COA: Licensed hemp processor may be prosecuted for controlled substance offenses without referral from administrative agency that regulates hemp industry
State v. Christopher J. Syrrakos & Kristyn A. Shattuck, 2024AP554 & 2024AP556, 10/29/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The COA held, in a decision recommended for publication, that a licensed hemp processor may be prosecuted for offenses related to possessing, manufacturing, and delivering products that contain concentrations of THC above the threshold to be classified as “hemp” without a referral by the agency concerned with regulating the hemp industry.
Hemp and marijuana are subspecies of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and are legally distinguished by the level of THC they contain. Under Wisconsin law, hemp is Cannabis sativa L. or any part of the plant with a THC level of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis or the maximum concentration allowed under federal law up to 1 percent, whichever is greater. Wis. Stat. § 94.55(1). A substance with a higher concentration of THC is a controlled substance under Wis. Stat. § 961.14(4)(t).
Christopher Syrrakos obtained a license in 2018 from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to process hemp and he operated Superstar Buds in Menomonee Falls that sold products containing THC. (¶ 16). Law enforcement in Waukesha received a tip that children were hospitalized after ingesting THC gummies they obtained at Superstar Buds. Police, while undercover, purchased products from Superstar Buds, which after testing were found to contain concentrations of THC in excess of the legal limit. (¶ 17). Police executed search warrants for Superstar Buds and a residence shared by Syrrakos and Kristyn Shattuck and seized items that also had concentrations of THC above the legal limit for hemp. Syrrakos was charged with manufacturing and delivering THC, possessing THC with intent to deliver, possessing THC, and maintaining a drug trafficking place; Shattuck was charged with maintaining a drug trafficking place. (¶ 18).
Wis. Stat. 961.32(3)(c) states that a person who violates § 94.55 (the statute regulating hemp) or a rule promulgated under that statute may not be prosecuted under § 94.55 or chapter 961 (the Uniform Controlled Substances Act) unless the person is referred to the district attorney by the DATCP. Syrrakos and Shattuck filed a motion to dismiss the eight counts that related to substances seized from Superstar Buds and argued the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because their cases were not referred for prosecution by the DATCP to the district attorney. The circuit court initially denied the motion, but on reconsideration dismissed all counts against Syrrakos and Shattuck. (¶ 22).
The State argued on appeal that a referral by DATCP was not required because the defendants were not charged with violating provisions of the hemp statute, but for possessing, manufacturing and delivering a controlled substance and for maintaining a drug trafficking place. (¶ 26). The defendants responded that the referral requirement applied to Syrrakos because, as a licensed prcocessor of hemp, he was required to comply with Wisconsin’s laws and administrative rules regarding hemp, which prohibited Syrrakos from “having any product above the legal limit.” (¶ 27).
The COA agreed with the State that a referral by the DATCP was not required because the charges did not arise out of the defendants’ manufacture, possession, or sale of hemp: “They relate, instead, to items with THC concentrations far in excess of the level that would make them hemp under Wisconsin law . . . These items, as alleged in the complaint, are not ‘hemp’ as defined under § 94.55(1); they are controlled substances under Wis. Stat. § 961.14(4)(t).” (¶ 28).
The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that their alleged conduct violated administrative rules governing hemp growers that were promulgated under § 94.55 and therefore required a DATCP referral for prosecution. The Court noted that Syrrakos held only a processor license, which allowed him to store, handle, and convert hemp into a marketable form; it did not allow him to grow hemp. Because the rules cited by Syrrakos and Shattuck do not apply to licensed processors of hemp, their conduct did not violate the rules promulgated under § 94.55 governing licensed hemp growers. (¶ 32).
The Court concluded that allowing the prosecutions against the defendants did not frustrate the purpose of Wisconsin’s regulatory framework for hemp because “they have not been charged with any offenses related to hot hemp. Syrrakos has been charged with the possession, manufacture, and delivery of items containing unlawfully high concentrations of THC, and he and Shattuck have been charged with maintaining drug trafficking places.” (¶ 33).