Marijuana haze
Police struggle to keep up with new laws on pot
Ajudge in Lehigh County has handed down an alltoorare decision upholding a citizen’s constitutional rights — one that signals law enforcement’s need to better understand the laws around medical marijuana.
Instead of appealing the decision, which they have the option to do, authorities should embrace this teachable moment. The laws that apply to marijuana are evolving as states legalize medical and recreational use, as well as the use of its close relative, hemp.
At issue in Lehigh County was a November traffic stop in Allentown. State police said they pulled over a car for a traffic violation and noticed the odor of marijuana when they walked up to the vehicle. Officers searched the car even though the passenger, Timothy Barr, 27, produced a medical marijuana card. The troopers found marijuana, some of it in baggies, and a handgun that Barr wasn’t permitted to own because of a previous case, then charged him with various offenses.
Common Pleas Judge Maria Dantos ruled the search of the car was illegal and the seized items inadmissible as evidence. Because the state has legalized medical marijuana, she wrote, “the smell of marijuana is no longer, per se, indicative of a crime” or probable cause to search a vehicle. In legalizing medical marijuana, she added, the Legislature surely did not intend for users to be harassed by the police.
The case laid bare law enforcement’s lack of understanding about medical marijuana. Although one of the two troopers who made the traffic stop was helping to train the other, both showed a startling lack of awareness.
One thought leafy green medical marijuana had no smell when properly ingested, but in reality, its odor is indistinguishable from that of illegal pot. In addition, neither trooper knew that medical marijuana may be packaged in baggies
similar to how the illegal form of the drug is sold on the street.
One would think Pennsylvania State Police, more than any other law enforcement agency operating in the state, would be better informed. The case shows the need for better training on medical marijuana and on search and seizure, particularly searches related to traffic stops. The troopers may have been well- intentioned, Judge Dantos said, but they were also wrong.
Other states are wrestling with similar issues.
In Ohio, the recent legalization of commercial hemp, which does not produce a high, has put police in a bind because they cannot visually distinguish between marijuana and hemp. And state labs currently have no way to accurately differentiate them.
So until crime labs can develop the technology needed to prove a suspect has illegal marijuana rather than legal hemp, the Ohio attorney general advised law enforcement to either use federal labs or hold off on filing marijuana possession charges.
Much to their credit, at least some Ohio police departments, are opting to give citizens the benefit of the doubt. Officers are still collecting suspected cannabis samples but the office is deferring arrests until testing can be done.
In Ohio, Pennsylvania and across the country, a conservative approach is the right approach while policing catches up with evolving marijuana laws.