Law‑enforcement backs stopping active cannabis consumption while advocates and industry warn odor‑based stops risk wrongful searches

Police leaders told the Judiciary Committee on March 31 that HB 7258 — which would allow officers to stop a motor vehicle when an officer observes active consumption of cannabis — would align cannabis enforcement with the existing rules for alcohol and improve roadway safety. But cannabis consumers, civil‑liberties advocates and some medical users warned legislators that smell‑based stops will reinstate pretext policing and harm medical and daily users.

Rob Rosado, chief of police in Meriden and president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, said his association "strongly support[s]" HB 7258. "It is entirely reasonable and necessary that the same standard as consuming an alcoholic beverage be applied for the use of cannabis," Rosado said, telling the committee the change would allow officers to stop a vehicle when they observe someone actively consuming cannabis and then investigate for impairment.

Rosado also said Connecticut has too few Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) to make chemical determinations across the state and urged more road‑safety resources. He said officers can currently rely on other traffic violations and field sobriety testing but that the bill would allow proactive intervention when active consumption is visible.

Opponents told a different story. Josiah Lay (also reported in testimony as a member of CT Canowires) described being arrested while he was stone‑cold sober after a DRE evaluation and pointed to scientific studies showing THC levels do not track current impairment. "I was arrested, stone cold sober by a drug recognition expert... I was pulled over... I had zero THC in my blood," he said, arguing blood tests and odor are unreliable indicators of current driving impairment.

Other testimony stressed racial‑justice and civil‑liberties concerns. Christina Capitan, co‑founder of CT Kennel Warriors, said "This bill tries to bring the drug war back through the side door" and warned odor‑driven policing has historically led to disproportionate stops of Black and Brown drivers.

Several medical‑cannabis patients and industry representatives also testified that blood or metabolite tests can remain positive long after impairment subsides and urged investment in training for advanced roadside impairment detection and more DREs rather than making odor a standalone ground for stops. Anne Marie Rosado, founder of a cannabis evaluation firm and a member of the state's Driving Impairment Task Force, told the committee that blood levels of THC do not reliably indicate impairment and that standardized tests and training (ARIDE/DRE) should be expanded before adopting per se limits.

Committee members questioned the practical effects. Representative Howard pressed the chief of police about whether the odor of marijuana currently constitutes probable cause for a search; Rosado answered that after legalization "the smell of marijuana is not probable cause to search a motor vehicle" unless active consumption is observed. Members also highlighted that officers commonly have other, less‑subjective reasons to stop vehicles (equipment violations, erratic driving) and discussed how proposed language would interact with existing traffic‑stop law.

What happens next: The bill drew sharply split testimony on enforcement mechanics, training and equity. Committee members asked follow‑up questions about detection training, the number of DREs statewide and alternatives such as educational campaigns; no vote was recorded at the hearing.

Sources: testimony of Chief Rob Rosado, Meriden Police Department/CPCA; testimony of Josiah Lay (CT Canowires); testimony of Christina Capitan (CT Kennel Warriors); Anne Marie Rosado (Higher Health LLC); other public commenters and committee Q&A.