Happy "420" Day from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

[Mass_Shyster]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts

The Mass SJC issued a ruling yesterday that the smell of freshly burnt marijuana, alone, does not constitute sufficient reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support an exit order.

From the Associated Press:

BOSTON — The odor of burnt marijuana alone is not enough for police to suspect criminal activity and order a person to get out of a car, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday, citing a state law that decriminalizes possession of small amounts of the narcotic.

Note: Unlike holdings under the 4th amendment, Massachusetts does not allow an exit order any time an automobile is stopped. Using similar reasoning distinguishing the Stop from the Frisk in a Terry Stop, Massachusetts requires the police to articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed or otherwise endangers the police to justify an exit order.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Good grief. Going to have to move MA to the 9th now with the rest of the wackos.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Good grief. Going to have to move MA to the 9th now with the rest of the wackos.

Massachusetts invented wacko. The 9th should move here.

 

[dave33]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts

The Mass SJC issued a ruling yesterday that the smell of freshly burnt marijuana, alone, does not constitute sufficient reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support an exit order.

From the Associated Press:



Note: Unlike holdings under the 4th amendment, Massachusetts does not allow an exit order any time an automobile is stopped. Using similar reasoning distinguishing the Stop from the Frisk in a Terry Stop, Massachusetts requires the police to articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed or otherwise endangers the police to justify an exit order.

I can honestly say that I am glad and support the recent decision.
It has become way to easy for the police to legally detain and search
people. I hope more high court decisions follow suit.

 

[CdwJava]

Huh ... smell alcohol, you can order them out ... smell weed, and you can't ... what's up with that? I guess you are less of a danger impaired on marijuana than alcohol ...

I suspect that there may be a move in the legislature to change that one.

Okay ... note to self ... exclude MA from job search list ...

 

[Antigone*]

Huh ... smell alcohol, you can order them out ... smell weed, and you can't ... what's up with that? I guess you are less of a danger impaired on marijuana than alcohol ...

I suspect that there may be a move in the legislature to change that one.

Okay ... note to self ... exclude MA from job search list ...

Note to CD ~ Don't leave California

 

[Silverplum]

Huh ... smell alcohol, you can order them out ... smell weed, and you can't ... what's up with that? I guess you are less of a danger impaired on marijuana than alcohol ...

Even though you ARE TheMainMan, I disagree with you, Carl. I think a drunk driver IS much more dangerous than a stoned driver.

(Not that my opinion matters..)

 

[Bruno]

Could you kindly provide a URL (Web) link?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Huh ... smell alcohol, you can order them out ... smell weed, and you can't ... what's up with that? I guess you are less of a danger impaired on marijuana than alcohol ...

I suspect that there may be a move in the legislature to change that one.

Okay ... note to self ... exclude MA from job search list ...

I don't believe the smell of alcohol, by itself, justifies an exit order in Mass either. The exit order must be supported by a "heightened awareness of danger" COMMONWEALTH v. GONSALVES, 429 Mass. 658 (1999), or probable cause for an arrest.

I've read cases where the smell of alcohol, coupled with slurred speech and red eyes was sufficient probable cause for arrest. I haven't seen a case where the smell of alcohol alone supported an exit order.

The case also relies on the intent of the voters when they passed the law decriminalizing possession of under 1oz.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Could you kindly provide a URL (Web) link?

Try http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.wl?rs=MAOR1.0&ss=CNT&cnt=DOC&srch=TRUE&method=TNC&service=Search&fn=_top&sskey=CLID_SSSA597920915204&db=MA-ORSLIP&fmqv=c&action=Search&origin=Search&vr=1.0&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT4329720915204&query=TO(ALLSCT+ALLSCTRS+ALLSCTOJ)&rlti=1&n=4&rp=/search/default.wl&sp=MassOF-1001&rltdb=CLID_DB167920915204&eq=search&sv=Split

If that doesn't work, go to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and select Slip Opinions -> Supreme Judicial Court Slip Opinions from the menu on the left.

It should be available on Massachusetts SJC and Appeals Court Cases in a few days. Case name is Commonwealth v. Cruz

 

[dave33]

Huh ... smell alcohol, you can order them out ... smell weed, and you can't ... what's up with that? I guess you are less of a danger impaired on marijuana than alcohol ...

I suspect that there may be a move in the legislature to change that one.

Okay ... note to self ... exclude MA from job search list ...

I am refering to the extreme power over citizens the police have. All an
officer has to say is he smelled pot. That just seems like citizens have
less and less rights.

He can search you if he says its for weapons. Just call it a terry frisk.
He can search your car if he calls it an inventory.
He can make you leave your car for a smell.(in most states).

Just seems like an awful lot of power granted on the honor system.

I believe way to much power.
It seems like an average person is at a huge disadvantage when
dealing with a criminal situation. Although currently is makes it
easier to charge and convict a guilty person, I believe it also
greatly hinders an innocent persons chances at proving they
are innocent.

Sorry if I got side-tracked. Dave

 

[CdwJava]

Even though you ARE TheMainMan, I disagree with you, Carl. I think a drunk driver IS much more dangerous than a stoned driver.

Really??? So, how is being stoned and impaired any better than being tipsy and impaired???

Is it okay to be smacked by a stoned driver? Is it less injurious? Less a risk to life and limb?

You can't be serious ...

 

[CdwJava]

I don't believe the smell of alcohol, by itself, justifies an exit order in Mass either. The exit order must be supported by a "heightened awareness of danger" COMMONWEALTH v. GONSALVES, 429 Mass. 658 (1999), or probable cause for an arrest.

I've read cases where the smell of alcohol, coupled with slurred speech and red eyes was sufficient probable cause for arrest. I haven't seen a case where the smell of alcohol alone supported an exit order.

The case also relies on the intent of the voters when they passed the law decriminalizing possession of under 1oz.

This may be two different issues.

By an "exit order" that may mean when an officer asks a driver to exit the vehicle for what might seem an arbitrary reason. A DUI investigation or cause to believe the person might be armed or dangerous (as indicated by the "heightened awareness of danger") would still seem to be lawful.

If the ruling only prevents the odor from being used as a sole reason to have someone exit the car, I can kinda understand that. Though, it would seem nonsense to exclude that from consideration in a DUI investigation as the odor of alcohol or marijuana would be an articulable element in the articulable reasonable suspicion necessary for further investigation.

 

[CdwJava]

I am refering to the extreme power over citizens the police have. All an
officer has to say is he smelled pot. That just seems like citizens have
less and less rights.

You do not have a right to smoke pot in your car. Nor can you drink in your car. If we smell pot - or alcohol - we are going to investigate further.

He can search you if he says its for weapons. Just call it a terry frisk.
He can search your car if he calls it an inventory.
He can make you leave your car for a smell.(in most states).

If only it were all so simple ... it ain't.

Oh, and in many/most states (including mine), an officer can have a driver exit the car for NO specific reason.

Just seems like an awful lot of power granted on the honor system.

I believe way to much power.

If you think so, speak to the legislature of your state.

It really is not as all encompassing as you seem to think it is.

 

[dave33]

You do not have a right to smoke pot in your car. Nor can you drink in your car. If we smell pot - or alcohol - we are going to investigate further.

I know nobody has that right, it's just that if an officer says he smells that
than he can search. Even if no physical evidence exists. So basically you have
to believe that everytime an officer makes a statement it's 100% true. Maybe Mass. recognized this not to be the case. At least I hope so.

If only it were all so simple ... it ain't.

I think it is just that simple. These tactics(terry, inventory etc..) are
very common excuses for conducting legal searches. When the circumstances
would normally not permit a search.

Oh, and in many/most states (including mine), an officer can have a driver exit the car for NO specific reason.

That's my point. That is not how I would want someone I care about to
be treated. It reminds me of some scary times in history. I know the law
has become so convoluted that just about any logic can find "support" but
ordering a citizen out w/out reason cannot be reasonably constitutionally
justified.