Flying with Marijuana
The question of whether a person can fly with marijuana is difficult, but technically the answer is “No.” Marijuana is now recreationally legal in ten states and the District of Columbia, but that does not mean you can fly with it. Once the plane takes off you are under federal law, where it is illegal. But as long as you are leaving from a state where it is legal and stay within that state or travel to another legal state, federal enforcement is less likely.
Things to be aware of:
- TSA agents are federal employees, and may report violations to federal authorities. However, they usually refer the matter to local law enforcement, who enforce the law of that state.
- The limit you can carry anywhere in CA is an ounce. At the airport, just like anywhere else, carrying over an ounce of pot is illegal and may result in a fine.
- LAX has noted that "they have no jurisdiction to arrest individuals if they are complying with state law." Their position is that they will not arrest or fine people who are within their rights to travel with pot, but warn people that TSA agents are not under their control.
So, it is technically illegal to fly with pot, and it should not be done traveling to or from states where it is illegal. If you do, you are putting yourself at risk for a substantial fine or even an arrest. This includes products like CBD oil. Even though it is not psychoactive, it is a cannabis product that is federally regulated. However, when traveling within legal states, the risk is reduced. In California, the worst case scenario is that you would be asked to throw pot or any pot products away (assuming it’s under an ounce).
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850