GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A Kent County prosecutor said that a voter initiative to decriminalize marijuana wrongly prohibits Grand Rapids police from enforcing state law – or even reporting a marijuana crime to county prosecutors.

Kent County Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan also found that provision unusual: "The only people prohibited from reporting a marijuana violation, if you will, to the Kent County prosecutors are Grand Rapids police officers and Grand Rapids city attorneys."

But City Attorney Catherine Mish and attorney Jack Hoffman, representing Decriminalize GR, the driving force behind the effort, said voters passed a legal charter amendment that should stand.

Related: Kent County prosecutor's challenge to marijuana decriminalization in Grand Rapids goes to court

Related: Grand Rapids marijuana decriminalization case: City defense smells like Shakespeare, Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth says

Related: Grand Rapids marijuana decriminalization limit: 2.5 ounces

Mish said the law decriminalizing marijuana was patterned after Ann Arbor’s, which has been in effect 35 years without significant problems or challenges by the Washtenaw County prosecutor.

Hoffman said: “I do believe our case is a strong case.”

Sullivan, acting on Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth’s request for an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect, said he would issue a written opinion, probably within two weeks. He said that a temporary restraining order would remain in effect until his opinion is released.

The losing side is expected to take the case to the state Court of Appeals.

“The principle’s very important,” Assistant Kent County Prosecutor Timothy McMorrow said after the hearing.

He said the law creates a “legal impediment” for county prosecutors to review marijuana cases. He also argued that cities cannot turn a state law into a civil infraction.

Mish, the city attorney, challenged prosecutors over the number of marijuana cases Grand Rapids police present to county prosecutors.

If it was such an issue, Mish said, prosecutors should have provided numbers of marijuana cases it handles yearly brought by Grand Rapids police.

She said prosecutors haven’t met the burden for an injunction.

She said that the state Constitution gives voters the right to decide the issue. She noted the hearing wasn’t to decide the merits of the case, but whether the injunction should be allowed.

Both sides are relying on legal arguments, rather than presentation of evidence.

Mish said that the case was also a matter of the city deciding how to use police resources. Hypothetically, she said, the city, in tight budget times, could temporarily eliminate traffic enforcement and prosecutors wouldn’t complain.

She said the voters have spoken.

“The city and City Commission have no power to change the charter, only the voters can change the charter.”

E-mail John Agar: jagar@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/grpressagar