Burnt Marijuana - Not PC??

[bayern]

Hope this isn't a trend.

BOSTON (AP) — The odor of burnt marijuana alone is not enough for police to suspect criminal activity and order a person to get out of a car, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday, citing a state law that decriminalizes possession of small amounts of the narcotic.

SJC: Burnt Marijuana Odor Not Enough To Suspect Criminal*Activity « SJC: Burnt Marijuana Odor Not Enough To Suspect Criminal Activity « CBS Boston

[Five-0]

Good grief, because so many other things smell like burnt/burning weed.

[pgg]

Maybe there it isn't but here it is

[213th]

The article says it's because small amounts of MJ are "legal". I can see the argument, but I disagree if they are in a vehicle it should be PC. If you smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage is that not PC to order someone out to investigate?

[121Traffic]

That's Massachusetts for ya. Whether or not it justifies a search might be up for debate. Some judges here will make a decision based on what kind of odor...burnt vs. unburnt. As for having cause to have them step out?

The article says it's because small amounts of MJ are "legal". I can see the argument, but I disagree if they are in a vehicle it should be PC. If you smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage is that not PC to order someone out to investigate?

I actually don't need PC, RAS, or any reason at all to ask you to step out of a vehicle. (YMMV...I speak only of my binding case law here in CO)The USSC has already ruled in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) that officers on a traffic stop can ask the driver out of the vehicle at any time, and they need not articulate any specific reason. The dangers inherent in our job are reason enough. There's case law after that (I'll have to look it up later for the specific citations) out of the USSC that states that passengers are indeed lawfully seized occupants of the vehicle during a stop as well, and as such are lawfully subject to directions of the officers as well just as if they were the driver, meaning Mimms is applicable to them as well.

I don't know what, if any, case law out of that district is any more restrictive than that. Of course, state constitutions can also afford more protection to its citizens than the Fed. I'll have to read the full article later.