Buddy got a dui after testing positve for Marijaheney

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by fastfredracing

That is what I am saying, it is not illegal to be under the influence of pot, it is illegal to possess, manufacture, distribute ,etc. Seems to me that the burden of proof , should lie on the state here. If he had not smoked for a week, he would still test positive.

.

Au contrair, FFR....it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under influence of pot. He's about to spend some coin on a lawyer and an expert to testify to impairment levels.

He shouldn't have given permission to search vehicle or person as a routine traffic stop does not give rise to a search incident to arrest as the SCOTUS recently ruled.

[doug_porsche]

FFR, I agree. Living in a Medical MJ state, this issue concerns me.

I am not 100% convinced that THC is what negatively influences decision making.
But that is what they measure.

Sort of like saying that if we measure that amount of sugar in your blood we can say how drunk you are. Not a 1 to 1 correlation.

BUT, until the determine what to measure, and how much is acceptable, than its a binary decision. THC=influence=not legal.

Sorry for your friend, but....

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

They don't have to let you speak to your atty. first. But you can try. Your DL means you've already consented to a chemical test. Refuse and you lose your DL for a year. I refused and skated, but that was an anomaly. In AZ they can physically strap you down and take your blood, which I find outrageous. But then if you don't consent to a search of your car, they won't find booze or weed and then they probably won't suspect you of being under the influence and ask you for the test.

copied with Bold added for emphasis

BTW - cops do this all the time and are masters at getting people to consent to searches

[teenerted1]

Originally Posted by fastfredracing

That is what I am saying, it is not illegal to be under the influence of pot, it is illegal to possess, manufacture, distribute ,etc. Seems to me that the burden of proof , should lie on the state here. If he had not smoked for a week, he would still test positive.

when he concented to the search and the blood he just gave them their burden of proof. lawyer up and STFU.

who ever thinks potheads don't speed don't know many potheads.

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by Dueller

.

Au contrair, FFR....it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under influence of pot. He's about to spend some coin on a lawyer and an expert to testify to impairment levels.

He shouldn't have given permission to search vehicle or person as a routine traffic stop does not give rise to a search incident to arrest as the SCOTUS recently ruled.

But in the real world Jim, how often will the Nazi's with the badges accept this and let someone go ? OR will they fabricate something to find a reason to search ?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

But in the real world Jim, how often will the Nazi's with the badges accept this and let someone go ? OR will they fabricate something to find a reason to search ?

I have seen countless epsiodes of Cops or AK State Troopers or the like where they have already told someone they're free to go, "Have a nice day," etc. and then they say, "Oh, hey, you don't mind if I search your car, do you?" That way they can say you were already free to leave, were in no way asked under duress and your consent is all the green light they need. If they want to search after you deny consent, they need an reasonable articulable suspicion. AFAIK, a Terry search is only kosher when they have reason to believe you could be armed and they can only frisk for weapons, not other contraband. What reason could they possibly have to think that for a broken headlight and otherwise clean car? If they suspect weed and you deny the search, they can detain you for a reasonable amount of time to get a sniffer dog to the scene. You NEVER help yourself by consenting to a search. I just don't get why people do it. I swear, 99% of people who get arrested in traffic stops talk their way into jail.

[RWebb]

nah

they will say "I smelled a strong odor of marijuana, which I recognize from smoking all the stuff we seize."

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by RWebb

nah

they will say "I smelled a strong odor of marijuana, which I recognize from smoking all the stuff we seize."

If they do smell it, then that's reason enough to detain and call for a sniffer dog. No need for any of that hassle when you consent to a search.

[Jandrews]

But that's the rub. How do you debate something so subjective as, "I thought I smelled MJ"? If the police wants to search your car, couldn't he EASILY come up with a half a dozen "reasonable", but unprovable, suspicions?

JA

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by RWebb

nah

they will say "I smelled a strong odor of marijuana, which I recognize from smoking all the stuff we seize."

Very true I remember in the 70's the "community ride along" with a buddy who was a cop,, getting stoned IN the Squad CAR!!!

[ramonesfreak]

Originally Posted by Jandrews

But that's the rub. How do you debate something so subjective as, "I thought I smelled MJ"? If the police wants to search your car, couldn't he EASILY come up with a half a dozen "reasonable", but unprovable, suspicions?

JA

lets assume you have some grass under the seat.

the cop wants to search your car.

you dont want him to.

you take a 50/50 shot at him letting you go without searching, or searching on the spot or getting a warrant to search

taking the risk is much better than just saying, ok search the car like the poster's friend did.

the problem with searches is you are vulnerable to the cop planting a pound of grass instead of the nickle bag you had...which is why it is understandable to the cop, the judge and everyone else, that you would say no.

the idea that people say no because they have something to hide is the wrong way to look at it.

I say no, because I dont want the cop planting a crack pipe in my car

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Jandrews

But that's the rub. How do you debate something so subjective as, "I thought I smelled MJ"?

You don't have to. And that's not what happened here. The cop in this case asked if it was ok to go on a fishing expedition and he got consent. He doesn't need RAS or PC to ask. He just needs it to go forward if you don't consent. 99% of the people on the road have no idea they can refuse a search request.

If a cop really wants into your car, there are easier ways to do so than claiming he smelled MJ and then waiting for a sniffer dog and bothering with 4th and 5th Amendment issues. For a broken headlight or most other equipment violations he can probably order the car towed and then they're allowed to inventory it and that gets them around AZ v. Gant. It's best just to politely refuse a search. If it looks like they're gonna detain you, start asking "Are you detaining me or am I free to go now?" That starts the clock ticking and they generally need a pretty good reason to keep you there for more than 20 min. Don't give them one.

[dlockhart]

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

If they do smell it, then that's reason enough to detain and call for a sniffer dog. No need for any of that hassle when you consent to a search.

my point is that if they WANT to search, they will make up the smell

and they are trained to say "a strong odor" not just a whiff

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by ramonesfreak

the problem with searches is you are vulnerable to the cop planting a pound of grass instead of the nickle bag you had...which is why it is understandable to the cop, the judge and everyone else, that you would say no.

the idea that people say no because they have something to hide is the wrong way to look at it.

I say no, because I dont want the cop planting a crack pipe in my car

I agree, that can definitely be a problem - they will usually drop some pills, or a crack pipe -- something small

those of you who think this is extremely rare do not talk to criminal defense attys much

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by RWebb

my point is that if they WANT to search, they will make up the smell

and they are trained to say "a strong odor" not just a whiff

That's true. If you come across a cop willing to lie and plant contraband, you're in some trouble. Just don't make it worse by having a rap sheet for drug possession, a messy car or consenting to the search. People have told me I'm invisible to cops and I try to keep it that way.

[RWebb]

I'll add that they are much more willing to do plants if you have a rap sheet for drug possession, or are a known bad actor.

[Rick Lee]

I got pulled over by a cop in an unmarked Camaro, trying to bait me into racing him in my 993 late at night on an empty, long road. I didn't take the bait, but he lit me up after I allegedly pulled away from a newly green light too fast. The guy had a hard-on for me, took my keys, asked me to do a field sobriety test, asked if I had an open container in the car (I did, but wasn't drinking from it). I was very cool and polite to him and he let me go with an $80 ticket for no front plate. There are ways to de-escalate police situations. I have had stops in VA where they really wanted to nail me for more than the reason for the stop. Keep a clean car, don't be nervous, know how to behave during a stop without looking like you'll be a doormat and you can get away with nothing more than a minor ticket.

[john70t]

Not sure why a voight kampf(blade runner reference) test isn't used as a preliminary exam.
Drivers under the immediate effects could be tested.

(to note though: If/when iris scans etc. become integrated for banking security i.d. purposes, this poses a serious risk).