Buddy got a dui after testing positve for Marijaheney

[fastfredracing]

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.

[widebody911]

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

[vas930]

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.

[fastfredracing]

Originally Posted by widebody911

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

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

[RWebb]

tell him to STFU and hire a lawyer

a good one, who specializes in this sort of thing

[fastfredracing]

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

[9dreizig]

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

[fastfredracing]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

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.

[Zeke]

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.

[Laneco]

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

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by fastfredracing

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

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

[HardDrive]

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.

[Rick Lee]

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

[Tobra]

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.

[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.

[emcon5]

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

[ramonesfreak]

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

[Superman]

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.

[szyzygy]

Never give the police anything. Period. Ever.

The police are not your friends.

[szyzygy]

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'