My home state of Colorado has lately become known for a different kind of “Rocky Mountain high.” Since 2013, marijuana has been available commercially, first for medical use and now for recreational use as well. This has predictably opened up a slew of legal issues, which means – you guessed it – opportunities for expert witnesses.
As cops try to decide how to work with and around the new marijuana laws, such as their implication on driving and public consumption, the courts are wrestling with the unproven science of proving marijuana intoxication. Unlike the measurement of alcohol impairment, there is no clear-cut test for pot. Without hard science, we need expert opinions – but who is best qualified to provide them?
Massachusetts, a newcomer to the legal marijuana game, is struggling with the same question. A recent article in the Boston Herald detailed the state’s challenge in deciding whether police should be allowed to testify about the results of roadside sobriety tests when someone is charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. The state’s Supreme Judicial Court is currently deliberating on the topic, but has yet to reach consensus.
Some parties doubt that police officers are sufficiently qualified to testify on someone’s sobriety levels. “Science has verified the tests for alcohol impairment. We’re starting from the beginning here, and I’m just puzzled at how police officers are going to be able to testify to something that science hasn’t verified,” Justice Geraldine Hines said. The public defender in the case agrees with her. She stated, “There are no physical characteristics that permit an inference of impaired driving due to marijuana use, and a layperson does not have sufficient understanding of marijuana’s physical manifestations.”
Other officers of the court and attorneys disagree. A local district attorney claims that because marijuana use and its effect on people is well known to the general population, including potential jurors, that “an expert is not required” when prosecutors bring a case against an allegedly stoned driver. Cops, presumably, have seen enough people high on marijuana to make them experts in detecting intoxication.
All parties do agree that cops can testify as to the state of the driver during a traffic stop, such as how he or she was driving and his or her appearance. The question is how to accurately assess the level of sobriety. But if the attending officers aren’t experts on the topic, who would be?
I think there is tremendous opportunity here for researchers, physicians or other scientists in a drug-related field to share their expertise in what is sure to be an increasing number of cases hinging on marijuana impairment. Until the science catches up, we need to rely on experts to help us understand what is and is not safe and acceptable when someone is under the influence of pot.
This situation translates to more chances for side income for these experts, to be sure. But more importantly, it demonstrates the big-picture relevance that expert witnesses can have. The voters in Colorado and many other states decided to legalize marijuana, but the science around impairment isn’t quite as progressive. For now, it’s up to expert witnesses to set thoughtful, consistent, informed standards on what it means to be stoned. That’s a serious civic duty, and one for which those experts should pot – err, pat – themselves on the back.