## Facts

- Keenan Reed-Kaliher pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for sale and attempted possession of a narcotic drug for sale.
- The court sentenced him to 1.5 years’ imprisonment on the marijuana count and imposed three years’ probation on the narcotic-drug count, including a condition to “obey all laws.”
- While he was incarcerated, Arizona voters enacted the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), which authorizes qualifying patients to obtain a registry card and use marijuana medically in compliance with the Act.
- Reed-Kaliher suffered chronic pain from a fractured hip and obtained an AMMA registry identification card as a registered qualifying patient.
- After probation began, his probation officer added a condition prohibiting him from possessing or using marijuana “for any reason.”
- Reed-Kaliher moved to remove the condition, arguing AMMA immunized compliant medical marijuana use from “prosecution, revocation of probation, or other punishment.”
- The superior court denied relief; the court of appeals granted relief by special action; the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether AMMA’s immunity provision protects probationers from probation conditions or enforcement measures that punish AMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.
2. Whether applying AMMA in this manner is preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under the Supremacy Clause.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and reversed the superior court.
- The court held that AMMA’s immunity applies to registered qualifying patients who are on probation.
- Any probation term that threatens revocation or other sanctions for AMMA-compliant medical marijuana use is unenforceable and illegal.
- The court rejected federal preemption, concluding that eliminating a conflicting probation condition does not authorize violation of federal law and does not create an irreconcilable conflict with the CSA.

## Legal Principles

- AMMA’s immunity provision bars imposing state “penalty in any manner” or denying a “right or privilege” based solely on a registered qualifying patient’s AMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.
- Courts’ discretion to set probation conditions is limited by statute; probation terms cannot contradict statutory immunities enacted by the legislature or through voter initiative.
- Probation revocation or punishment based on AMMA-compliant use constitutes a prohibited state penalty or denial of a right or privilege.
- AMMA is not preempted by the CSA merely because federal law prohibits marijuana; state law may decline to impose state sanctions without requiring or authorizing federally prohibited conduct.

## Conclusion

Arizona courts may not impose or enforce probation conditions that punish or threaten to punish a registered qualifying patient for medical marijuana use that complies with AMMA, and this state-law protection is not displaced by the federal CSA.


Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119, 347 P.3d 136 (Ariz. 2015)