On January 2, 2009, the Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative became law and reduced the penalty for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil infraction.  In addition, the law prevented the Commonwealth from including the offense on the person’s criminal record.

Since the changes in the marijuana possession laws were imposed, decriminalizing of marijuana possession that amounts to less than one ounce of marijuana has evoked a myriad of legal questions.  As a result, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Court of Appeals have reviewed multiple scenarios associated with the change.  On April 5, 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued four decisions attempting to further contextualize the impact of that change on current law.  The precedent from each of the four cases is summarized briefly below:

In Commonwealth v. Palmer, the defendant was found to possess marijuana plants in his home; the total weight of these plants amounted to less than one ounce.  The SJC determined that because each offense was under a different section of chapter 94C of the Massachusetts General Laws, the intention was to treat each in a separate manner.  Thus, possession of less than one ounce would be civil while cultivation of less than one ounce would still have criminal repercussions.

Commonwealth v. Jackson posed a different issue.  Specifically, the Court determined that the social sharing of marijuana would no longer be considered a form of distribution, but rather a joint possession of the drug.  Two people found sharing marijuana of a weight less than one ounce would no longer be subject to arrest.    Previously, the mere passing of the drug between two individuals would be considered distribution.  After the Jackson decision, it would now be considered joint possession and thus civil in nature.

In Commonwealth v. Daniel, the defendant was stopped while driving.  The responding officer noted a smell of burnt marijuana in the vehicle.  The officer also indicated that during the course of the stop, the defendant voluntarily relinquished two bags of marijuana – their combined weight totaling less than one ounce.  The Court opined that this scenario was insufficient to merit a search of the motor vehicle and thus any evidence found within the car should be suppressed.  The Court mentioned the exclusion of any reference to a fear on the officer’s part for his safety and that the driver was never suspected of operating under the influence of drugs.  These two noted references suggest that a slight modification of facts could result in a different resulting analysis in terms of suppression.

Finally, the defendant in Commonwealth v. Pacheco, was parked illegally while sharing marijuana with the passenger in the vehicle.  When approached by the officer, the defendant voluntarily handed over one additional bag of marijuana.  As a result, the occupants were then ordered from the vehicle and the trunk of their car was searched.  Within the trunk the officer found a semi-automatic gun.  The Supreme Court suppressed the gun finding there was as no basis for the search.  Again, the Court noted that the occupants were found engaged in the “social sharing” of less than one ounce of marijuana – a civil infraction.

If you are facing charges associated with marijuana possession or any violation of our controlled substances laws, please contact Kristen F. Bonavita (978) 376-6746 for a free consultation.