Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Initiated Law 1 of 2018
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954 (2026)

Scope of act; unauthorized activities with marihuana and marihuana accessories; limitations; application of privileges, rights, immunities, and defenses under other marihuana laws; employer rights; property owner rights.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN REGULATION AND TAXATION OF MARIHUANA ACT


Initiated Law 1 of 2018


333.27954 Scope of act; unauthorized activities with marihuana and marihuana accessories; limitations; application of privileges, rights, immunities, and defenses under other marihuana laws; employer rights; property owner rights.

Sec. 4.

    1. This act does not authorize:

    (a) operating, navigating, or being in physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana;

    (b) transfer of marihuana or marihuana accessories to a person under the age of 21;

    (c) any person under the age of 21 to possess, consume, purchase or otherwise obtain, cultivate, process, transport, or sell marihuana;

    (d) separation of plant resin by butane extraction or another method that utilizes a substance with a flashpoint below 100 degrees Fahrenheit in any public place, motor vehicle, or within the curtilage of any residential structure;

    (e) consuming marihuana in a public place or smoking marihuana where prohibited by the person who owns, occupies, or manages the property, except for purposes of this subdivision a public place does not include an area designated for consumption within a municipality that has authorized consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age;

    (f) cultivating marihuana plants if the plants are visible from a public place without the use of binoculars, aircraft, or other optical aids or outside of an enclosed area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access to the area;

    (g) consuming marihuana while operating, navigating, or being in physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat, or smoking marihuana within the passenger area of a vehicle upon a public way;

    (h) possessing marihuana accessories or possessing or consuming marihuana on the grounds of a public or private school where children attend classes in preschool programs, kindergarten programs, or grades 1 through 12, in a school bus, or on the grounds of any correctional facility; or

    (i) Possessing more than 2.5 ounces of marihuana within a person's place of residence unless the excess marihuana is stored in a container or area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access to the contents of the container or area.

    2. This act does not limit any privileges, rights, immunities, or defenses of a person as provided in the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430, the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801, or any other law of this state allowing for or regulating marihuana for medical use.

    3. This act does not require an employer to permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by this act in any workplace or on the employer's property. This act does not prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for violation of a workplace drug policy or for working while under the influence of marihuana. This act does not prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that person's violation of a workplace drug policy or because that person was working while under the influence of marihuana.

    4. This act allows a person to prohibit or otherwise regulate the consumption, cultivation, distribution, processing, sale, or display of marihuana and marihuana accessories on property the person owns, occupies, or manages, except that a lease agreement may not prohibit a tenant from lawfully possessing and consuming marihuana by means other than smoking.

    5. All other laws inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.

History: 2018, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 6, 2018

Compiler's Notes:

    This new act was proposed by initiative petition pursuant to Const. 1963, art 2, section 9. The proposed language was certified to the legislature on April 26, 2018 with the 40-day consideration period lapsing on June 5, 2018. The initiative petition was submitted to the voters as proposal 18-1 at the November 6, 2018 general election where it was approved 2,356,422 for and 1,859,675 against.

    For the transfer of powers and duties of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs, including its bureau of marijuana regulation, to the marijuana regulatory agency, and abolishment of the bureau of marijuana regulation, see E.R.O. No. 2019-2, compiled at MCL 333.27001.

    For the renaming of the marijuana regulatory agency to the cannabis regulatory agency, see E.R.O. No. 2022-1, compiled at MCL 333.27002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 14× “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 14× “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 11× “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 11× “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
People of Michigan v. Jeffery Scott Armstrong (Mich. 2025). · cites it 7× “50 The problem with this analysis is that Kazmierczak’s rule regarding the smell of marijuana relates only to probable cause for searches for contraband or evidence of a crime.”
165233_91_01.Pdf (Mich. 2025). · cites it 7× “50 The problem with this analysis is that Kazmierczak’s rule regarding the smell of marijuana relates only to probable cause for searches for contraband or evidence of a crime.”
People of Michigan v. Donnevan Lee Coppernoll (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “or smoking marihuana within the passenger area of a vehicle upon a public way.” See also MCL 333.26427(b)(4) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.”
20221122_C360693_48_360693.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “27954(1)(g), or operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Thus, analysis of search-and-seizure law is now much more complicated and nuanced than it was when marijuana was unlawful in all circumstances in Michigan.”
People of Michigan v. Marco a Lopez-Hernandez (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “]” MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Defendant pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, MCL 257.”
City of Farmington v. Farmington Survey Comm. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “A municipality may adopt an ordinance requiring a marihuana establishment with a physical location within the municipality to obtain a municipal 4 MCL 333.27954 sets forth the scope of MRTMA, detailing what the act does not authorize.”
People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “27954(1)(g); or operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Under MCL 333.27965(3), persons under 21 possessing 2.”
People of Michigan v. Shaaln M Kejbou (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Specifically, Article 5 states: (1) Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act,[4] the following acts by a person 21 years 4 Section 4, MCL 333.27954, clarifies that the MRTMA does not authorize operation of…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(1) — 14 cases
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Montario Marquise Taylor (Mich. 2025).
People of Michigan v. Andrew Michael Czarnecki (Mich. 2025).
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(1)(a) — 10 cases
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
People of Michigan v. Marco a Lopez-Hernandez (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “]” MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Defendant pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, MCL 257.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(1)(c) — 4 cases
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(1)(e) — 5 cases
People of Michigan v. Jeffery Scott Armstrong (Mich. 2025). “50 The problem with this analysis is that Kazmierczak’s rule regarding the smell of marijuana relates only to probable cause for searches for contraband or evidence of a crime.”
165233_91_01.Pdf (Mich. 2025). “50 The problem with this analysis is that Kazmierczak’s rule regarding the smell of marijuana relates only to probable cause for searches for contraband or evidence of a crime.”
20221122_C360693_48_360693.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “27954(1)(g), or operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Thus, analysis of search-and-seizure law is now much more complicated and nuanced than it was when marijuana was unlawful in all circumstances in Michigan.”
People of Michigan v. Denzel Danagelo Tate (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “27954(1)(g); or operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Under MCL 333.27965(3), persons under 21 possessing 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(1)(g) — 9 cases
People of Michigan v. Donnevan Lee Coppernoll (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “or smoking marihuana within the passenger area of a vehicle upon a public way.” See also MCL 333.26427(b)(4) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “This is consistent with the opening proviso of MCL 333.27954 that “this act does not authorize: .”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The majority notes “that while MCL 333.27954(1) identifies certain conduct that the MRTMA expressly ‘does not authorize,’ it does not follow that the MRTMA authorizes any and all conduct that is not expressly identified as ‘not authorize[d].”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(3) — 1 case
City of Farmington v. Farmington Survey Comm. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “A municipality may adopt an ordinance requiring a marihuana establishment with a physical location within the municipality to obtain a municipal 4 MCL 333.27954 sets forth the scope of MRTMA, detailing what the act does not authorize.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(5) — 6 cases
People of Michigan v. Shaaln M Kejbou (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Specifically, Article 5 states: (1) Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act,[4] the following acts by a person 21 years 4 Section 4, MCL 333.27954, clarifies that the MRTMA does not authorize operation of…”
C People of Michigan v. Shaaln M Kejbou (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Marco a Lopez-Hernandez (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “]” MCL 333.27954(1)(a). Defendant pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, MCL 257.”
People of Michigan v. Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
People of Michigan v. Douglas Lavon Williams Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Cody Lawrence Willett (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(d) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Alexan Armen Korkigian (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27954(i) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Lejuan Allen Buford (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
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.