Buddy got a dui after testing positve for Marijaheney

[9dreizig]

nobody ever got pulled over while stoned because they were speeding (just sayin- not that I'd know anything about it from personal experience ;-)

[ramonesfreak]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

nobody ever got pulled over while stoned because they were speeding (just sayin- not that I'd know anything about it from personal experience ;-)

i think were parked man

[Superman]

No kidding. Drunk driver: In the passing lane acting line an azzhole. Stoned driver: In the slow lane going, maybe, the speed limit, watching carefully, determined to not make a mistake.

[Schrup]

Bet the cop smelt something. A daily smoker prolly hits the pipe out of the parking lot. I got nailed for running a light on my way home from work at 10PM on a Friday night a few months back. Two young swat wannabes, one stood on the passengers side shining a flashlight on me the entire time, the other checked me out. They let me go with a warning. Maybe I'm lucky, but I've never had a cop ask me to search my vehicle. Something set off the cop, is your friend black?

[lendaddy]

Any lawyer that can't get him off on that is a tard.

[vas930]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

nobody ever got pulled over while stoned because they were speeding (just sayin- not that I'd know anything about it from personal experience ;-)

hehe

[aigel]

I found this topic interesting and did a little research. Looks like blood tests are a good indication on how much THC you have in your blood an when you took the last dose ...

Blood Tests

Unlike urine tests, blood tests detect the active presence of THC in the bloodstream. In the case of smoked marijuana, THC peaks rapidly in the first few minutes after inhaling, often to levels above 100 ng/ml in blood plasma. It then declines quickly to single-digit levels within an hour. High THC levels are therefore a good indication that the subject has smoked marijuana recently. THC can remain at low but detectable levels of 1- 2 ng/ml for 8 hours or more without any measurable signs of impairment. Chronic users have been found to show residual blood THC levels of 1.5 (+/- 0.5) ng/ml for a full week after ceasing use [Karschner].

Note: THC blood levels above are recorded in terms of concentration in serum or plasma. Most U.S. labs report levels based on whole blood instead. Concentrations in whole blood are about half as high. Therefore 1 - 2 ng/ml in plasma is equal to 0.5 - 1.0 ng/ml in whole blood.

Unlike urine, blood test results can give a useful indicator of whether one is impaired by marijuana. Studies have shown that high THC blood levels are correlated with impaired driving. An expert panel review of scientific studies on driving under the influence of cannabis concluded that THC levels above 7 - 10 ng/ml in plasma or 3.5 - 5 ng/ml in blood indicate likely impairment [Grotenhermen]. The same review found no increased driving hazard at low levels of THC. Despite the fact that accident studies have repeatedly failed to find evidence of increased driving risk at low levels (1 or 2 ng in blood) of THC, numerous states and foreign countries have enacted "zero-tolerance" laws, treating any non-zero trace of THC as legal evidence for driving under the influence.

Marijuana Drug Test Detection Times | California NORML

Here the graph for smoking and ingestion and the resulting blood levels of THC and a by-product from the link above.



Now of course it depends on the state and what limit they enforce. It looks like PA (that's where your buddy is?) has a 5ng/ml limit at which they call you DUI. If you look at the graph above, that means that your pal likely took a hit 3 hours or less before he had his blood drawn. If he had only smoked the night before, he would have been most definitely clear of that limit.

It could also be that he had a less than 5 ng/ml content but the cops determined he was clearly impaired. That's the only other possibility.

In driving under the influence of marijuana cases, Pennsylvania has a "per se" limit of how much of the drug you're permitted to have in your system. Under Pennsylvania's per se marijuana laws, you can be convicted of DUID if you have 5 ng/ml, or nanograms per milliliter, of THC in your system. How much marijuana it takes to reach this level depends on many factors, including how regularly you may have ingested the drug.

You can also be charged with DUID if you're determined to have been under the influence of it, which is loosely defined as being incapable of operating a motor vehicle with the same caution characteristic of a sober person under the same or similar circumstances.

| DUI - Drug Related | Pennsylvania DUI-Drug related offenses | Arrest for Driving while Under the influence of a Controlled Substance in Pennsylvania

At any rate - your buddy needs to lawyer up.

Also, if you are pot head, it looks like it would be a good idea to check the local laws, before driving. PA looks fine for an evening smoker as long as they sober up overnight. Other states apparently will nail you for a DUY for any detectable level ...

HTH.

Cheers,

George

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by widebody911

California has "implied consent"- if you refuse, they take your license, and probably the blood, too.

Same here. But they only take the blood if you consent. No consent, and you are charged with the crime - guilty until proven innocent. And how do you prove your innocence? Give blood.

[sammyg2]

Buddy got a dui after testing positve for Marijaheney

Lemme guess, when he got pulled over he was in the fast lane doing 12?
IMO he got what he deserved, although they probably should have charged him with possession of a controlled substance too. If he smokes that crap every day his brain is probably toast and impaired and he should not be operating a motor vehicle. The hypocrisy of people never ceases to amaze me. If he had three beers and drove he's be worse than hitler and stalin and bin laden all rolled up, but he can smoke stupid maker every day and it's perfectly OK.

Ya know in LA if you get caught smoking a cigarette in a bar the fines are over $500, but fire up a joint in that same bar and it's only a $199 fine?

We already have too much stupid in this world, we don't have to legalize it.

[doug_porsche]

Ok, I will admit to being an old fart and not as broad minded on this subject as most people but let me recap and you can help me see what I am missing.

He was pulled over.
They found a controlled substance in the car that he was the sole occupant of. Legal limit is 0.000.
They took blood, at or near the time he was pulled over, and he showed positive for the same controlled substance. Legal limit is 0.000.

This seems pretty black and white to me.

[Tobra]

Mr Lee, I have been advised by several attorneys that in California and Texas, what I posted is accurate.

[willtel]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Lemme guess, when he got pulled over he was in the fast lane doing 12?
IMO he got what he deserved, although they probably should have charged him with possession of a controlled substance too. If he smokes that crap every day his brain is probably toast and impaired and he should not be operating a motor vehicle. The hypocrisy of people never ceases to amaze me. If he had three beers and drove he's be worse than hitler and stalin and bin laden all rolled up, but he can smoke stupid maker every day and it's perfectly OK.

Ya know in LA if you get caught smoking a cigarette in a bar the fines are over $500, but fire up a joint in that same bar and it's only a $199 fine?

We already have too much stupid in this world, we don't have to legalize it.

What are you taking to make yourself stupid?

All of your claims about MJ making people cumulatively dumber over time are scientifically baseless. If that were true wouldn't Willie Nelson have forgotten the words to all of his songs?

[Rick Lee]

Doesn't CA have a different, sort of lesser DUI charge called "wet and reckless?" It's probably different in each state, but I know back east you can't demand a lawyer and hold off a breathalyzer until he arrives unless he can get there before they administer the test. Surprisingly, not all cops carry breathalyzers in their cars. I had to do one in PA once as a passenger after an accident because I was underage at the time. It was a big contraption at the police station, but that was around 1990-91. When I got popped as a driver in NJ, they were in no rush at all because they followed me out of the bar and later told me they like to administer the test at least 45 min. after the last drink when your BAC peaks. So even once we got to the police station, they were in no hurry. Once I refused, they uncuffed me, offered me a soda and said they had about 20 min. of paperwork to do, then they drove me home. They were very cool and I got very lucky.

[techweenie]

Implied consent tied to the driver's license is settled law.

As of last week's SCOTUS ruling, the police now have the right to do a full strip search of anyone arrested. In many states, they have the right to take DNA samples.

[fastfredracing]

Originally Posted by doug_porsche

Ok, I will admit to being an old fart and not as broad minded on this subject as most people but let me recap and you can help me see what I am missing.

He was pulled over.
They found a controlled substance in the car that he was the sole occupant of. Legal limit is 0.000.
They took blood, at or near the time he was pulled over, and he showed positive for the same controlled substance. Legal limit is 0.000.

This seems pretty black and white to me.

I don't think it is as black and white as you think. The charge is for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, not simply being under the influence. He told me he had 100% not smoked that day , (yet), and had just finished up an 8 hour shift at work , he does not/cannot smoke at work.
I did not even ask if he was charged with possession, but I am sure he was. The fines and penalties for this are minor.
I have no reason to believe that he is lying to me, but who knows.

[doug_porsche]

Originally Posted by fastfredracing

I don't think it is as black and white as you think. The charge is for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, not simply being under the influence. .

Again I am going to use ockham's razor on your argument and reduce it to its lowest common denominator.

You are insinuating, and the blood test confirms, that he was under the influence.
He was pulled over while driving.

So "You are insinuating, and the blood test confirms, he was under the influence." + "He was pulled over while driving." = "The charge is for driving under the influence of a controlled substance".

So.... Are you saying the results of his blood level, tested for a controlled substance, was not greater than 0.000 (the legal limit) or are you saying he was not driving when he was pulled over?

[Rick Lee]

Two yrs. ago a dumptruck driver here didn't even slow down for a red light and killed four motorcyclists waiting in front of him, horrible, unspeakable death - pinned under the truck and burned, pavement still stained to this day. The driver tested positive for meth, though it appears to have been days or weeks since last use. They still nailed him with the DUI charge on top of vehicular homicide.

If I understand AZ vs. Gant correctly, if you're stopped for a busted headlight and don't consent to a search, they can't search your car unless it's related to the original reason for the stop and only then to gather evidence of the original reason for the stop/crime. Basically, the decision ended search incident to arrest. I don't know if they can search for booze or drugs if they suspect you're under the influence AFTER they've stopped you for something else. That would be an interesting case. And I have read that they get around this now by finding a reason to tow your car and then they can inventory it. However, the bottom line here is if you don't know your rights, you don't have any. Consenting to a search not only gives them license to nail you for things other than the original reason for the stop, it also makes it very difficult to challenge the search in court later. If you consent (and not under duress), how can the search be illegal?

[aigel]

Originally Posted by fastfredracing

I don't think it is as black and white as you think. The charge is for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, not simply being under the influence. He told me he had 100% not smoked that day , (yet), and had just finished up an 8 hour shift at work , he does not/cannot smoke at work.
I did not even ask if he was charged with possession, but I am sure he was. The fines and penalties for this are minor.
I have no reason to believe that he is lying to me, but who knows.

What state does he live in? I have your answers for PA in my previous post. If he got a DUI based on the blood test, he took a hit less than 3 hours before driving. Of course he may feel sober 3 hours after taking a hit, but with the 5ng/ml limit, that does as much for you as feeling sober and being over the alcohol limit ...

George

[doug_porsche]

"if you're stopped for a busted headlight and don't consent to a search"
according to the original post: "he consented to a search"

If the officer has "reasonable suspicion" then things can get complicated quickly.
I am assuming the officer had reasonable suspicion.


Seems like the summary is your buddy did something stupid (against the law), and got caught. I put this in the same category, although with possibly much worse consequences, of getting a ticket for not having a front license plate on the car. I hear lots of arguments on why thats a stupid law, or just a revenue generator, or some other reason why the law should not apply to them. It simple, thats the law and you were not in compliance, next case.


this reminds me of a Steven Wright quote:
"In Vegas, I got into a long argument with the man at the roulette wheel over what I considered to be an odd number."

[fastfredracing]

Sometimes I have a hard time getting my point across on the keyboard Doug. He tells me that he 100% did not smoke any pot yet that day, so he had gone at least 10-12 hours without doobage, oh the horror. The effects of weed last what , a few hours? So what I am saying is that he was not "under the influence" while driving. Yet, it looks as if he is being charged with it. I don't know what levels showed up in his blood, and I am not sure that he knows yet either. But a 25 year daily user is bound to have fairly high levels in his system. Aigel did some good research earlier in this thread , that clearly point out Pennsylvania's laws pertaining to this . It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I do not dispute that he was in possession of a controlled substance,he got caught, and he should be charged for that.