GRAND RAPIDS, MI – In a Kent County case, the state Supreme Court said that the medical marijuana law does not allow collective grow operations.

But the court ruled that Ryan Bylsma still could file a motion to dismiss in Kent County Circuit Court.

The state Court of Appeals had ruled that Bylsma was precluded from asserting a medical marijuana defense.

The 19-page decision was issued Wednesday, Dec. 19.

Related: Michigan Supreme Court weighs collective growing for medical marijuana in Grand Rapids case

Bylsma had set up a grow operation in a building on Market Avenue. The unit had a steel door, and was safe and secure.

Related: Grand Rapids medical marijuana case goes to state Supreme Court

As a licensed caregiver, he was able to possess 24 plants. Others grew plants there, too.

Grand Rapids police searched the unit on Sept. 15, 2010, and seized 88 plants.

Kent County Circuit Judge George Buth ruled that the medical marijuana law had a strict requirement that each set of 12 plants allowed under the law must be kept in an enclosed, locked facility that can be accessed only by one person.

An appeals panel upheld that ruling, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said Bylsma received training on growing marijuana in California.

He spent five to seven days a week at the warehouse, where he oversaw the plants.



When police raided his operation, he said he owned only 24 plants.

“Defendant claims that this court should not apply caselaw regarding possession of controlled substances to (medical marijuana) cases because the possession of marijuana is no longer illegal per se under state law,” the Supreme Court said.

However, it said that the medical marijuana law “does not create a general right for individuals to use and possess marijuana in Michigan. Indeed, marijuana remains a schedule 1 controlled substance under the Public Health Code, which defendant is charged with violating.

“The (medical marijuana law’s) limited exceptions for the medical use of marijuana do not provide a basis for this court to redefine what constitutes the possession of marijuana; instead, these limited exceptions show that the drafters and voters intended that the (law) to exist within the traditional framework regarding possession of marijuana and other controlled substances.”

Evidence clearly showed that Bylsma exercised “dominion and control” of the marijuana plants, the court said.

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