In Connecticut, state law does not currently allow a police officer to stop a motor vehicle when the officer detects the odor of cannabis or observes the driver smoking a joint.
The state legislature is considering a bill that would change that, along with studying ways to set a limit for the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) drivers can have in their blood before they are considered impaired.
House Bill 7258, An Act Concerning Driving Under the Influence of or While Consumer Cannabis, is one of the bills on the agenda for a public hearing Monday conducted by the Judiciary Committee.
In testimony submitted in advance of the hearing, the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) said it supports the bill as “a common sense change.”
“Currently, police officers can and do stop a motor vehicle when they observe a driver consuming an alcoholic beverage while operating a vehicle,” the unsigned testimony states. “It is entirely reasonable and necessary that the same standard be applied to the use of cannabis. Just as alcohol consumption impairs a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely, cannabis use presents a significant risk to public safety when consumed by drivers on the road.”
Still, the association acknowledges that there is currently no roadside test “for cannabis impairment,” nor an “established legal standard for determining cannabis intoxication.”
That is a significant difference from alcohol, which has a generally established impairment standard of a blood-alcohol level of 0.08.
“This gap in enforcement capability only underscores the necessity of allowing officers to act when they observe a motorist engaging in behavior that is clearly indicative of impairment risk — such as consuming cannabis while driving or the presence of its distinct odor,” the CPCA states.
During testimony provided during the public hearing by Meriden Police Chief Roberto Rosado, who is president of the CPCA, state Rep. Steven Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport) asked whether there were other ways a police officer could stop a vehicle driven by someone suspected of driving under the influence of cannabis.
Stafstrom asked whether an officer could stop a vehicle for a minor infraction, such as a license plate frame that covers the state name “Connecticut” on the plate, and Rosado said yes.
After citing a couple of other possible infractions that would allow an officer to stop a vehicle, Stafstrom asked why the bill was necessary.
“Why wait for a violation to pull an individual over when we can see it and smell it?” Rosado replied.
In testimony opposing the bill, Christina Capitan, co-founder of CT CannaWarriors, a grassroots advocacy organization that describes itself as dedicated to cannabis liberation and social justice, said creating a per se limit for THC risks “sober people — punishing biology, not behavior.”
Capitan noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said that THC levels in the blood do not correlate to impairment.
“THC can remain in a person’s system for days or weeks after use, especially in medical patients and frequent consumers,” she said.
Capitan suggested some alternatives, including public education about responsible use; safe, designated consumption spaces; training officers in “science-backed impairment recognition;” and expanded access to ride-share programs for cannabis users.
Ann Marie Luisi-Rosado, founder of Higher Health LLC, which provides
evaluations and certifications for those seeking to become a medical cannabis patient or renew their medical card, also submitted testimony opposing the bill.
Luisi-Rosado said she has been educating law enforcement as a consultant and is also a member of the state ’s Driving Impairment Task Force.
“Currently there is no universally accepted device for cannabis intoxication,” she said. “Reliability of existing devices is questionable.
Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, Ohio and Washington have established a per se 5 nanogram whole blood level for intoxication. I’m not in support of this.”
She added, “Without clear determination of intoxication, we can not make a definitive law that may negatively impact a person’s life.”
