• About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Forensic Resources

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Motions & Briefs / Challenging an officer’s identification of marijuana by sight or smell

Challenging an officer’s identification of marijuana by sight or smell

November 16, 2020 //  by Sarah Olson//  Leave a Comment

There have been several posts on this and related topics here and here. This post will attempt to compile all of the resources and walk attorneys through the process of making these challenges.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-87(16) provides the statutory definition of marijuana, specifically excluding from its definition industrial hemp. Industrial hemp, as defined in Article 50E, Chapter 106 of the General Statutes, is not a controlled substance, and may be lawfully possessed by any citizen of North Carolina. By statute, industrial hemp contains a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) on a dry weight basis. Legal hemp and marijuana are both cannabis sativa. The difference is simply the amount of THC in the plant material.

Measurement of the THC concentration must be done in a laboratory using validated methodology, such as HPLC and LC/MS analytical strategies. The NC State Crime Laboratory does not perform this type of analysis. Their procedures state in Section 6 that “[t]he current procedures at the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory do not allow for the differentiation of ‘marijuana’ from ‘hemp’, as defined in North Carolina General Statues.” There are private laboratories that can perform this test.

Just as a forensic chemist/lab analyst cannot determine if a plant contains >0.3 percent THC by looking at or smelling the plant, neither can a police officer. The NC State Bureau of Investigation produced a memo that specifies that it is not possible to distinguish legal hemp and marijuana by sight or smell:

Hemp and marijuana look the same and have the same odor, both unburned and burned. This makes it impossible for law enforcement to use the appearance of marijuana or the odor of marijuana to develop probable cause for arrest, seizure of the item, or probable cause for a search warrant.

State Bureau of Investigation, Industrial Hemp/CBD Issues

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division(SLED) has formally ended their Marijuana Analyst Certification/Recertification and Testing programs and directed officers who were trained to identify marijuana through sight, smell, and field testing to now submit samples to SLED Drug Analysis laboratory for quantitative analysis of THC. It is not scientifically possible to distinguish the amount of THC in a plant through sight or smell.

However, in many jurisdiction throughout NC, prosecutors continue to try to prove that a substance is marijuana through the testimony of a law enforcement officer who identifies the plant material by sight or smell. Their argument has been that State v. Fletcher, 92 N.C. App. 50 (1988) allows an officer to provide this testimony because the officer is more qualified than the jury to form an opinion about whether plant material is marijuana. The update of Rule 702(a), North Carolina’s adoption of the Daubert standard in State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880 (2016), and the legalization of industrial hemp under N.C.G.S. 106-568.50 et seq. make any testimony of a police officer identifying a substance as marijuana based upon sight or smell inadmissible as it fails to meet the requirement that an expert’s testimony be based on reliable principles and methods.

Defenders should challenge such testimony using a 702 motion like this one. In many NC cases, charges have been dismissed only when the case is proceeding to trial and a defense expert is present to offer testimony about the unreliable methodology being presented by the state.

Defenders representing indigent clients can seek funding for expert assistance using the AOC-G-309 form and an ex parte motion like this one. If the attorney has been hired, but the client cannot afford to hire an expert, the attorney can move to have the client declared indigent for purposes of expert assistance. A sample motion is available here.

Attorneys who need to find an expert can contact the IDS Forensic Resource Counsel for assistance. An expert should be able to provide a report or affidavit like this one.

If the “odor of marijuana” was used to develop probable cause, defenders should consider challenging probable cause using a motion like this one.

Category: Motions & Briefs, Practice TipsForensic Discipline: Drug Analysis

Previous Post: « Trace Evidence Resources on forensicresources.org
Next Post: Psychological Testing in Criminal Cases: the Utility of the MMPI »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2023 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2023 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme