Operating Under the Influence of Marijuana: State v. Bealor

Marijuana laws are changing fast, leaving judges and juries struggling to adapt. A recent case in Massachusetts highlights the difficulties in applying old laws to new realities. Commonwealth v. Bealor involved a defendant charged with operating under the influence of marijuana (OUI). So what happened, and what can we learn?

The Facts

In 2018, Thomas Bealor was pulled over by police in Gardner, MA for driving erratically. When questioned, Bealor admitted to smoking marijuana earlier. Officers observed signs of impairment – bloodshot eyes, impaired balance and coordination. Bealor failed field sobriety tests and was arrested. A later urine test revealed THC metabolites.

Bealor was charged with OUI. Prosecutors argued that under Massachusetts law, any amount of THC in a driver’s system is illegal. The defense countered that the law’s vagueness means it doesn’t apply to marijuana. The key question became: what constitutes OUI for marijuana in Massachusetts?

The Law

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 24 prohibits driving under the influence of marijuana. But the law doesn’t define what amount of THC is considered “under the influence.”

For alcohol, the limit is clearly defined – .08% blood alcohol content. But THC lingers in the body long after impairment fades. So what’s the equivalent limit for pot? Without a defined threshold, how can police and courts determine impairment?

Other states have set legal limits – typically 5 nanograms/ml of blood. But Massachusetts has no allowed threshold for THC. This legal gray area made Bealor’s prosecution questionable.

The Trial

At trial, the defense argued that without a defined legal limit, the OUI law was unconstitutionally vague. The prosecution said the law was valid, and should be interpreted to prohibit any amount of THC.

Expert witnesses debated whether Bealor was actually impaired. The state’s toxicologist testified that performance deficits appear with as little as 3 ng/ml THC. But the defense toxicologist argued that regular users can tolerate far higher levels without impairment.

With conflicting expert testimony, it came down to how the judge decided to interpret the ambiguous law.

The Verdict

Judge Janet Kenton-Walker sided with the prosecution. She ruled that the OUI law, despite lacking a numerical THC limit, was still constitutional. She instructed the jury that any amount of THC in a driver’s system violated the statute.

The jury convicted Bealor. He appealed, but the conviction was upheld. The appeals court acknowledged the law’s vagueness, but declined to overturn it.

What’s Next?

Bealor has appealed to the MA Supreme Court. But so far, courts are upholding OUI convictions even without a defined THC limit. Still, the vague law makes enforcement uneven.

Most states now have legal THC limits for drivers – typically 5 ng/ml. Some experts argue that regular users can drive safely at higher levels. For now, Massachusetts police are arresting anyone who seems impaired, leaving it up to judges to interpret what exactly the law prohibits.

The legislature could amend the OUI statute to specify a legal THC limit. But until then, drivers and courts will continue struggling with this legal gray area.

Bealor’s case highlights the growing pains around marijuana legalization. As pot laws liberalize, old statutes designed for alcohol may no longer fit. Courts are now grappling with how to adapt restrictive laws to the new reality of legal weed.

The hazy standard for marijuana OUI leaves police and prosecutors significant discretion. Ultimately, it’s up to judges to interpret ambiguous laws on a case-by-case basis. That uncertainty means drivers, attorneys, and courts have little clarity on what constitutes a DUI for marijuana in Massachusetts.

Other Defenses

Beyond challenging the vagueness of the OUI law, defendants like Bealor have other options too.

One is contesting the drug test results. The state has to show that blood or urine tests were done properly, with proper chain of custody and lab procedures followed. Sloppy testing gives grounds for exclusion of the results.

Another common defense is challenging field sobriety tests. These roadside maneuvers are notoriously subjective. Arguments often focus on whether the tests were conducted properly, and how accurately they indicate impairment.

Drivers can also claim they weren’t actually impaired. Experts debate what THC level causes meaningful impairment. Defendants may argue that despite a positive blood test, they were unimpaired.

Of course, drivers can always refuse roadside testing. But refusing may still lead to license suspension in some states. And it allows jurors to make assumptions. Those tradeoffs should be weighed carefully.

For now, the hazy standard for marijuana OUI means drivers are at the mercy of police discretion and judicial interpretation. Until clearer laws emerge, anyone who uses cannabis should be aware of the legal risks involved. Driving safely requires knowing both your state’s laws and your own tolerances.