At the end of September, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the Commonwealth’s highest appellate court, released a new and impactful decision pertaining to the admissibility of Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) at trial to prove whether an individual is deemed to have driven under the influence of marijuana. In Commonwealth v. Gerhardt, the SJC narrowed the scope in which such evidence may be used in court, limiting police officers and other witnesses to testifying solely to their observations in administering FSTs and preventing officers from labeling sobriety tests as being passed or failed.
Field sobriety tests have been one of the primary methods through which officers test whether an individual is operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Generally speaking, the FSTs can be broken down into two tests that are intended to evaluate the impairment of alcohol and more recently, marijuana: (1) the Walk and Turn (WAT); and (2) the One-Leg Stand (OLS). As administered, the WAT requires an individual to walk from heel to toe in a straight line for a few steps, turning around, and returning in the same direction. On the other hand, the OLS tests an individual’s balance in requiring a subject to stand with one foot raised a few inches above the ground, while counting aloud for thirty seconds. Both tests are intended to measure, among other things, the individual’s coordination, balance, and ability to follow directions.
Traditionally, Massachusetts courts have given deference to police officer’s testimony that a criminal defendant has passed or failed FSTs during a traffic stop. However, given the lack of scientific consensus on the effects of marijuana and the fact that tetrahydrocannibol (THC) affects each individual in a unique way, the SJC decided that police officers testifying in OUI marijuana cases cannot testify that an individual passed or failed an FST.
This ruling changes the landscape for prosecutors in overcoming their burden of proof in OUI marijuana cases because they are limited to relying solely upon officers’ observations. In other words, witnesses cannot testify that they had come to the conclusion that a particular defendant was under the influence of marijuana, nor that the FSTs played a role in making that decision. Rather, officers can only testify “concerning a defendant’s observable appearance, behavior, and demeanor” during a traffic stop.
In cases where a defendant is charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana, the prosecution must prove not only that a defendant was operating a vehicle on a public way, but that the individual’s consumption of marijuana impaired their ability to drive a vehicle in a safe manner. Moving forward, the administration of FSTs by themselves are not sufficient to support a finding that a defendant’s ability to drive safely was impaired due to the consumption of marijuana and this principle will also be reflected in the model instructions to juries in these types of trials.
The SJC’s decision in Gerhardt marks a shift in Massachusetts law that affects your rights as a citizen. While research on the effects of marijuana has been highly debated since its legalization in the beginning of this year, the law will continue to develop as future studies and cases reach the court system. Be sure to visit our website for more updates on this issue and many more. At Equitas Law, we are experts in handling these types of cases and have been helping clients win them for years. If you need an experienced and hardworking team of attorneys, do not hesitate to give our office a call for a free consultation.