Articles Posted in Marijuana

Over the last several years the marijuana policy has greatly evolved in Maryland, and more changes are on the horizon.  From the decriminalization of small amounts of pot to medical cannabis, and even the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office ending prosecution for marijuana possession, the progress has been undeniable.  On the other hand, marijuana continues to be the root of hundreds of criminal prosecutions each year in the state of Maryland, and the majority of these cases begin out on the roads and highways.  There is no easier way for police to make contact with the general public than through traffic stops, and this contact can quickly lead to a criminal investigation based on the smell of marijuana.  With all the changes going on it is important to take a minute to understand what police officers are legally allowed to do on the road, and what they will often do regardless of legality.

Through various rulings in 2019 and 2020 Maryland’s highest court has made it clear that police cannot search a driver or passenger of a vehicle based on the smell of marijuana.  The odor of marijuana or the presence of a small amount of marijuana is not evidence of a crime, and police cannot make a lawful arrest without more incriminating evidence.  Police also are not able to search a person based on the smell or presence of marijuana and then say they were concerned about the presence of a weapon to justify a search.  A search of person requires probable cause to believe that the person is armed or in possession of evidence of a crime.  In addition, police are not permitted to perform the lesser intrusion of a frisk or pat down for weapons unless they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed.  Reasonable suspicion is a lower level of suspicion than probable cause, but still requires specific facts to indicate the presence of a weapon.

While police now have a far more limited ability to perform frisks and searches of people, they still have the power to perform automobile searches.  Since marijuana is still considered illegal contraband, the odor of marijuana or the presence of a small amount still gives police the authority to search a car under the automobile exception.  Contraband refers to goods that are illegal to possess regardless of whether possession of the goods is a crime.  When lawmakers made possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana a civil infraction, they essentially preserved a police officer’s right to search a car based on the smell of marijuana.  Nine out of ten times when police decide to search a car, they are not doing it solely to find a small amount of pot, and this is why marijuana is such a common cause of roadside arrests.  Searching a car requires time and multiple police units, as an officer cannot search a car and watch its occupants at the same time.  No officer is going to call for backup if he or she believes that the search will only yield a baggie of pot.  To the contrary, police are generally looking for other controlled substances, large amounts of marijuana combined with currency and other evidence of distribution such as scales and empty bags, and finally firearms.  We see dozens of handgun cases each year that begin as simple probable cause searches based on the odor of marijuana, and until marijuana is legalized this law enforcement tactic will continue.  Transporting marijuana of any quantity or smoking in the car essentially give police a free look into a vehicle after any type of lawful traffic stop.  Whether it’s a broken taillight or failing to signal, police do not need more than a primary moving violation or equipment violation to make contact with a potential suspect.

The 2020 Maryland legislative session came and went without much fanfare, as any news coming out of Annapolis was largely overshadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Still, there were some interesting criminal law developments that came at the tail end of the shortened session.  For the last few years we have published multiple articles covering the state’s evolving marijuana policy.  Lawmakers and prosecutors have taken a firm stance on reducing the number of new marijuana cases in the criminal court system, and their efforts have produced significant results.  We have seen fewer marijuana possession cases each year, and most of the cases end up being resolved in a reasonable manner.  Lawmakers have also made a point to remove the negative stigma that follows anyone with a prior marijuana possession case.

Marijuana will eventually be legal for recreational use in Maryland and the rest of the country, and there is no reason why a person with a marijuana possession conviction should face discrimination from potential employers or the public in general.  Rather than wait until pot is actually legal to erase prior cases from the public record, lawmakers took the position to start this inevitable expungement process this year under House Bill 83.  The bill ordered the Maryland Judiciary to remove any information pertaining to District Court marijuana possession cases that were disposed prior to October 2014, as long as there were no other criminal counts attached to the case.  It seemed like a perfectly logical and just undertaking with little downside, and it passed easily in both the House and the Senate.  In fact, the Senate passed the bill 46-0 and while it seemed the process of erasing thousands of old pot possession cases would start in January of 2021, the governor had other ideas.

The governor vetoed House Bill 83 on May 7, and issued a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate explaining his decision.  The letter basically stated that as direct result of the legislature failing to pass his Violent Firearms Offenders Act a number of other criminal law bills were being vetoed.  This included the seemingly innocuous and remarkably uncontroversial marijuana expungement bill.  The governor did not specifically address his policy reasons for shutting down the bill or any other bills including one designed to preserve the confidentiality of juveniles charged as adults.  The veto was purely a political play; the governor didn’t get his way on one criminal law issue so he denied lawmakers on a few others.  Anyone with a six-year old or older marijuana possession case has to pay the price for a totally unrelated failed gun law.  Fortunately, these defendants will not have to wait long for their cases to be erased, as the General Assembly will almost certainly override the veto.  Defendants with newer marijuana possession convictions will eventually have their cases removed from public view by a similar bill to HB 83, though legalization of recreational use may happen sooner.  A defendant with a conviction for an offense that is no longer a crime under Maryland law is eligible for immediate expungement.

As the Maryland criminal code continues to evolve with the times there is an increasing need to address the issue of expungement.  Maryland has a fair and user-friendly expungement process, and in most cases, there is no fee to apply.  Lawmakers already did away with the $30 application fee for all criminal cases where there was a dismissal, nolle prosequi, STET or PBJ.  The one problem with the expungement process though is that most lay people do not realize they are eligible to apply.  This is especially true for defendants who were found guilty of offenses that are no longer crimes (such as possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana), defendants with older cases and those who live in other states.  This year the legislature is taking steps to assure uninformed defendants can still reap the benefits of the Maryland expungement process.  Or better stated, to assure uniformed defendants do not continue to suffer collateral consequences such as difficulty finding employment due to prior criminal charges.

There are two bills in Annapolis that are currently up for debate that would establish procedure for the courts to automatically seal or expunge cases without requiring the defendant to apply.  The bill that is currently in the Senate calls for the courts to automatically expunge all older cases involving only the possession of marijuana by October of 2022.  The bill would also require expungement of all new marijuana cases to commence 4 years of the disposition date.  In cases where there are other criminal counts, expungement of the marijuana counts must be completed by October of 2028.  This particular bill has received push back from the Chief Judge of the District Court as well as the Baltimore County State’s Attorney, who have argued that automatic expungement would be too large a burden for the courts and prosecutors to handle.  The expungement process requires an answer from the state and multiple orders to be signed and sent to the various organizations that keep records of criminal cases.  This includes police departments and the district court clerk’s office, who must then file certificates of compliance after the files are destroyed.  Automatic expungement would certainly cause an immense amount of work at one time should this bill become law.

The House of Delegates bill proposes a solution that would require exponentially less paperwork for government offices.  This proposal would require the courts to automatically seal prior marijuana cases from public view after an enumerated time frame.  The process of sealing would be a matter of simply blocking the case from appearing on the popular Maryland Judiciary Case Search web site.  This process is similar to what occurs with older payable traffic citations and civil marijuana citations.  The supporters of the bill argue that the main purpose of preventing prejudice against defendants with marijuana cases would be addressed through the sealing process.

This past summer the Maryland Governor signed off on a bill that changed the definition of marijuana, and now the impacts of this bill could have a real effect in courtrooms across the state. The bill did not receive much media attention despite the fact that it was marijuana related because the bill was created with the intent to modify agricultural laws rather than continue to reform marijuana policy. House Bill 1123 was signed into law back in April, and went into effect on June 1, 2019. The bill was characterized as agricultural and focused on hemp research and production. It had numerous components, but the main emphasis was to expand hemp production and establish safeguards for assuring that hemp and marijuana remained two separate crops.

In order to separate hemp and marijuana, which is still highly regulated in Maryland and a controlled substance under federal law, the state legislature had to strictly define the meanings of the two crops. Lawmakers came up with a threshold amount of 0.3% THC to separate the two; any cannabis plants with a THC level above 0.3% would be classified as marijuana while anything under would be classified as hemp. In establishing this threshold, lawmakers not only changed the agricultural laws but also were forced to modify the Maryland controlled dangerous substance laws. Under criminal law section 5-101, marijuana does not include hemp for the purpose of criminal prosecution. Hemp as defined in section 14-101 of the agriculture code “means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta–9–tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis”. This fancy language boils down to the fact that cannabis plants that do not have a THC over 0.3% are not marijuana for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, and the impacts of this clause could be huge.

In all drug crimes cases the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance that is the basis of the charging document is actually what the police say it is. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt for an officer to simply look at a substance and say that it is cocaine, heroin, marijuana etc. The state has to test the substance police take in evidence, and this is traditionally done is by sending it off to the crime lab at the Maryland State Police in Pikesville or the city’s lab in Baltimore. Chemists do their tests and send a lab reports to the prosecutor, which are then introduced into evidence as proof the substance is CDS. But, the kicker is that the crime labs do not test marijuana for THC content, so now there might not be a way for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether the green vegetable matter police confiscated from your plastic baggie, jar or personal grow room is marijuana or hemp.