using marijuana in the city of Grand Rapids," McMorrow said.

But the justices seemed to take issue with McMorrow's assertion.

Justice Elizabeth Gleicher said it's her understanding that prosecutors are still capable of criminally prosecuting any marijuana offense in the county.

And Justice Pat Donofrio said: "If you have a civil infraction, you can still have a criminal prosecution. You can have both."

Donofrio said the argument about "double jeopardy" isn't compelling because a civil infraction carries no jail time.

Mish argued the case is about voters rights.

"The city did not draft a charter amendment. It was the electorate that took action in this case," she said.

Mish argued that cities, including Grand Rapids, often have "parallel" sets of laws or ordinances that overlap. Two of those are assault and driving with a suspended license.

Civil infractions for marijuana-possession offenses -- less then 2.5 ounces -- have been issued for about 18 months in Grand Rapids.

"I don't hear where the world has fallen down," Mish said.

Data shows that police are still handling about the same number of marijuana-possession incidents as they did before the amendment took effect.

Mish said she hopes a Court of Appeals ruling will bring clarity to the issue.

"The city, I think, will benefit from a court decision that lays out what the law is," she said.

E-mail John Tunison: jtunison@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/johntunison