36-2811. Presumption of medical use of marijuana; protections; civil penalty
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. There is a presumption that a qualifying patient or designated caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter.
1. The presumption exists if the qualifying patient or designated caregiver:
(a) Is in possession of a registry identification card.
(b) Is in possession of an amount of marijuana that does not exceed the allowable amount of marijuana.
2. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of treating or alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition pursuant to this chapter.
B. A registered qualifying patient or registered designated caregiver is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau:
1. For the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, if the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.
2. For the registered designated caregiver assisting a registered qualifying patient to whom he is connected through the department's registration process with the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter if the registered designated caregiver does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.
3. For offering or providing marijuana to a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver for the registered qualifying patient's medical use or to a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary if nothing of value is transferred in return and the person giving the marijuana does not knowingly cause the recipient to possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.
C. A physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Arizona board of medical examiners or by any other business, occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, based solely on providing written certifications or for otherwise stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, but nothing in this chapter prevents a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.
D. No person may be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for:
1. Providing a registered qualifying patient, a registered designated caregiver or a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary with marijuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana.
2. Being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana authorized under this chapter.
3. Assisting a registered qualifying patient with administering marijuana as authorized by this chapter.
E. A registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is not subject to prosecution; search or inspection, except by the department pursuant to section 36-2806, subsection H; seizure or penalty in any manner and may not be denied any right or privilege, including civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or business licensing board or entity, for acting pursuant to this chapter and department regulations to acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, sell or dispense marijuana or related supplies and educational materials to registered qualifying patients, to registered designated caregivers on behalf of registered qualifying patients or to other registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries.
F. A registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary agent is not subject to arrest, prosecution, search, seizure or penalty in any manner and may not be denied any right or privilege, including civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or entity, for working or volunteering for a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary pursuant to this chapter and department regulations to acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, sell or dispense marijuana or related supplies and educational materials to registered qualifying patients, to registered designated caregivers on behalf of registered qualifying patients or to other registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries.
G. Property, including all interests in the property, otherwise subject to forfeiture under title 13, chapter 39, that is possessed, owned or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana authorized under this chapter or acts incidental to the medical use of marijuana authorized under this chapter, is not subject to seizure or forfeiture. This subsection does not prevent civil forfeiture if the basis for the forfeiture is unrelated to the medical use of marijuana.
H. Mere possession of, or application for, a registry identification card may not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor may it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card. The possession of, or application for, a registry identification card does not preclude the existence of probable cause if probable cause exists on other grounds.
I. No school, landlord or employer may be penalized or denied any benefit under state law for enrolling, leasing to or employing a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones, 440 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 10× “Specifically, AMMA provides protection "[f]or the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, [so long as] the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 373 P.3d 549 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 7× “AR.S. § 36-2811(B) (limiting immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty for marijuana offenses to the medical use of marijuana for a “registered qualifying patient[ ]” (emphasis added)); AR.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear, 372 P.3d 287 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 11× “¶ 15 In interpreting § 36-2811(0, the court of appeals did not consider the qualifier “solely,” but instead noted that the statute grants immunity for “providing written certification or for otherwise stating that, in the physician’s professional opinion, a patient is likely to…”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 33× “By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock, 350 P.3d 835 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 21× “Matlock devotes a considerable portion of his answering brief to arguing that § 36-2811 (B)(3) is constitutional because "protecting patient-to-patient sales has a rational basis.”
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state, 347 P.3d 136 (Ariz. 2015).
· cites it 7× “He claimed that AMMA’s immunity provision, A.R.S. § 36-2811(B), shields him from prosecution, revocation of probation, or other punishment for his possession or use of medical marijuana.”
Green Cross Med., Inc. v. Gally, 395 P.3d 302 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “See A.R.S. § 36-2811. An interpretation that allows a dispensary to lease premises for use compliant with the AMMA, but authorizes the State to prosecute a landlord leasing property to a dispensary compliant with the AMMA (or a court to void an AMMA-compliant lease) would render…”
State v. Gear, 339 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 31× “” The inclusion of immunity for professional opinions made outside of a written certification provides an alternative circumstance under which the State cannot prosecute a physician; it does not limit or define the immunity given for providing a written certification.”
State v. Okun, 296 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “In support of this argument, the State points out that Oregon’s medical marijuana statute expressly provides that marijuana seized from a qualifying patient must be returned to the patient once it is determined that the patient qualifies for protection.”
Dobson v. McClennen, 337 P.3d 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “§ 28-1381(A)(3) charge resulting from use of marijuana under the AMMA Similarly, neither AR.S. § 36-2811(B) nor AR.S. § 36-2802(D) provides immunity for defendants facing charges for driving with an impermissible drug or impairing metabolite in their bodies under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(0) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear, 372 P.3d 287 (Ariz. 2016).
“¶ 15 In interpreting § 36-2811(0, the court of appeals did not consider the qualifier “solely,” but instead noted that the statute grants immunity for “providing written certification or for otherwise stating that, in the physician’s professional opinion, a patient is likely to…”
State v. Gear, 339 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“” The inclusion of immunity for professional opinions made outside of a written certification provides an alternative circumstance under which the State cannot prosecute a physician; it does not limit or define the immunity given for providing a written certification.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(2) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(A) — 5 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(A)(1) — 9 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(A)(1)(a) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(A)(2) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(A)(l) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(A)(l)(a) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(B) — 25 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 373 P.3d 549 (Ariz. 2016).
“AR.S. § 36-2811(B) (limiting immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty for marijuana offenses to the medical use of marijuana for a “registered qualifying patient[ ]” (emphasis added)); AR.”
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state, 347 P.3d 136 (Ariz. 2015).
“He claimed that AMMA’s immunity provision, A.R.S. § 36-2811(B), shields him from prosecution, revocation of probation, or other punishment for his possession or use of medical marijuana.”
State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones, 440 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2019).
“Specifically, AMMA provides protection "[f]or the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, [so long as] the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(B)(1) — 18 cases
State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones, 440 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2019).
“Specifically, AMMA provides protection "[f]or the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, [so long as] the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.”
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state, 347 P.3d 136 (Ariz. 2015).
“He claimed that AMMA’s immunity provision, A.R.S. § 36-2811(B), shields him from prosecution, revocation of probation, or other punishment for his possession or use of medical marijuana.”
State v. Okun, 296 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“In support of this argument, the State points out that Oregon’s medical marijuana statute expressly provides that marijuana seized from a qualifying patient must be returned to the patient once it is determined that the patient qualifies for protection.”
Dobson v. McClennen, 337 P.3d 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“§ 28-1381(A)(3) charge resulting from use of marijuana under the AMMA Similarly, neither AR.S. § 36-2811(B) nor AR.S. § 36-2802(D) provides immunity for defendants facing charges for driving with an impermissible drug or impairing metabolite in their bodies under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(B)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(B)(3) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock, 350 P.3d 835 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“Matlock devotes a considerable portion of his answering brief to arguing that § 36-2811 (B)(3) is constitutional because "protecting patient-to-patient sales has a rational basis.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(B)(l) — 5 cases
Dobson v. McClennen, 337 P.3d 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“§ 28-1381(A)(3) charge resulting from use of marijuana under the AMMA Similarly, neither AR.S. § 36-2811(B) nor AR.S. § 36-2802(D) provides immunity for defendants facing charges for driving with an impermissible drug or impairing metabolite in their bodies under A.”
State v. Okun, 296 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“In support of this argument, the State points out that Oregon’s medical marijuana statute expressly provides that marijuana seized from a qualifying patient must be returned to the patient once it is determined that the patient qualifies for protection.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(C) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear, 372 P.3d 287 (Ariz. 2016).
“¶ 15 In interpreting § 36-2811(0, the court of appeals did not consider the qualifier “solely,” but instead noted that the statute grants immunity for “providing written certification or for otherwise stating that, in the physician’s professional opinion, a patient is likely to…”
State v. Gear, 339 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“” The inclusion of immunity for professional opinions made outside of a written certification provides an alternative circumstance under which the State cannot prosecute a physician; it does not limit or define the immunity given for providing a written certification.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(D)(2) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(E) — 4 cases
Green Cross Med., Inc. v. Gally, 395 P.3d 302 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“See A.R.S. § 36-2811. An interpretation that allows a dispensary to lease premises for use compliant with the AMMA, but authorizes the State to prosecute a landlord leasing property to a dispensary compliant with the AMMA (or a court to void an AMMA-compliant lease) would render…”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock, 350 P.3d 835 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“Matlock devotes a considerable portion of his answering brief to arguing that § 36-2811 (B)(3) is constitutional because "protecting patient-to-patient sales has a rational basis.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(F) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(G) — 1 case
State v. Okun, 296 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“In support of this argument, the State points out that Oregon’s medical marijuana statute expressly provides that marijuana seized from a qualifying patient must be returned to the patient once it is determined that the patient qualifies for protection.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2811(H) — 5 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 373 P.3d 549 (Ariz. 2016).
“AR.S. § 36-2811(B) (limiting immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty for marijuana offenses to the medical use of marijuana for a “registered qualifying patient[ ]” (emphasis added)); AR.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“By their terms, these subsections of § 36-2811 uphold privacy rights and alter our prior search-and-seizure jurisprudence concerning marijuana.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.