Pubdate: Sun, 27 Sep 2015
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Copyright: 2015 Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Contact:  http://www.telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/509
Note: Rarely prints LTEs from outside circulation area - requires 
'Letter to the Editor' in subject
Author: Brian Lee

SJC'S POT RULING LEAVES LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS SHAKING THEIR HEADS

Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr. said he's usually not 
too critical of decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court, but he described last week's 5-2 ruling - that police can't 
pull over drivers after detecting the odor of marijuana coming from 
the cars - as "horrible."

The state high court's decision stemmed from a 2012 police stop in 
New Bedford; the driver had not committed any traffic violations, but 
an officer smelled marijuana smoke from the car. When stopped, the 
driver had a marijuana cigar in his hand, and police later found 60 
Percocet pills in the car, leading to more severe charges.

The SJC, in its ruling, pointed to the 2008 ballot question approved 
by Massachusetts voters that decriminalized possession of one ounce 
or less of marijuana. The court argued that because of the new law, 
the smell of unburned marijuana no longer constitutes probable cause 
to believe that a criminal amount of the drug is present.

Mr. Early said he shook his head. "I just couldn't beleive it."

Combined with polling that indicates initiatives by two groups to 
legalize pot smoking for people 21 and older would prevail on the 
2016 state ballot, police chiefs appear to literally have their hands 
up concerning the increased liberalization of marijuana rules in the 
state. (The ballot questions were certified by the attorney general 
earlier this month and require tens of thousands of certified 
signatures plus legislative action.)

Webster Police Chief Timothy J. Bent said he was not surprised by the 
SJC decision, adding, "We just seem to be going that way."

Chief Bent said he is personally against legalization because he 
considers marijuana to be a gateway drug.

"But it seems that this state is leaning toward legalization" of 
marijuana, he said. "My thought is, let's just legalize it and get it 
over with. Honestly."

He continued: "It appears that they don't want us to enforce this. So 
let's just get it over with."

Lately, Webster officers have issued civil citations less frequently 
for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, and the chief 
suspected that's the case in other communities.

"With these decisions, why would we" enforce the civil penalty? he asked.

Asked if patrol officers would simply let a motorist drive away in a 
cloud of marijuana smoke, Westboro Police Chief Alan Gordon said, 
"The officer is just going to have to be more diligent."

Police departments normally have a limited amount of staff who are 
drug recognition experts, as it's expensive and time consuming to 
train them, said Chief Gordon, noting he recently sent two officers 
to Arizona to undergo the training.

But he speculated that police will need more resources for drug 
recognition training, to keep up with demand.

"We're getting called to other towns constantly to assist them 
because we're coming across" drivers who are under the influence of 
marijuana "more and more," he said.

Mr. Early said, "What's the difference between having a beer in your 
hand and having a joint in your hand and smoking it? It's impaired driving."

The prosecutor suggested that the SJC decision would "embolden 
people" not to worry as much if they want to smoke pot while driving.

Mr. Early said Associate Justice Robert J. Cordy's dissenting opinion 
"nailed it" when he wrote that there's no constitutionally based 
reason to distinguish stops for civil marijuana violations occurring 
in motor vehicles from stops for civil motor vehicle violations. 
Reasonable suspicion of a civil violation is enough.

Mr. Early said he is also against the legalization ballot 
initiatives, chiefly because "the addiction people in Colorado tell 
us it's the worst thing that could possibly happen to them. Emergency 
room hospitilzations are up, and there's more homeless out there as a 
result of it."

Mr. Early asserted that a lot of people who start out smoking pot 
graduate to more powerful drugs, and that marijuana dispensaries 
appear to be marketing to younger users.

"When you start marketing marijuana in the form of Gummy Bears and 
lollipops, who are you trying to get to use it?" Mr. Early said.

The prosecutor also cited scientific studies that indicate IQs are 
lowered about 7 or 8 points and motivational drive decreases in young 
people who use a lot of marijuana.

"They tell us the brain doesn't fully develop until 20, 25, so why do 
you want to tell young adults it's basically OK to smoke pot under 
the age of 25?"

Martin Healy, chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Bar 
Association, said the SJC decision showed that the courts are moving 
toward protecting the rights of citizens to possess marijuana without 
any unnecessary police interference or action against them. He called 
it an evolving area for law.

Concerning the ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana, and the 
likelihood one of the initiatives will be passed next year, Mr. Healy 
said he would argue that certain criminal statutes would remain on 
the books about use of marijuana while driving and whether the 
ability to drive in a safe manner has been impaired.

"There are a lot of unanswered questions and only further case law 
and time will tell how this court comes down," he said. "But it 
certainly is a very strong court in terms of protecting civil 
liberties of individuals."

He added: "I know that a number of law enforcement officers are very 
concerned about the recent holding because it does make their 
uniformed officers, their patrols - it's almost an impossible job to 
enforce any type of marijuana violation in terms of their 
observations of someone who may be using in a motor vehicle."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom