Police Adjust To New Pot Law

With possession of small amounts of marijuana no longer a criminal offense in Massachusetts, local police are adapting to the new law but say that several loopholes could hamper their ability to enforce it.

Bay State voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot question in November to replace criminal penalties, including possible jail time and a criminal record, with a $100 civil penalty for offenders caught with less than an ounce of marijuana.

The civil fines will not result in criminal records for offenders.

Police chiefs in Acton and Boxborough said that marijuana offenses are not common in either town, but that the wording of the new law will make it difficult for officers to deal with the situation when it arises.

For example, under the new law, police cannot compel offenders to provide proof of their identification.

"The only issue I really have with the law is the identification," said Acton Police Chief Frank Widmayer. "It's ridiculous to have it so someone could make up a fake name."

Widmayer said he is uncomfortable with photographing offenders after citing them, a solution some departments have come up with the try to confirm the offender's identity, because it creates privacy issues.

Both police departments said they plan to use citations designed for code enforcement fines, including dog offences and zoning violations, which have a write-in box for other offenses to cite offenders caught with marijuana.

Advocates of the law argued that the previous criminal penalties were overly harsh, especially saddling young offenders with permanent criminal records that could hurt their ability to gain employment or financial aid later in life.

Opponents, including police in Acton and Boxborough, argued that the change in law would lead to a greater acceptance of marijuana and other drugs and more impaired drivers on the road.

Neither department has caught anyone with marijuana since the new law went into effect, police said.

Though both Widmayer and Boxborough Police Chief Richard Vance opposed the change in law, neither has gone to the extent of some police departments that have said they will not bother handing out citations until the wording of the law is improved.

"At this point we're obviously going by the letter of the law," said Vance. "We're kind of in the wait and see stage."

Vance also said that if an offender could still be charged with intent to distribute, which remains a criminal offense, if they have less than an ounce of marijuana that appears to be divided into smaller amounts for sale.

Both Widmayer and Vance said they are hopeful the law will be amended to close some of the loopholes. In the meantime, they are relying on advice from the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the district attorney's office on how to adapt to the new changes.

"It's kind of a big change and any change takes time," said Vance, who added that the change might help ease congestion in the court system. "I try to keep an open mind. Who knows, maybe it'll work out for the better."


News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: The Beacon
Author: Christian Schiavone
Contact: The Beacon
Copyright: 2009 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Website: Police Adjust To New Pot Law
 
For example, under the new law, police cannot compel offenders to provide proof of their identification.

I keep seeing articles where the police are continually repeating this comment. I can't believe they don't know this isn't true, or that they got this statment through the press release process

Unrelated to this new law, I thought the Supreme Court upheld LEOs authority to compel identification. If you google, numerous articles come up about the requirement to provide ID

I'd prefer to be wrong about this, I just smell a set up.

A bunch of confident smokers thinking they are safe from any real penalty still getting arrested - not for possesion of <Z, but for refusing to ID themselves.

The arrest process is the punishment (LEO tactic).

Maybe I'm too cynical or consipiratorial about this issue; but it just doesn't add up to me.
 
"under the new law, police cannot compel offenders to provide proof of their identification"

So reading this again from the point of view of a "Philadelphia Lawyer"

Maybe it's true that under the new law the police can't compel ID, but there are other laws on the books that authorize the police to compel or arrest

tricky tricky LEO (that's as good as Clinton's meaning of the word "is" argument)
 
Back
Top Bottom