The cops are going rogue in MA over the new pot law

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
FITCHBURG — When he appears in Gardner District Court Friday, Hector Hernandez will plead not guilty to a charge he drove his car under the influence of marijuana on Sunday.

Mr. Hernandez, 27, of 92 Plymouth St., was pulled over on Route 2 in Westminster because of, police allege, an improper inspection sticker.

But Mr. Hernandez claims the sticker is valid through the end of the month; therefore, there was no reason for the state trooper to stop him. He is, he said, the victim of a law enforcement community that is upset about the passage of a new statute decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.


And if he hadn’t been stopped, the trooper might not have smelled marijuana and alleged that Mr. Hernandez was under the influence of the drug while he was driving.

“He said, ‘I smell weed,’ ” Mr. Hernandez said of Trooper David Fleming. “And I told him, ‘I probably got a roach in the car.’ ”

Mr. Hernandez said he also had “another joint” in his pocket and that he’d made no effort to conceal the smell the two items were emitting. He didn’t think he’d be in trouble because of the new law that took effect on Jan. 2, and he didn’t have anywhere near an ounce of pot in his car. The law provides for a $100 civil fine.

But how much marijuana he was carrying didn’t matter because it is a criminal offense to drive under the influence of the drug, and police alleged he was driving in such a state.

Mr. Hernandez denied that he was affected by any drugs while he drove west on Route 2 with a female passenger in his car. He said yesterday he’d smoked marijuana earlier in the day but noted that the drug wasn’t affecting him by the time he was pulled over. He said marijuana doesn’t leave him feeling high, but “relaxed,” and is similar to “smoking a fine cigar.”

“It makes you a better driver. You’re paranoid and you drive slower,” he said.

News of the arrest reached some of his friends and acquaintances and Mr. Hernandez, who works in construction, said he’s been made to feel like “a pothead” who spent all day yesterday explaining what had happened.

The father of two said he’s held down the same job – where he is sometimes tested for drug use and quit smoking pot for a period before those screenings – for years.

He said he believes the incident is just the first of many to come because police are angry that the new law was passed.

“It was retaliation,” he said, adding that the police made comments during his arrest inferring just that.

But state police spokesman Lt. Eric Anderson said that’s not the case, and troopers are continuing to enforce the laws pertaining to impaired driving regardless of the recent changes in the marijuana possession law.

He said police have computers in their cruisers and often “run” license plates during traffic patrols. The information on the computer would have shown the status of the inspection sticker and, if it was expired, that would be a reason to pull over the car.

Lt. Anderson said he trusts the integrity of the trooper and believes he has the experience to “make a determination” as to whether a driver is impaired.

http://telegram.com/article/20090106/NEWS/901060428/1005/NEWS06
 
This, among other reasons, is exactly why pot shouldn't be legalized. How are police going to determine if someone is "under the influence?" It's not like a breath test will work. A urine sample will show positive for weeks, it is my understanding. A person would be unjustly charged by that test. How are they going to know? I sympathize with the police on this deal. I really don't think they decided something like, "hey, I smell pot from that car. Let's stop it on a trumped up inspection sticker violation and then we can cite the guy for being under the influence." Sounds like they stopped him, smelled the pot, found the pot and reacted. How are they going to know when someone is under the influence?
 
This, among other reasons, is exactly why pot shouldn't be legalized. How are police going to determine if someone is "under the influence?" It's not like a breath test will work. A urine sample will show positive for weeks, it is my understanding. A person would be unjustly charged by that test. How are they going to know? I sympathize with the police on this deal. I really don't think they decided something like, "hey, I smell pot from that car. Let's stop it on a trumped up inspection sticker violation and then we can cite the guy for being under the influence." Sounds like they stopped him, smelled the pot, found the pot and reacted. How are they going to know when someone is under the influence?
There is a difference between THC in the blood that is effecting you and what nails you on the test in your urine because of fat saturation. They would be able to take a blood test to verify current effects.
 
There are no intoxication standards for THC blood serum level.
They could create some. There were no intoxication standards for alcohol blood levels, until they created them.

One thing the test does is show that you smoked within hours, not within a month.
 
They could create some. There were no intoxication standards for alcohol blood levels, until they created them.

Yeah they could and it took how many years to standardize the intoxication level for Alcohol?

Ohh wait not all states are the same on that yet I think.
 
Yeah they could and it took how many years to standardize the intoxication level for Alcohol?

Ohh wait not all states are the same on that yet I think.
So?

Seriously, why would this be a consideration at all?

People already drive high, start setting standards for the benefit of everybody else on the road. That it took a long time for alcohol standards to be set is meaningless.
 
There is a difference between THC in the blood that is effecting you and what nails you on the test in your urine because of fat saturation. They would be able to take a blood test to verify current effects.

O man, but can you imagine the circumstances.

Cop: Sir, I smell pot so I need to take a blood test to see if you are under the influence. Please wait while I get my rubber gloves and needle.

They would have to develop a finger prick method like they have with blood sugar testing.
 
O man, but can you imagine the circumstances.

Cop: Sir, I smell pot so I need to take a blood test to see if you are under the influence. Please wait while I get my rubber gloves and needle.

They would have to develop a finger prick method like they have with blood sugar testing.
Yeah, or they would arrest you and have a nurse administer the test like they do if you choose the BAC test rather than the Breathalyzer.
 
By the way Damo, I agree with you as far as this:

If they are going to legalize it they need to develop a test that shows a standard of intoxication. I would just as soon that they wouldn't legalize it though.
 
By the way Damo, I agree with you as far as this:

If they are going to legalize it they need to develop a test that shows a standard of intoxication. I would just as soon that they wouldn't legalize it though.
I think we have already wasted trillions and thrown millions of lives away in the "war on drugs" and it is time to start fighting smart rather than attempting to limit freedoms as the only answer.

We fail because we believe that the only answer to such "crime" is longer sentencing, and we invariably take more of one particular ethnicity to prison more often than any other.
 
O man, but can you imagine the circumstances.

Cop: Sir, I smell pot so I need to take a blood test to see if you are under the influence. Please wait while I get my rubber gloves and needle.

They would have to develop a finger prick method like they have with blood sugar testing.

yes a whole new little industry would be supported by POT DUI testing. Of course our tax dollars would pay for it too.
 
IWe fail because we believe that the only answer to such "crime" is longer sentencing, and we invariably take more of one particular ethnicity to prison more often than any other.

By the way, why is this the case? Can anyone tell me?
 
By the way, why is this the case? Can anyone tell me?
BAC would be the best to educate you on that one.

One reason would be sentencing equity. More time for one type of cocaine than another type for instance.

He'll be able to inform you of a whole host of reasons.
 
easy. if they suspect him then he has to submit to urine screening ($2 test) that shows results within a couple min or he can be arrested and slapped an automatic license suspension for not taking the test just like with drinking.
 
yes a whole new little industry would be supported by POT DUI testing. Of course our tax dollars would pay for it too.
It's already there.

By making it illegal testing needs to be done. A whole industry is out there just for this testing. Companies make you take it before you are hired, etc.
 
Back
Top