Know Your Herbs

New Jersey Lawmakers File Bill Expanding Cannabis Data Collection for Cops

A New Jersey government official wants to keep track of your entire relationship with cannabis in an effort to tackle stoned driving, the New Jersey Monitor reports. Assemblywoman Shanique Speight (D) wants to create a division tasked with compiling data, such as information on any arrests made for driving under the influence where cannabis is present, through use or possession, in addition to other marijuana-related arrests, dismissals, convictions, cannabis seized, and even adjudications of cannabis charges.

The reality of the dangers of driving with cannabis in one’s system is hotly debated. U.S. lawmakers are scurrying to find a way to solve the issue, whether they’re getting people stoned (and even giving them munchies) to research high driving or working on tech to scan your eyeballs, they really, really want to find a way to identify (and prosecute) anyone driving under the influence of cannabis. Never mind the fact that weed legalization in Canada is not linked to an increase in car crashes. 

Speight was inspired to tackle the problem in her home state after visiting Colorado, the first state to have legal recreational weed, in the summer of 2022 and observing how the state deals with motorists driving under the influence of cannabis. “I don’t know if they have the correct guidance on how to charge without overstepping,” Speight said. Colorado has an office under the state’s criminal justice division that monitors and logs any cannabis offenses, yet New Jersey has no similar centralized database. “When I saw what they were doing over there, I started thinking about how that would be good for our state,” she said. “I like the fact that they have a certain division handling and keeping track of these cases.”

So, New Jersey residents, you can get mad at Colorado for inspiring your state to step up its vigor regarding cannabis-related driving arrests. Speight aims to create the division to help the police know under what circumstances they can arrest someone. This means the state government will be collecting more information about its citizens, which will be presented annually to the governor and Legislature, and include any recommendations for improvements.

The bill, introduced earlier this month (sponsored by Sen. Vin Gopal (D) in the Senate), would additionally create a “public awareness campaign” about cannabis and driving. It’s currently referred to both chambers’ law and public safety committees.

In New Jersey, recreational cannabis is legal for adults 21 and over. You can possess up to six ounces. If you are caught with more than that, the cops can’t arrest you but can issue a summons. Additionally, they can’t search your car without a warrant just because they think they smell weed smoke. If a cop does overreach and investigate cannabis use for anyone under 21, they can be charged with deprivation of civil rights for knowingly violating the cannabis law’s requirements. They then face up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. 

As a result, Speight says that she’s “troubled” by incidents where New Jersey police don’t know what to do. Many officers take a more hands-off approach to avoid getting in trouble due to the current law, and the proposed data collection-based division aims to tackle this. While the existing rules sound favorable to anyone who enjoys pot, it’s confusing police, who, without a current, accurate cannabis version of the breathalyzer, have a hard time figuring out if someone is driving stoned or not. 

“All of this gets complicated to me, but I don’t think it should be ignored. It should be addressed,” Speight adds, noting she hopes to work with both cannabis advocates and law enforcement on the bill.

The post New Jersey Lawmakers File Bill Expanding Cannabis Data Collection for Cops appeared first on High Times.

Source: Hightimes

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Cannabis Odor Enough To Justify Search

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week that the scent of cannabis alone constitutes probable cause to justify a search by police, despite the legalization of other products such as hemp that have similar odors. The court’s conservative majority ruled in a 4-3 decision that police officers in Marshfield, Wisconsin, had enough probable cause to search a defendant after detecting the smell of cannabis in the car he was driving and declined to exclude evidence discovered during the warrantless search. The ruling overturns two lower court rulings that found the evidence gained in the search was inadmissible because officers could not be certain if they smelled marijuana, which is still illegal under Wisconsin state law, and hemp, an agricultural crop that was legalized by the federal government with the 2018 Farm Bill.

The court handed down the decision on Tuesday in the case of Quaheem Moore, a man who was pulled over for speeding in Marshfield by two police officers in 2019. In their report, the officers state that while talking to Moore, they detected a strong odor of burnt cannabis emanating from the vehicle. When questioned about the odor, Moore told the officers that he had a CBD vaping device and noted that the vehicle was a car that had been rented by his brother. 

Although they admitted that they did detect the odor of marijuana on Moore, the officers cited the scent of cannabis coming from the car as cause to search the vehicle and Moore. The officers stated that during the search, they noted that Moore’s belt buckle appeared to be askew and upon looking closer, discovered a bulge in his pants. After closer examination, the officers discovered a hidden pocket inside the zipper of Moore’s pants, where they discovered packets of fentanyl and cocaine.

Police then arrested Moore and charged him with possession of narcotics, although he was not charged with possession of marijuana. Moore’s lawyers argued that because the police officers did not smell marijuana on Moore and because of the legality of CBD and hemp, which has an odor indistinguishable from marijuana, the police officers did not have probable cause for the search. Thus, the drugs found in the search should be excluded from evidence.

A circuit court judge and an appeals court agreed and ruled that the evidence discovered in the search was not admissible. Prosecutors appealed the rulings, saying the lower courts erred when they ruled the evidence inadmissible for trial.

Decision Overrules Lower Courts in Wisconsin

The Supreme Court disagreed with the previous rulings, overruling the lower court decisions and deciding the evidence gained in the search could be used in court. In a majority opinion written by Justice Brian Hagedorn, the court’s conservative majority found that because Moore was the only person in the vehicle, the police could reasonably assume that he “was probably connected with the illegal substance the officers identified.”

The decision relied on a 1999 Supreme Court decision that found police could arrest a driver because they connected him to the odor of cannabis in the car he was driving. That ruling said that the “unmistakable” scent of a controlled substance was evidence that a crime had been committed.

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal minority questioned the 1999 ruling and its relevance to Moore’s case, saying that the police officers did not have strong evidence that the cannabis odor was coming from Moore. They also noted that the earlier ruling is outdated and does not take into account the subsequent legalization of hemp and CBD. 

“Officers who believe they smell marijuana coming from a vehicle may just as likely be smelling raw or smoked hemp, which is not criminal activity,” Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet wrote in a dissenting opinion that was joined by two additional justices.

After Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling was released, Moore’s attorney, Joshua Hargrove, warned that the decision could allow law enforcement offices to justify searches based on unreliable conclusions without being held accountable in court.

“This opinion could subject more citizens engaged in lawful behavior to arrest,” he said in a statement quoted by the Associated Press.

The post Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Cannabis Odor Enough To Justify Search appeared first on High Times.

Source: Hightimes

From the Archives: Mother’s Day (1994)

By Marsha Turner Brown

The cruiser was backed into a space beside the Kentucky Fried Chicken. Blissfully unaware, I sped by him at 20 miles above the limit. He pulled behind me at the first caution light; I was driving through the second signal when he put on his siren. Pulling to the curb I readied for the drill: name, number, state of sobriety and registration.

In the moment it took to review my license, the trooper smelled a rat, or as I would shortly discover, a “leafy vegetabletype contraband.”

When I unlocked the glove box to retrieve the registration a little pistol fell to the floor mat. Things got worse, real fast, from here on in. The officer, who had been leaning in my window, spoke. “Please open your door and step out and away from the car, ma’am.”

I stepped out and away and was escorted to the back seat of his car. Safely caged away, he called police central and reported the gun incident. Three more cars arrived, blaring and flashing, before a policelady reopened the cruiser door. That was the first time I saw the dog.

She was sniffing like an anteater, dancing around her trainer’s knees and yodeling. When the door of my car was cracked open, the big slobbering hound jumped in and over the front seat. Her nose came to rest under a pile of food trash my son had thrown in back. Just as we were clearing the gun-ownership/right-to-carry issue, an officer reached under the hamburger wrappers and produced my son’s shaving bag. Unzipping it, he reached inside and produced two baggies, each over half full. 86.2 grams, the warrant read.

The legitimacy of my status as an elected school board member, community activist, and Baptist became questionable. The A.M. teaser on our television station: “Ranking school official arrested on narcotics charge…details at six….” The morning papers were no less complimentary: “Indictment Pending: Drug Dog Gets Big Dog. ” It was a stupid headline, and I discovered, painfully, the repercussions of telling a city editor he had a stupid headline. The next morning it read, “Commissioners Want Resignation Immediately. ”

Let me clear up any misconceptions you may have about mothers. Not all mothers are capable of loving a child; some mothers—and others—are incapable of loving anything or anyone. The lack of a mother’s love is the greatest tragedy of childhood, the coldest injustice. Those who haven’t experienced this unboundaried love are poorer for the loss.

Those who have known a mother’s love will understand, if not embrace, the insanity and absurdity of genetics. What would Mama do for you? What indeed.

Look at the market, around your neighborhood, watch CNN, read a paper. Documentation is available if the reality is beyond believable. There are mothers whoring on streetcorners and conference tables to house and feed their kids; mothers waiting in unemployment and HUD offices to do the same. Mama will give her last dollar to feed you or keep you warm. She will give you a kidney if you need one, or her life, if required.

Mama will also be cavity searched, bailed from county holding, indicted, arraigned, and pronounced guilty to protect her child.

Marijuana ruins lives. Ask any moralist or Baptist and they’ll tell you about the ruin. “People smoke that stuff, think they can fly, and jump out windows.”

I have never consumed anything that made me think I could fly and felt slighted for the exclusion. Good enough to fly? That was good.

I split from the Protestants on points of cause and effect. Possession, not inhalation, is the destroyer of lives and families. Get caught in the deep South with two ounces and life as you know it ends. There are no laws, below the Eastern Continental Divide, to protect from the crimes of intolerance and injustice. My son is just starting on his career trek. Mine was growing tiresome long before the arrest. I saw no need to mention that my child had driven the car last, that the marijuana was his. Denial wouldn’t have changed the reality: the floorboard held proof. My career was the required, and judicially necessary, sacrifice to protect my child.

I seek amended laws as a citizen and nonuser. As a mother, I make a simple request to sons and daughters everywhere: Until the repeal of criminality, please do not leave your stash in the back of your mother’s car. She won’t be happy when the hound dog jumps on her seat cushions. Trust me.

High Times Magazine, May 1994

Read the full issue here.

The post From the Archives: Mother’s Day (1994) appeared first on High Times.

Source: Hightimes