By Journalist Kennedy Thomason (OSU)
Controls for cannabis could be loosened.
Before lunch on Thursday, House Bill No. SE-507, the “Cannabis Odor Protection” act, passed the House in a vote of 42-18.
The bill proposes that an odor or suspicion of possession would not qualify as probable cause that a crime was committed. It would prohibit law enforcement officers from issuing search warrants or searching vehicles.
During author’s explanation, Rep. Calia Walker said the bill aims to protect the fourth amendment rights of medical marijuana users and improve the relationship between law enforcement officers and citizens.
“To be clear, this only serves to protect citizens acting in accordance with this legislation,” Walker said. “I also made concessions that this will not interfere with DUI investigations. I want to emphasize that that is not something I want to change.”
Rep. Christopher Wier (NSU) said the bill will benefit Oklahomans.
Because he has worked in the medical marijuana industry for about two years, Wier said he feels a personal tie to the passage of this bill.
“I’ve seen this happen time and time again where someone will get arrested or get a ticket for something that is against what we are currently trying to do, which is provide medication to low-income families and such,” Wier said.
This was the sentiment Walker said she held when writing it, to protect the citizens of Oklahoma.
Along with protections, Wier also said the bill falls in line with Oklahoma’s evolving opinions on cannabis.
“We can’t arrest people on something we are trying to progress toward,” Wier said. “It’s no secret that we are trying to work towards recreational marijuana; it’s been known.
“We actually currently have more groves and dispensaries than Colorado, California and Oregon combined, which are three of the biggest states for weed right now.”
For Rep. Liana Cavanaugh (ORU), the bill did not contain enough details.
“I believe that the intention is great,” Cavanaugh said. “It protects the common people from a traumatic experience, but the definition and the language in the bill isn’t specific enough for me to want to pass it.”
A prominent argument among the opponency was the definition provided for probable cause.
Although the bill has been amended to strike probable cause and reasonable suspicion from its definitions, it previously defined probable cause as “a reasonable belief based on specific facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe that a person has committed, is committing, or will commit a particular crime, or that a place contains specific items connected with a crime.”
Cavanaugh said this definition was too broad.
“This could be anything from dilated pupils, to a scent. to you see redness around their eyes,” Cavanaugh said. “Especially with physical signs, like for DUIs and for searches and seizures relating to cannabis, it needs to be way more specific about probable cause.”
Despite some opposition, the bill will advance to be heard in the Senate.