A product of decriminalization:<\/p>\n
Defendants\u2019 car was stopped for not using a turn signal, and the officer could smell marijuana coming from the car. Questioning and searching one produced two small bags, only enough for a civil infraction and not enough for a criminal offense, and that small amount did not justify a search of the whole car. The state\u2019s proffered justification of officer safety was rejected as not being based in fact. Commonwealth v. Daniel<\/a>, 464 Mass. 746, 985 N.E.2d 843 (2013)*:<\/p>\n Here, Tayetto surrendered two small bags of marijuana at the request of the officer. Possession of the amount contained therein constituted a civil infraction, not a criminal offense. “As citizens, we expect that if we commit a civil infraction we will pay a fine; we do not expect a significant intrusion into our privacy and liberty.” Cruz, supra at 469 n.16. Absent articulable facts supporting a belief that either occupant of the vehicle possessed a criminal amount of marijuana, the search was not justified by the need to search for contraband.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cWe conclude that the search was not a lawful search incident to arrest, because the officers had no basis to arrest the defendant before searching him. The officers’ observation of the defendant and two others passing what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette back and forth did not provide probable cause to believe the defendant was committing a crime. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been allowed.\u201d Commonwealth v. Jackson<\/a>, 464 Mass. 758, 985 N.E.2d 853 (2013)*.<\/p>\n A small bag of marijuana on the floorboard doesn’t justify a search of the trunk in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Pacheco<\/a>, 464 Mass. 768, 985 N.E.2d 839 (2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading