Pubdate: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 Source: Daily Herald (IL) Copyright: 2001 The Daily Herald Company Contact: P.O. Box 280, Arlington Heights, IL 60006-0280 Fax: (847) 427-1301 Website: http://www.dailyherald.com/ Author: Eric Andrews MAKE ARRESTEE PROVE NOTE'S VALIDITY IN COURT I am writing in regard to the March 2 article titled "Drug charges against cancer patient dropped." Now I understand that Mr. Peterson has cancer and is terminally ill, and my sympathies go out to him. But, there are a few things about this case and article that are bothersome. First off, marijuana is illegal and although not the most dangerous drug in the world, it's still illegal. I don't have sympathy for anyone who is arrested for having marijuana on their person while traveling as a passenger or driver in a car in the middle of the night, as was the case with Peterson. Plus, when I'm ill, I don't carry my Nyquil or Dayquil or whatever medication I'm on around with me everywhere I go. Now, that's not to equate cancer with the common cold or the flu, but if marijuana is used for medicinal purposes, shouldn't it be kept at home in the medicine cabinet and not in a plastic baggie in your pocket? I agree with the officers' decision to make the arrest, despite the doctor's note. Police officers are lied to constantly, and I would expect any officer to question the validity of such a note, considering the fact that there is no regulation in regard to notes from doctors permitting a patient to have marijuana in his possession, especially while traveling in a vehicle late at night. If the note truly is valid, let the arrestee prove it in court. But until there is a standard as far as notes from doctors, and the laws are amended to permit such a thing, then the law stands and Peterson should not think he can travel with baggies of marijuana as he wishes. Given the same situation, I would have arrested him, too, even after hearing the outcome of this case. I also was annoyed at the comments made by defense attorney Kathleen Colton regarding her desire to pursue the case if it had not been dropped. Her comment, "There is a difference between smelling marijuana on a person and smelling burning marijuana in a car," is absolutely ludicrous. How would she know that? Does she smoke pot in her car? The intensity of the marijuana smell detected during the course of a traffic stop is irrelevant. The officer smelled marijuana and furthered his inquiry regarding the possibility of added law violations other than the cracked windshield. If someone smells like marijuana and it is determined that they did not have marijuana on their person at the time, they cannot be arrested for smelling like marijuana. However, the possibility of that person possessing marijuana is significantly increased as opposed to a person who does not smell like pot, and an officer should investigate. The facts of this case are clear: The officer smelled pot, regardless of how strong or faint, and upon his inquiry found a baggie of marijuana. I want to reiterate the fact that there is no law allowing anyone to carry marijuana despite a doctor's note. Who knows, maybe this case will result in police officers being confronted with more doctors' notes while encountering subjects who are in possession of narcotics. I think the majority of the outcomes of those encounters will result in arrests, and it will be up to those people to prove, in court, their medical dilemma, many of whom will use this case as precedent. I hope the Kane County state's attorney's office is ready. Eric Andrews West Chicago - --- MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe