Amateurishly packed bags of marijuana not proof a teen plans to sell them, court rules
The Supreme Judicial Court today tossed a charge of marijuana possession with intent to distribute against a Dorchester teenager found with 13 small bags of pot in his pants in 2012.
The state's highest court ruled that none of the factors cited by police and prosecutors - which included the teen's nervousness when he realized police were watching him and the fact he had no roach clips or other paraphernalia - were enough, either individually, or collectively, to warrant a charge of possession with intent to distribute. However, the court noted that some of its reasons for dismissing the charge were due to the fact that the defendant was a teen; an adult might not fare so well with a similar motion to dismiss.
The teen, 16 at the time, was a passenger in a car stopped in Codman Square after members of the BPD Youth Violence Strike Force watched him and three other guys walk down the street, strike up a conversation with a couple who then walked away. When they stopped the car, one of the officers noticed the smell of unburned pot. And when neither could produce ID, they were ordered out of the car - at which point the suspect began looking at his groin. A pat frisk discovered something than the expected bulge: "thirteen individually wrapped bags of marijuana inside a clear plastic sandwich bag."
Prosecutors argued that, collectively, all the evidence provided probable cause for a charge of possession with intent to distribute.
No, it didn't, the court ruled. People in some Boston neighborhoods strike up conversations with strangers and by itself cannot contribute to probable cause, the court said, citing "the normal social intercourse that occurs with some frequency on the streets of Boston's neighborhoods."
That a 16-year-old would seem nervous when realizing cops are following his every move is pretty normal, too, the court said.
The smell of unburned marijuana? Last year, the court ruled that was no longer sufficient for an arrest, due to the decriminalization of marijuana. That there was nothing distinctive about the plastic bags the kid had the pot in also contributed nothing to the legal requirements for charging him, because that's just the sort of thing somebody packing pot for personal use might due. Ditto, even for his lack of smoking accoutrements:
A person who intends only to smoke marijuana would fit precisely the profile of the juvenile in this case. For simple possession, he had no need of cash, scales, or evenly measured packages in amounts consistent with a quick sale.
So none of the individual reasons were good enough. But collectively? Nope, in part due to the decriminalization referendum, in part due to the defendant's age:
In deference to those policy goals, we exercise a measure of vigilance in our analysis of questions related to the issue of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Accommodation of those policy goals means that where a defendant or juvenile possesses a small quantity of marijuana, less than that required to trigger a criminal prosecution, the other factors must be weighed more heavily in the probable cause analysis. Here, none of those factors tips the scale in favor of probable cause to believe that the juvenile intended to distribute the substance. ... [T]he juvenile's age detracts from the probative value that otherwise might be accorded to his nervous demeanor and his association with other young black males on a street corner. While possession with the intent to distribute any amount of marijuana is a criminal offense, we reiterate that "where judicial officers evaluate probable cause [in cases involving small, presumptively decriminalized amounts of marijuana], they must be mindful of the risk that police officers or prosecutors might allege an intent to distribute based on the mere suspicion of such an intent for the purpose of charging the offender as a criminal or delinquent rather than as a civil violator."
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 116.47 KB |
Ad:
Comments
Another "Just Farking Legalize It Already" moment
Brought to you by the BPD and the SJC.
AWESOME!!! NOW HE'LL BE MORE
AWESOME!!! NOW HE'LL BE MORE CONFIDENT THINKING HE CAN ADD HEROIN AND COCAINE TO HIS LIST OF PRODUCTS FOR SALE!!!
No. Many of us live in
No. Many of us live in apartment buildings and do not want our kids being raised in a building filled with skunky pot smoke. One person lights up a joint and it gets into all of the units on that floor and the ones above and below. Also, I don't want to love in an apartment or a condo building that reeks of pot. Shovelling snow yesterday, someone on my block was smoking a joint and it smelled like skunk spray for the entire time I was out there: disgusting. I always see groups of guys hanging out in the park dropping the N word and passing a joint... there's nothing cool or hip about it. Most of us are trying to get to work and back, carry our groceries home and go about our daily business and don't need to be walking through stoner losers' pot haze along the way. Also, stop lighting up in parks assholes.
Can we just legalize it already?
Can we just hurry up & legalize this stuff already? If when decriminalized, carrying 13 small bags of pot by your junk isn't probably cause to distribute, then let's just drop the pretense of illegality and let people setup shop and sell it legally so we can get some damn tax revenues.
2016 referendum
Next year, on the ballot.
Not necessarily
In this future with legal, taxed marijuana, carrying 13 small bags of weed would be evidence of tax evasion, and we all know how the government looks at its revenue streams. Most likely the penalties will be similar to those with alcohol sales. You can compare it to the guys selling the nutcrackers in New York. When they get caught, they usually receive fines in the $250-$500 range. Won't the government look at selling weed in a similar way in the future?
So one of the reasons the SJC let him
off was because he's not an adult.
Enough already with this juvenile justice system bullcrap and giving special treatment because of age. Punish the guy for the crime he's accussed of committing. And if the law says posession of more than X amount of weed indicates intent to distribute, then uphold the conviction for intent to distribute.
And if you don't like that idea, then just legalize the stuff already and be done with it.
What was the amount of weed?
Sounds to me like the total amount didn't make the threshold for intent to deal, so they got picky over the number of little baggies and tried to stick him with a lifetime albatross of "drug dealer".
You seriously need to read a little more carefully before you go to OMG TEENAGER!!!!!!!!!111!!1!!1! mode:
You're Reading it Wrong
The amount required to "trigger a criminal prosecution" is the ounce that separates civil liability from criminal. There is no weight threshold for possession with intent to distribute, which is usually inferred from things like packaging.
No, he most likely had less
No, he most likely had less than 1 ounce on him. That's the amount where a citation becomes a criminal charge/arrest
Not quite true
It's an ounce or less for personal use. You can still be prosecuted and convicted of distribution, even if you're found with less than an ounce, if prosecutors can prove you were planning to sell it.
The SJC made that quite clear in a couple of 2012 cases - that's why the issues of how the kid's pot was bagged and his lack of smoking implements came up in this case.
Did you read it
The fact that he's young alone didn't cause the court to overturn his conviction. The fact that he's young means that, in the court's opinion, it's not out of the ordinary for him to hang out on the street corner with other young men, or to be nervous when the police show up. Therefore, these things should not constitute probable cause.
Edit- I'm glad to have provoked such a reasonable and thoughtful discourse.
over 1 ounce is illegal
Not sure if there is a cut and dry rule regarding having it in several bags, always just assumed more than a few bags would be intent.
Sell or share?
If he had thirteen joints, would that be different?
Holding a potlatch, perhaps?
It wouldn't be any different
It wouldn't be any different if those 13 joints were in separate baggies.
It wouldn't be any different
It wouldn't be any different if those 13 joints were in separate baggies.
Legalize it and use the tax
Legalize it and use the tax proceeds to fix transit.
Green Line FTW!
Green Line FTW!
How about the judge taking
How about the judge taking notice that people in Boston neighborhoods have frequent intercourse on the street with strangers? Exactly where is that going on? I'm planning to appoint a blue ribbon panel to investigate. We'll start by downing a couple of cases of Blue Ribbon and heading over there.