The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving Texas police officer Roberto Felix Jr., who fatally shot a motorist named Ashtian Barnes. The case, Barnes v. Felix, questions whether the deadly force used by Felix should be assessed solely based on “the moment of the threat” or with consideration of the circumstances leading up to the threat. The encounter between Felix and Barnes also highlights the role that the alleged smell of marijuana plays in police stops, which can escalate to searches, seizures, arrests, and even lethal violence.
A recent ballot initiative approved by Dallas voters aims to prevent such escalations by prohibiting local police from arresting individuals for marijuana possession misdemeanors and stating that the smell of marijuana or hemp cannot be used as probable cause for searches or seizures.
The legalization of hemp in Texas, which cannot be distinguished from marijuana without a laboratory test to measure THC content, has created challenges for law enforcement. Following the passage of House Bill 1325 in 2019, the distinction between legal hemp and illegal marijuana based on THC concentration has made it difficult for police to justify searches based on the smell of cannabis alone.
The complications arising from hemp legalization have led prosecutors in Texas to dismiss marijuana possession cases without lab test results confirming THC concentrations. The Texas Department of Public Safety has also faced challenges in distinguishing between hemp and marijuana, leading to limitations on accepting misdemeanor marijuana cases for testing.
Overall, the legalization of hemp has raised questions about the validity of using the smell of marijuana as probable cause for searches or arrests, as the odor of hemp and marijuana are indistinguishable. The ongoing controversy surrounding marijuana odor and probable cause continues to impact law enforcement practices in Texas. Courts in other states have acknowledged the Fourth Amendment implications of laws that redefine cannabis offenses. In Massachusetts, Question 2 decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, leading the Supreme Judicial Court to rule that the smell of burnt marijuana was not enough to justify certain police actions during traffic stops. Similar decisions were made in Pennsylvania and Maryland after the legalization of medical marijuana in those states. Minnesota also saw a ruling that the smell of marijuana alone is not sufficient to justify a search. Instances of police using the smell of marijuana as a pretext for invasive actions have been reported across different states, highlighting the need to address this issue. In Dallas, Proposition R aims to address such abuses, and Texas courts are urged to consider further reforms in light of hemp legalization to prevent unwarranted police harassment. Please rewrite this sentence for me.
Source link
