Showing posts with label Marijuana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marijuana. Show all posts

March 25, 2015

Arizona Court of Appeals Marijuana Trafficking Case Study: Part II of II – Suspects 40 Minute Detention for K-9 Drug Unit Not Unreasonable.

Woman chaced and pulled over by policeYour Rights at a Stop; 10 Defenses for Drug Charges; Mitigating Sentencing; Drug Trafficking Laws; Penatlies.

This is Part 2 of our Case Study on a recent Arizona Court of Appeals ruling involving Marijuana Trafficking charges.

If you’re just joining us, here’s a quick summary of the case: Recently, an Arizona Superior Court granted suppression of the Marijuana evidence that led to the State’s dismissal of the charges. The State promptly appealed arguing that the lower court erred in dismissing the Marijuana evidence found in the vehicle the suspect was driving.   The state argued on Appeal that the detention of the suspect for 40 minutes while awaiting the drug K-9 unit was not unreasonable.

The Appeals Court agreed, and overturned the lower court’s ruling, based on totality of the circumstances at the time.   The factors that the Appellate Court considered were the police officers extensive knowledge and experience in drug trafficking detection; prior drug crimes history of the suspect; voluntary statements made by the suspect at the time of the stop; and the suspect’s consent to search the vehicle he was driving.

In this discussion we focus on criminal rights at a stop, common defenses for drug crimes, laws, and drug trafficking penalties in Arizona.

Criminal Rights at a Police Stop

In the case study, the police used the suspect’s inconsistent statement about his destination to police which were used against him. The suspect also agreed to a search of his vehicle, which led to the discovery of the boxes of Marijuana in the trunk of his rental car.

Under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution a person is afforded protection from self-incrimination. A person has the right to remain silent upon questioning by police, except to answer routine identification or procedural question during an investigative stop. But a suspect does not have to answer questions about where they were, or where they were going at an investigative stop.

At a police stop, a person has the right remain silent, including the right to refrain from answering questions about where we are going.  A person also has the right to refuse a search of their vehicle. There are a few exceptions to this including police having a valid warrant, or what is known as exigent circumstances. A person has these rights under state and federal laws, whether the Miranda warning is read to them or not. It is critical to invoke these rights. Failure to do so may result in arrest and prosecution.

In this case, the statements offered by the suspect were seemingly innocent, and had nothing to do with the illegal drugs that were in the trunk of the vehicle.  However, the officer testified that he found the suspect’s statements “perplexing” and “confusing”, which raised the officer’s suspicions of the suspect’s potential criminal activity.

Alone, the suspect’s statements may not have been sufficient to raise suspicion of criminal involvement. But the officer took into account other factors he observed, when he decided to further detain the suspect. So the seemingly innocent statements made by the suspect, were used by police against him in this case. When this happens it constitutes a form of self-incrimination.

Under the 4th Amendment, a person is protected against unlawful search and seizures. If a person consents to the search, the officer may search their vehicle without a valid search warrant. In this case the suspect consented to a search of the vehicle. But he refused to extend his consent to the contents of an unmarked, taped box in the trunk. At this point the police requested the K-9 unit to investigate the boxes with the suspicion that the boxes contained illegal drugs. It was the original consent however of the vehicle that led the discovery of the suspicious boxes in the trunk of the vehicle.

10 Common Drug Crimes Defenses

A number of defenses can be used to challenge drug charges. Which defenses your attorney uses to challenge the charges will be heavily based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. There are also, different types of defenses that made be used pre-trial or during trial. Below is a sample of 10 defenses commonly used by experienced drug crime defense lawyers:

• Reason for the stop:
• Unlawful search and seizure rights;
• Violations of Miranda Rights;
• Unlawful detention;
• Police procedural violations;
• No probable cause for arrest;
• Other constitutional violations;
• The drugs belonged to someone else;
• Entrapment;
• The suspect was unaware that they were in possession of the drugs:

Note: It is not a valid defense for someone to be unaware of the laws in Arizona regarding the legality of Marijuana. But rather, it would be a valid defense if the accused was reasonably unaware that they possessed illegal drugs, or that the vehicle they are driving contained them.

5 Sentencing Diversion or Reduction Factors

If a person is found guilty or pleads guilty to a drug crime there are multiple factors the court takes into consideration.   The general rules are that crimes involving repeat drug convictions, and higher quantities call for the most severe of penalties under the Arizona criminal justice system.

Below are some common alternatives that can be used to reduce the severity of  penalties or help a defendant avoid incarceration:

Successful completion of substance abuse program, (TASC) in place of incarceration for qualified first time offenders with no criminal history;Amount of illegal drugs involved was below the Statutory “Threshold Amount” or lower than the person had been originally accused of possessing;No weapons were involved No other aggravated circumstances were involved;No prior criminal records;Felony charges reclassified to allow which serve to reduce sentencing and penalties.

Arizona Marijuana Transportation Laws

In Arizona it is unlawful to possess, use, sell, transport or distribute Marijuana, outside of the scope of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) A.R.S. 36 – Chapter 28.1 recreational use of Marijuana is not lawful in any form.

A person may be guilty of violating A.R.S. 13-3405 (A) (4) if they knowingly transport for sale, import into the state; offer to transport for sale, or import into this state; or transfer marijuana in Arizona.

Marijuana Trafficking Penalties

The penalties below apply to non-dangerous, non-violent, non-multiple, non-repetitive offenses:

If a person is found guilty of illegally transporting an amount of less than two pounds of Marijuana they will be convicted of a Class 3 felony. Penalties for this offense range from 2 years Mitigated to 8.75 years Aggravated; 3.5 Presumptive prison sentencing.

If a person is found guilty of illegally transporting a weight of two pounds, the Statutory Threshold Amount, under A.R.S. 13-3405 (C) or more of Marijuana, they will be convicted of a Class 2 felony.  Penalties for this offense range from 3 years Mitigated to 12.5 years Aggravated; 5 years Presumptive prison sentencing;  ineligible for probation.

Fines not less than $750.00 or three times the value of the marijuana whichever is greater up to $150,000 per charge per person or 1, 000,000 per charge per enterprise; other fines, fees, costs, and assessments; supervised probation or parole if eligible; Felony Criminal Record; Community Service or Restitution; Completion of Drug Rehabilitation or Substance Abuse Program; Loss of civil rights to vote and possess arms; Other penalties ordered by the court.

Felony Drug Defense Attorney

In Arizona, all Marijuana drug sales and trafficking convictions call for serious punishment. It is possible that a person convicted of drug sales or trafficking, could spend the the rest of their life in prison. If you face any felony drug charge, it is important that you consult an experienced felony drug defense attorney to discuss your options for defense.

James Novak, DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney is an experienced and highly skilled drug defense lawyer. As a former prosecutor he has a vast amount of litigation experience in drug charges. The Law Office of James Novak, PLLC  is exclusively limited to DUI, and criminal defense.  If retained, James Novak, Attorney will protect your rights, defend your charges, and work hard to resolve your case for the most favorable outcome possible.  Some outcomes may include dismissal, reduction of charges and  sentencing, avoidance of incarceration, and other mitigation in sentencing.

James Novak provides a free initial consultation for active charges, in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert,  and Scottsdale Arizona.   You can call by phone or send a contact form thought the website to get a return call to confidentially discuss your matter and defense options.

“You have the right remain silent, and refrain from answering questions about where you are going. You also have the right to refuse a search of your vehicle, in absence of a valid search warrant.  You have these rights whether they are read to you or not”. 

Additional Resources:

 Related Articles 

Continue Reading...

February 23, 2015

Marijuana and driving under the Influence

Posted On: February 10, 2015 by Bruce M. Robinson


The issue of DUI by Marijuana (driving under the influence) has never been more relevant than now when states are beginning to jump onto the pot bandwagon, legalizing Marijuana for recreational and or medical use while many more states have put the issue on their 2016 ballot.
The number of drivers charged with operating under the influence of Marijuana is likely to grow dramatically and it behooves us to study the laws we currently have in place and see whether they are adequate to protect the community and the driver. We will also look at the financial gain v. loss to the state from the legalization of Marijuana.
Is driving legal after ingesting Marijuana?
Generally there are three approaches taken by states regarding driving after ingesting weed; the majority of states will charge a driver after obtaining sufficient evidence to prove his or her impairment based on erratic driving factors, a failed field sobriety test and blood work.
A minority of states, including NY, has zero tolerance laws with regard to Marijuana use and will arrest for DUI for any amount of THC or metabolites found in the driver’s system. THC, the psychoactive component of Marijuana can remain in the urine for many days, while metabolites can be detected for several weeks or more for regular users; long after the driving impairment has worn off.
The remainder of the states institute thresholds similar to BAC levels used for DUI alcohol. 5 nano-grams of THC metabolite per milliliter of blood is the legal limit used by many of these states. Colorado is one of the states that have instituted this limit after legalizing Marijuana for recreational use.
Whatever the individual state guidelines are, make sure you understand and adhere to them. In the words of Attorney Zev Goldstein, “Your good record is arguably the most valuable thing you own, protect it from criminal drug/ or operating under the influence of drugs convictions”.

Why have certain states legalized DUI/ marijuana under certain levels?
The reason why some states have all but legalized Marijuana use while driving, unless impairment can be proven, is because many studies have been done without conclusive evidence of serious driving impairment resulting from weed. According to a 2012 study by the Colorado Dept. of Human Services, only about 5% of alcohol and drug DUI cases were related to Marijuana.
How much revenue are states like Colorado cashing in by legalizing pot?
The number of weed states has grown dramatically recently with the addition this November of Oregon, Alaska and Washington, DC. Colorado and Washington State have legalized it back in 2012 as a result of a popular ballot vote.
According to forecasts, Washington State is projected to haul in an additional revenue stream of $50 million between 2015 and 2107 just from taxes and fees. Colorado already sees $84 in annual revenue from the sale of pot.
Opponents claim that the cost in increased law enforcement does not justify this relatively low return. But proponents reject that claim on the grounds that driving under the influence of Marijuana is safer than drunken driving.
Conclusion: Marijuana is a fast paced and quickly changing industry. As more states realize the tax income benefits they can generate versus the minimal down side, additional states will come on line in terms a legalizing for recreational use. Ultimately, the possession of this “drug” in appropriate quantities will not be a crime however the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of same will always be a crime.

Continue Reading...

January 18, 2015

Celebrity DUI: Le’Von Bell Accepts Plea Deal for DUI With Marijuana

Los Angeles DUI drug arrests may become increasingly common over the next few years, as an increasing number of Californians turn to legal medicinal marijuana for treatment.LeVon-Bell-DUI

In August 2014, Pittsburgh Steelers running back Le’Von Bell was arrested on charges of DUI and marijuana possession. According to Pittsburgh’s Channel 11 News, Bell will participate in a program for first-time offenders and will face a two-game suspension sometime within 2014 or 2015. A two-game suspension is “standard punishment” for NFL players convicted in a DUI case.

With 1,689 yards from scrimmage and five touchdowns, Le’Von Bell has been one of the Steelers’ best players this season. However, as many celebrities find out, fame and status will not grant Bell complete immunity from his charges. He will be on probation for fifteen months.

Driving under the influence of marijuana can be equally as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, but differences exist in how such a charge is handled. The Los Angeles DUI attorneys at the Kraut Law Group want readers to be aware of the following differences:

•    There is no “sobriety test” for marijuana. Often, officers have to rely on questions such as, “Let me look at your eyes.” They then have to ask the driver if he or she is willing to perform a voluntary field sobriety test, and many drivers refuse.

•    Marijuana levels cannot be measured the way alcohol levels can. A breath test will not prove specific levels of marijuana in one’s system.

•    There is not a “comparable offense” to driving with a blood alcohol level (BAC) of .08 or greater related to marijuana and other drugs.

•    Many DUI cases involving marijuana and other drugs, but not alcohol, are based at least partially on the arresting officer’s opinion.

•    Marijuana usage can often only be proven through blood or urine samples, which must be processed through a lab.

With states such as Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana, many Los Angeles residents wonder whether California will be next, and if so, what that could mean for future cases like Le’Von Bell’s. Since many people also use marijuana for medicinal purposes, there is a distinct possibility that potential marijuana DUI cases could be thrown out, because they don’t fit the “DUI per se” definition or because of medical personnel testimony.

Do you need help defending against a drug or DUI charge? Michael Kraut of Los Angeles’s Kraut Law Group is a trustworthy, highly qualified former prosecutor. Call a Los Angeles DUI attorney today to strategize for your defense seriously.


If police stopped you for Los Angeles DUI, you may be worried and anxious. Contact Harvard Law School educated, ex-prosecutor Michael Kraut for assistance at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our team is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

January 1, 2015

Celebrity DUI: Le’Von Bell Accepts Plea Deal for DUI With Marijuana

Los Angeles DUI drug arrests may become increasingly common over the next few years, as an increasing number of Californians turn to legal medicinal marijuana for treatment.LeVon-Bell-DUI

In August 2014, Pittsburgh Steelers running back Le’Von Bell was arrested on charges of DUI and marijuana possession. According to Pittsburgh’s Channel 11 News, Bell will participate in a program for first-time offenders and will face a two-game suspension sometime within 2014 or 2015. A two-game suspension is “standard punishment” for NFL players convicted in a DUI case.

With 1,689 yards from scrimmage and five touchdowns, Le’Von Bell has been one of the Steelers’ best players this season. However, as many celebrities find out, fame and status will not grant Bell complete immunity from his charges. He will be on probation for fifteen months.

Driving under the influence of marijuana can be equally as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, but differences exist in how such a charge is handled. The Los Angeles DUI attorneys at the Kraut Law Group want readers to be aware of the following differences:

•    There is no “sobriety test” for marijuana. Often, officers have to rely on questions such as, “Let me look at your eyes.” They then have to ask the driver if he or she is willing to perform a voluntary field sobriety test, and many drivers refuse.

•    Marijuana levels cannot be measured the way alcohol levels can. A breath test will not prove specific levels of marijuana in one’s system.

•    There is not a “comparable offense” to driving with a blood alcohol level (BAC) of .08 or greater related to marijuana and other drugs.

•    Many DUI cases involving marijuana and other drugs, but not alcohol, are based at least partially on the arresting officer’s opinion.

•    Marijuana usage can often only be proven through blood or urine samples, which must be processed through a lab.

With states such as Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana, many Los Angeles residents wonder whether California will be next, and if so, what that could mean for future cases like Le’Von Bell’s. Since many people also use marijuana for medicinal purposes, there is a distinct possibility that potential marijuana DUI cases could be thrown out, because they don’t fit the “DUI per se” definition or because of medical personnel testimony.

Do you need help defending against a drug or DUI charge? Michael Kraut of Los Angeles’s Kraut Law Group is a trustworthy, highly qualified former prosecutor. Call a Los Angeles DUI attorney today to strategize for your defense seriously.


If police stopped you for Los Angeles DUI, you may be worried and anxious. Contact Harvard Law School educated, ex-prosecutor Michael Kraut for assistance at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our team is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

December 21, 2014

Seattle and Washington State Marijuana DUI Law

I-502 Passage Creates New Washington Marijuana DUI Law, .05 Limit Set | Washington DUI Washington DUI Google+ HomeAbout Our FirmYour DUI DefenseDUI Facts and InfoBlogContact Recent Posts DUI With Child in Car? Preparing for CPS Referral in Washington DUI Cases Challenges, Stays and Early Reinstatements of HTO License RevocationsPhysical Control in Washington - Confusion, Elements and DefensesSeattle and Washington State Marijuana DUI LawFee Increase to Request Administrative DOL HearingNew Washington DUI Laws Address Reckless Driving, Home Detention And HuffingReductions From DUI to Reckless Driving No Longer To Result In Additional License SuspensionsDUI Victims Panel, Attend Early, Be ProactiveDUI Emphasis Patrols for King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties Announced for St. Patrick's DaySeattle Police Officer Arrested For DUI; Refuses Field Sobriety TestsMore Seattle and Washington State Marijuana DUI Law Submitted by tcmilios on Wed, 11/28/2012 - 12:04pm

On November 6, 2012, the voters of the State of Washington passed Initiative 502 on marijuana reform. From the broader public perspective, the passage of this measure legalizes the adult possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use and creates both a system to tax the sale of marijuana and marijuana products and a revenue stream designated for substance abuse education and treatment. From a DUI perspective, I-502 creates a very specific legal standard for Marijuana DUI setting a per se limit of active THC of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood.

Marijuana DUI prosecution in Washington State after I-502

Prior to the passage of I-502, there was no set legal limit for THC as it related to Washington DUI law. If the state believed an individual had been driving while impaired by the use of marijuana, it had to prove actual impairment irrespective of the actual level of THC in driver’s system. Under the new law, set to go into effect on December 6, 2012, the presence of 5 nanograms of THC in a state approved blood test within two hour of driving creates a per se DUI akin to a .08 level of alcohol.

Studies suggest that individuals can pass physical and cognitive tests at a much higher THC level than the current legal standard. Additionally, people would likely register the 5 nanograms level or higher even several hours after marijuana consumption. So whereas the laws as they relate to alcohol DUI at least attempt to criminalize driving after consuming an amount that would affect one's ability to drive, the recently passed THC levels appear to more arbitrary. In fact, whereas there is tolerance within the law for driving after drinking alcohol responsibly, no such tolerance exists with respect to marijuana consumption prior to driving after the passage of I-502..

Washington Marijuana DUI Consequences

While the new marijuana DUI statute changes how and when the state can pursue a marijuana DUI conviction, the general consequences of a marijuana DUI remain unchanged except for one major exception. Prior to the new law, there existed no administrative sanction for driving a motor vehicle with THC in the driver’s system, regardless of the level. Now, under this statute, as with drivers who either refuse a breath test or give a breast sample greater than or equal to .08, there are licensing consequences under the new marijuana DUI law as well. As in cases where an individual refuses a breath test or blood alcohol test, refusing legally requested marijuana blood sample could result in an administrative license revocation of at least one year; two years if it is a second or subsequent offense within seven years. A blood test result of 5.0 nanograms of THC or greater would result in a 90 day suspension; two years for second or subsequent offense within seven years. The criminal sanctions associated with a marijuana DUI conviction remain largely unchanged.

Marijuana DUI and Persons Under 21 Years of Age

Zero Tolerance. I-502 only authorizes adults over the age of 21 to possess undergone ounce of marijuana. The new marijuana DUI guidelines reflect this lack of tolerance. A driver under 21 years old who has a THC concentration above 0.0 but less than 5.0 could face charges of Driving After Consuming Marijuana. This charge is similar to the charge of Minor Operating a Motor Vehicle After Consuming Alcohol. It is not a DUI and does not have the same penalties as a DUI but it is still a crime and may have stiff licensing consequences. If the THC was greater than 5.0, the minor driver could face a marijuana DUI just the same as his or her adult counter part would, regardless of his age.

Effects on Medical Marijuana users

It's one thing to tell a recreational drug user that there is no tolerance for driving after consumption of the drug. It's another thing entirely to take the keys out of the hands of one who relies on a prescription medication regardless of impairment or lack thereof. Unfortunately, that is exactly what I-502 appears to do. Because the established legal limit is so low, it is very likely that anyone who uses marijuana on a daily basis for medical and therapeutic purposes will find themselves over the new legal limit at virtually all times. Be sure to consult with your physician as well as a Washington DUI attorney to see how the new law may apply to you.

Advice to drivers after the passage of I-502

Essentially we give the same advice to marijuana users as we do to those who drive after consuming alcohol. If you drive after consuming any amount of marijuana, as with alcohol, you are testing fate. People get stopped, arrested and charged for DUI, even when they are not impaired, all of the time. Often times, the initial stop has nothing to do with impaired driving but then turns into a DUI investigation after to odor of an intoxicant is discovered. And whereas the smell of alcoholic beverages can be difficult to mask, the smell of marijuana is even more difficult to hide. If you consume marijuana do not drive, you will be at even greater risk for a DUI prosecution than ever.

Archive October 2009 (2) November 2009 (2) December 2009 (2) February 2010 (1) April 2010 (1) May 2010 (2) June 2010 (3) July 2010 (4) August 2010 (1) November 2010 (2) August 2011 (3) October 2011 (1) February 2012 (4) April 2012 (2) October 2012 (1) November 2012 (1) May 2013 (1) October 2014 (2) Seattle DUI Attorneys and Lawyers Serving Washington State | P:206-745-2371| P: 206-621-9956 | 1325 Fourth Avenue | Suite 940 | Seattle, WA 98101

King County | Snohomish County | Pierce County | Including the communities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Shoreline, Burien, Kent, Renton, Edmonds, Everett, Lynnwood, and Tacoma

Use of this legal website constitutes acceptance of the Milios Defense Terms of Service. The material on this site is for informational purposes only regarding DUI legal issues, and is not a substitute for legal advice provided by an attorney or lawyer and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. © 2014 Milios Defense, LLP. We want to be your Seattle DUI Attorney. All rights reserved. Seattle DUI Lawyer website Last Updated: October 27, 2014.

Continue Reading...

December 2, 2014

Police to Use Marijuana Breathalyzer to Identify Stoned Drivers

Stoned drivers beware. Cops may soon use a handheld device to determine if a driver is under heavy influence of marijuana.
According to a Bloomberg report, a team of researchers at Washington State University is trying to develop a breathalyzer similar to the device used to determine alcohol level content among drivers, except this one is for marijuana usage. The handheld device will be able to detect if drivers have THC, marijuana's psychoactive component.

Herbert Hill, a chemistry professor at Washington State University, leads the research team to develop the handheld device, according to News Tribune.
Hill is collaborating with Jessica Tufariello, a doctoral student from the same university, to develop the device that uses ion mobility spectrometry, a technique used to detect the level of THC in human breath.
Although the prototype of the device could not identify the exact amount of THC, Hill remains confident that the technology they are developing will assist police officers to determine whether THC is present.
“We believe at least initially that it would lower the false positives that an officer would have,” Hill told the News Tribune. “They would have a higher level of confidence in making an arrest.”
Police officers are hampered by protocols to determine if a driver is THC impaired. According to a 2012 study conducted by the U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health, it takes 24-hours to get the results of blood tests to find out the THC levels of marijuana users. In most cases, police officers use traditional techniques used in standardized field sobriety tests the most common of which is to make them walk a straight line.
Right now, officers and prosecutors rely on blood tests to determine how much active THC is present in a driver’s blood. Those test results aren’t immediately available to patrol officers who suspect someone is driving high.
The recreational use of marijuana has been legalized in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, but driving under the influence of pot remains illegal.
The most law enforcers can do, like in the state of Colorado, is to file charges against drivers who are high on marijuana using DUI penal statutes that apply to drunk drivers.
Studies show that marijuana use leads to poor reaction time that affects a user's hand and eye coordination, which could be dangerous when driving. Other effects of marijuana include a blurred perception of physical distance and time and short-term memory.
Since the legalization of recreational marijuana use, Washington has seen a dramatic jump of 25 percent of drivers who have tested positive for THC.
Continue Reading...

October 13, 2012

Proposed DUI Bill Threatens to Crack Down on Marijuana Users

A new DUI bill being, introduced by Assembly woman Norma Torres, D-Chino, could bring harsh consequences to marijuana users in California. The bill would criminalize driving with any amount of marijuana in one’s blood or urine.

The controversy around this bill centers around the fact that marijuana compounds can remain detectable in one’s body for up to 30 days from the last use of the substance. This is unlike alcohol, which leaves one’s system at a relatively quick rate.

Supporters of the bill claim it will deter those from driving under the influence of any drug or alcohol.

The use of medicinal marijuana is legal in California. Opponents of the bill state that the bill is discriminatory against marijuana users. A person could theoretically be charged with driving under the influence for the use of marijuana 30 days prior to being stopped for driving under the influence.

Opponents of the bill also claim it would unfairly lower the burden of proof needed to obtain a DUI conviction. The bill would place more emphasis on the blood and urine test results and less emphasis on the demonstrable impairment of the driver.

One thing is for certain; if this bill passes a dramatic increase in DUI arrests in California should be expected.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

June 3, 2012

Scientists Creating Marijuana Breathalyzer to Test Stoned Drivers

By guest-writer

Unlike alcohol, which allows police officers to easily detect the amount of the substance in a driver’s system, marijuana poses all sorts of testing issues for state officials.

First, THC, the psychoactive agent in marijuana, stays in a person’s body for weeks after the initial high has long since worn off. And, today, scientists do not have a reliable test to determine exactly how much marijuana is in a person’s system at any given point of time.

However, scientists across the country are working on developing a saliva test to determine whether a driver is impaired by marijuana, as several states look to push more aggressive marijuana marijuana DUI laws , according to a report from Reuters.

Sources indicate that scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a relatively obscure government research lab, have been developing a simple saliva test that will be able to detect whether a driver has recently been using marijuana.

The test, though, won’t be able to specifically measure the user’s level of marijuana use. In fact, according to the so-called White House drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, “I’ll be dead – and so will lots of other people – from old age, before we know the impairment levels.”

So, scientists are creating an admittedly less-than-reliable saliva test to gauge whether a person who is driving after smoking marijuana is too impaired to get behind the wheel.

And the unreliability of the saliva test has many DUI attorneys concerned that their clients could be hauled before a judge for DUI violations due to drug use that occurred days, or perhaps weeks, before the incident in question.

In response, law enforcement officials say that there are other gauges to determine just how stoned a driver is, including the redness of eyes, coordination, speech, and the like. But this seems to add a lot of guess work to an arrest that could lead to jail time or serious fines.

In fact, these concerns have already been addressed by a wary public. In California, for example, Proposition 19, which would have elevated marijuana to the status of alcohol in DUI arrests, failed in 2010 in part because voters were concerned that it didn’t specifically set forth a THC driving limit.

In the voters’ minds, if blood alcohol levels are capped at .08 percent, then THC levels should have an equally concrete limit for drivers. This limit, however, may be impossible to adequately set, given today’s current marijuana-detecting technology.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

June 1, 2012

Colorado Senate Votes to Criminalize Marijuana Levels in Drivers

Over past years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been successful in getting legislation passed across the country criminalizing the presence of a largely arbitrary level of alcohol in a driver’s blood.  

Whereas previously the drunk driving laws made it illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, the new ones didn’t care about impairment but simply made it a crime to have a blood-alcohol level of .08% or higher.  It didn’t matter if a given driver had higher than average tolerance to alcohol; whether a citizen was impaired and a danger or not was no longer relevant.  The crime was the presence of alcohol in the body.

This, of course, made it much easier to prosecute and convict citizens of drunk driving — even if they weren’t "drunk".

Now that strategy is increasingly being adopted by states for the offense of "driving while stoned" — that is, driving while under the influence of marijuana.  As with alcohol, it is more difficult to prove that a citizen’s driving ability is impaired by marijuana than it is to prove that there is an arbitrary amount of it in his body.  

Solution: criminalize the presence of a given amount of cannabis in the blood.  Of course, there is little scientific consensus as to what levels of marijuana cause driving impairment.  But the result will be more arrests, prosecutions — and more unimpaired drivers convicted.   

"The ends justify the means", right?  


Colorado Senate Gives Initial OK to Stoned-Driving Limits 

Denver, CO.  May 2 – The Colorado Senate Tuesday gave initial approval to a bill making it easier to convict people of driving while stoned, in the toughest test yet for the proposal…

The measure, Senate Bill 117, would set a limit of THC — the psychoactive chemical in marijuana — in the blood above which it would be illegal to drive. King said numerous studies suggest that the large majority of people with more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood are impaired.

[Bill sponsor Steve] King said the bill is needed to stem what appears to be an increase in stoned driving in Colorado. Drivers whose blood tested positive for THC at the state toxicology lab have increased from a couple hundred in 2009 to more than 1,000 last year, King said…

Opponents say that research isn’t conclusive that everybody is stoned at 5 ng and that the bill would result in sober drivers being convicted. Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, called the bill, "a shortcut on burden of proof." Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, said state law already makes it illegal to drive while stoned — including for those drivers who are impaired at less than 5 ng.

"I would prefer to stick with current law, where the question of impairment is put to a jury and where evidence of someone’s conduct is presented in court," Steadman said.

Steadman said the bill would hurt medical-marijuana patients who regularly use marijuana and may have higher baseline levels of THC in their blood.
But King said the bill sends an important message that driving high is not OK.

"What I’m saying is, you can’t get high and drive," King said. "It has an impact on the rest of us. You can smoke and wait. You can smoke and walk. You can smoke and find a ride. But you cannot smoke and drive."

Fourteen other states have laws creating a THC limit for driving — laws that are known as "per se" laws. Several other states have zero-tolerance driving laws for THC.


Notice the focus of the law in the opening line of the story:  "a bill making it easier to convict people".  Not a bill to reduce casualties on the highways.  Not a bill to punish criminals. No, a bill making it easier to convict citizens.

The great legal scholar Blackstone famously stated back in the 1760s: "Better that ten guilty guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".  That revered old legal principle has been reversed in DUI cases..  

The concept goes back even further — much further.  From Genesis 18:23-32 of the Bible:  

Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you consume the righteous with the wicked?  What if there are fifty righteous within the city?  Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are in it?  What if ten are found there?".  He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten’s sake".  

The dragnet approach to justice.  Yet another example of what I have termed "The DUI Exception to the Constitution".

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 9:18 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

May 15, 2012

Identifying and Proving DUI Marijuana (“Stoned Driving”)

 I’ve discussed in the past how difficult it is (1) to recognize and identify whether a person’s driving ability is impaired by marijuana, and (2) to prove with observable and chemical evidence the existence of that impairment.  See, for example, DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving? and Driving + Trace of Marijuana = DUI.

The following news story does an excellent job of highlighting some of the issues of a growing problem:

New Wrinkle in Pot Debate: Stoned Driving

Denver, CO.  March 18  – Angeline Chilton says she can’t drive unless she smokes pot. The suburban Denver woman says she’d never get behind the wheel right after smoking, but she does use medical marijuana twice a day to ease tremors caused by multiple sclerosis that previously left her homebound.

"I don’t drink and drive, and I don’t smoke and drive," she said. "But my body is completely saturated with THC."

Her case underscores a problem that no one’s sure how to solve: How do you tell if someone is too stoned to drive?

States that allow medical marijuana have grappled with determining impairment levels for years. And voters in Colorado and Washington state will decide this fall whether to legalize the drug for recreational use, bringing a new urgency to the issue.

A Denver marijuana advocate says officials are scrambling for limits in part because more drivers acknowledge using the drug.

"The explosion of medical marijuana patients has led to a lot of drivers sticking the (marijuana) card in law enforcement’s face, saying, `You can’t do anything to me, I’m legal,’" said Sean McAllister, a lawyer who defends people charged with driving under the influence of marijuana.

It’s not that simple. Driving while impaired by any drug is illegal in all states.

But it highlights the challenges law enforcement officers face using old tools to try to fix a new problem. Most convictions for drugged driving now are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.

Authorities envision a legal threshold for pot that would be comparable to the blood-alcohol standard used to determine drunken driving.

But unlike alcohol, marijuana stays in the blood long after the high wears off a few hours after use, and there is no quick test to determine someone’s level of impairment — not that scientists haven’t been working on it.

Dr. Marilyn Huestis of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a government research lab, says that soon there will be a saliva test to detect recent marijuana use.

But government officials say that doesn’t address the question of impairment.

"I’ll be dead — and so will lots of other people — from old age, before we know the impairment levels" for marijuana and other drugs, said White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske.

Authorities recognize the need for a solution. Marijuana causes dizziness, slowed reaction time and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they’re high…

Physicians say that while many tests can show whether someone has recently used pot, it’s more difficult to pinpoint impairment at any certain time.

Urine and blood tests are better at showing whether someone used the drug in the past — which is why employers and probation officers use them. But determining current impairment is far trickier.

"There’s no sure answer to that question," said Dr. Guohua Li, a Columbia University researcher who reviewed marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes last year.

His survey linked pot use to crash risk, but pointed out wide research gaps. Scientists do not have conclusive data to link marijuana dosing to accident likelihood; whether it matters if the drug is smoked or eaten; or how pot interacts with other drugs.

The limited data has prompted a furious debate.

Proposed solutions include setting limits on the amount of the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana, THC, that drivers can have in their blood. But THC limits to determine impairment are not widely agreed upon.

Two states place the standard at 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood. Others have zero tolerance policies. And Colorado and Washington state are debating a threshold of 5 nanograms.

Such an attempt failed the Colorado Legislature last year, amid opposition from Republicans and Democrats. State officials then set up a task force to settle the question — and the panel couldn’t agree.

This year, Colorado lawmakers are debating a similar measure, but its sponsors concede they don’t know whether the "driving while high" bill will pass.

In Washington state, the ballot measure on marijuana legalization includes a 5 nanogram THC limit.

The measure’s backers say polling indicates such a driving limit could be crucial to winning public support for legalization…

The White House, which has a goal of reducing drugged driving by 10 percent in the next three years, wants states to set a blood-level standard upon which to base convictions, but has not said what that limit should be.

Administration officials insist marijuana should remain illegal, and Kerlikowske called it a "bogus argument" to say any legal level of THC in a driver is safe.

But several factors can skew THC blood tests, including age, gender, weight and frequency of marijuana use. Also, THC can remain in the system weeks after a user sobers up, leading to the anxiety shared by many in the 16 medical marijuana states: They could be at risk for a positive test at any time, whether they had recently used the drug or not.

(Thanks to Andre Campos.) 

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 10:03 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 28, 2011

Felony Drug Charges May Be Dropped Against Mom Who Grew Marijuana For Son’s Use- Attorney Sam’s Take

We haven’t talked about drug cases for awhile. As you know, possession of a small amount of marijuana has been decriminalized. However, that does not mean that having it is now problem free.

Confused?

Well, it depends on the circumstances in which you possessed it. For example, if there is even the hint that you might be sharing or otherwise distributing pot you are going to be charged with possession with intent to distribute.

And then there was the case of Ms. Sue Thayer, 65 (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) She was charged with felony drug charges when it was discovered that she was growing marijuana. Apparently, she was growing it for her son.

In 2007, the Defendant was charged with possessing more than 25 pot plants. She said she grew the plants out of necessity because the marijuana improved the appetite and general condition of her son, who suffered from chronic wasting.

She tried a defense of "necessity". It did not fly.

Fortunately for the Defendant, however, prosecutors, and the court of course, had a heart. They have now agreed to refer her to court diversion. If she completes it, the charges against her will be dismissed.

I have handled drug cases of all sorts in my 25+ years as attorney in the criminal justice trenches. The realization that drug crimes are often a result of illness and addiction is an area in which many courts have begun to react to reality and try to actually do some good. Unfortunately, it seems that the more this happens, the more politicians change laws to prohibit anything but long term prison sentences for nonviolent drug crimes.

Which way is the pendulum really swinging? I’m not sure…what day is it today?

Usually, at least in Massachusetts, diversion programs like the one here is reserved for kids who have “strayed off the path” and are considered redeemable. Additionally, many states have eased the handling of “medical marihuana” cases. However, those are usually cases in which the pot is actually prescribed by a physician.

This is an interesting case in that the marihuana plants are not being grown by the user. They are being grown by the Defendant to then give to her son. That “giving” is technically a sale and could be prosecuted as such.

One would hope that the government has become involved in some other kind of treatment for the son, assuming that this avenue of treatment has now been closed.

Generally, though, it is a mistake to rely upon goodwill of the prosecution when facing drug charges. Get an experienced criminal defense attorney. Such an attorneysshould have the experience to get whatever kind of goodwill is out there…and, maybe, create some that isn’t there at first.

If you want to contact me to discuss such a case, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/vermont/articles/2011/01/18/mother_avoids_trial_on_marijuana_charges/


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Links

Developed in partnership with SanFran Coders.

Blogroll

The acronyms DUI, DWI, OMVI and OVI all refer to the same thing: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most commonly used terms are DUI, an acronym for Driving Under the Influence, and DWI, an acronym for Driving While Impaired.
© Copyright 2010 - 2015 MY OVI | Developed by San Fran Coders