Buddy got a dui after testing positve for Marijaheney
 

Pretty regular smoker , 44 years old, says he has probably not gone a day without weed since he was a teen.
Got pulled over for a headlight out at 10 o clock at night, on his way home from work. Like a bonehead, he consented to a search, and they found a small amount of Pot. He had not been drinking, and was stoned ( pun intended) cold sober. He then also consented to a blood test, and a few days later, he gets the letter in the mail. He swears that he was not high at the time, he had just left work, grabbed a gallon of milk, and was heading home.
This seems ludicrous to me. I wonder if he has any recourse. Do they have a way of knowing what the THC levels were at the time of the incident?
I will never give my blood for a traffic stop. God gave it to me, it is mine, and there is only one way they can take it from me.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on this.

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

Fred, in Australia they have a road side test that the police do on your saliva.
If that shows up any drug in your system, you then have a blood test to determine the level in your body.
Here, drug driving is treated the same as drink driving.
This was introduced following research showing drugs played a large part in the road toll.
It takes about three days for pot to fall below detectable levels.

Your friend needs to come up with a pot plan. :D

We have that here also, they can take my license, but they cannot have my blood. One way.

tell him to STFU and hire a lawyer

a good one, who specializes in this sort of thing

He is meeting with a lawyer next week. Why STFU Herr Webb?

that sucks,, since there supposedly is trace amounts in your blood for 30 days..

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.

It is illegal to be under the influence of "pot" while driving. I should think the test needs to determine when the "influence" was acute. Since a drug test can determine if you smoked yesterday, is that a valid test for today?

Lawyer.

Alcohol is legal to drink, even to have in your system while you drive but not over a certain limit or at any point which impairs you. So if you had a single beer and did a breath test (or saliva, etc) it would record that you had alcohol in the system. But below a certain point, barring any other impaired actions - you would not be cited.

I suspect the pot is the same thing. If your actions appear impaired and the test confirms the presence of the drug - then you're considered impaired. There might even be a cutoff reading for the test such as "below this point - you smoked - but not impaired" etc.

The thing that makes dope different is that unlike alcohol, meth and heroin, which are basically out in 24 hours or less, marijuana does build up. If you are a chronic user, you can test positive for a month after you quit. Seriously.

I am dead set against driving impaired, whether that is from alcohol, pot, or even prescription medications. But if your friend was not truly impaired, in a state such as Oregon where the use is legal, then indeed it is time to lawyer up.

On the other hand, if he was driving while he was high, then shame, shame on him.

angela

The less you say, the lesser chance of incriminating yourself.

Big issue at moment. Lots of people driving around with medical MJ cards. Very hard to determine if a person was impaired at the time based simply on the amount in the blood.

Anyone who consents to a police search deserves what they get.

What Mr Lee said.

"Officer, I am not refusing the breathalyzer, but I want to speak to my attorney first."

That way you don't get your license revoked.

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.

Don't talk to the police, never consent to a search. That being said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

dont know Pa law but, my general knowledge and distant memory of con law tells me that its possible a headlight out does not form a basis for a search. so, the cop did what cops sometimes do, and asked. he f'd up and consented. once you consent without duress or some other threat, you did just that...consented to a search. they found some stuff and he will have to answer this charge which is probably a minor infraction. whether or not finding the stuff would form the legal basis for a blood test is probably moot since again, he consented. this dude screwed himself and should get a rep asap to plea him down to something if possible or else prove that the level of stuff in his blood is not enough to prove he was dui. expensive mistake no doubt about it

If reason prevailed, it would be interesting to point out that in order to establish the level of intoxication, it would be necessary to determine at least one thing. The level of impairment when X-amount of MJ is found in the blood. Significantly, the research is not conclusive, and the powers-that-be have not made an informed "determination" of how much BAC is indicative of intoxication.

When urine is used, another link would need to be shown, and that is the link between urine content and BAC (and therefore intoxication). Nevertheless, law enforcement and employers and insurance companies are busily making these "determinations" by pulling them out of their asses.

Never give the police anything. Period. Ever.

The police are not your friends.

Not that I recommend it, but driving while high <> driving drunk. Big difference. Though like I said, I don;t condone or recommend it. But fewer fatalities fo' sho'

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 :p
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_L8DcjFOD1k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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?

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

hehe :D

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 ...

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.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/d...stProfiles.gif

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.
| 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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

"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."

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.