D.U.I.D????

[yetibear]

Hi All, well it's happened! Saturday afternoon a friend of mines little brother who is a long time connoisseur (and a mmj card holder) was pulled over after leaving his favorite dispensary in a speed trap on I-25 at 58th ave in Denver!! :apachecopter:

There was a familiar "medication" smell coming from his car and he was asked if he had partaken in said medication and stated yes! he had smoked "earlier" that day! :stoned: police did not believe him and asked him to open his mouth, they said his tongue looked funny or something and believed he had smoked more recently?

He was basically told "blood test" or loose your license!! tested positive for medication and was givin a D.U.I.D!!:asskick:

And YES! it's as serious and as costly as a D.U.I!!:cool:

[quetzal]

He was basically told "blood test" or loose your license!! tested positive for medication and was givin a D.U.I.D!!

What level did he test at? More or less than the proposed 5 nanograms?

[denverbear]

you have to remember to tell them it has been over 8 hours since you took your medicine.

[HighPopalorum]

you have to remember to tell them it has been over 8 hours since you took your medicine.

I have better advice: don't talk to the police. Volunteering information about your recent marijuana usage will not help you. In fact, anything you say will be used against you. Anything at all.... get it? If you are suspected of committing a crime, from DUID to murder, you need to be silent and get an attorney.

WHAT TO DO
- Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
- Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.
- If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
- Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.

YOUR RIGHTS
- You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
- You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
- If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
- You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
- Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
- Do stay calm and be polite.
- Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
- Do not lie or give false documents.
- Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
- Do remember the details of the encounter.
- Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.

[quetzal]

HighPopalorum,

Thats good advice for general encounters with the police in your car. But doesn't it get tricky when it comes to a DUID or situation in which you suspect the police of suspecting DUID/marijuana use?

You don't have the right to refuse a blood test, because of CO implied consent for drivers, afaik. Or, if you do refuse, you are penalized with license suspension and your refusal can be used against you in a court case. If its true that you haven't consumed within the last 3-4 hours, which is supposedly the impairment window for the proposed THC limit, I wonder what the harm is in stating information that could deter their suspicions of impairment, e.g., the last time you consumed.

In reality, if they ask you if you've consumed your medicine, and you say you don't want to answer, that will motivate them to find evidence of your (obvious) use in order to force a blood test. As of now, with no THC limit or defined impairment guidelines, anything to avoid a blood test is good it seems. I don't know... I'm just thinking outloud now...

On another note, this could have been avoided by following Rule #1, no violating traffic laws while carrying.

[leadmagnet]

God dang it people, go to flexyourrights.com or similar site and get your heads on straight.

[porone]

I agree with highpop on somthing:stoned:maybe im just stoned:jointsmile:

[COCannabisToker]

.

On another note, this could have been avoided by following Rule #1, no violating traffic laws while carrying.

agreed. common sense

[MtnLionCO]

i feel ignorant here, you have to submit to a blood test or lose your license, is that true? and the probable cause is that youre a mj patient and smell like weed? personally i would refuse a blood test under any circumstances and fight it in court.

[HighPopalorum]

All this is subject to correction. I haven't bothered to look it up.

If you are suspected of drunk driving in Colorado, you must submit to either a blood or breath test or lose your license for one year. If you are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs, you must submit to a blood test or face the same civil penalty. If you refuse a test, prosecutors will use this in court as part of their DUI case for your guilt. My own personal belief is that no test that comes back positive for any amount of THC will be exculpatory. I would refuse the test and trust my lawyer to win in court. Also, I have other compelling reasons: a DUI conviction would have professional consequences and since I seldom drive, I wouldn't be seriously inconvenienced by the loss of my license.

[MtnLionCO]

Colorado DUID - NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=duid)

n Colorado, a person is guilty of a DUI if he or she operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or one or more drugs, OR he or she operates a motor vehicle as an habitual user of any controlled substance. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-4-1301(1)(a)-(c) (West 2010).

Affirmative Defense

The fact that any person charged is or has been entitled to use one or more drugs under the laws of this state, including, but not limited to, the medical use of marijuana shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this subsection. Id. § 42-4-1301(1)(e).

Implied Consent

A person who drives a motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be required to take and complete, and to cooperate in the taking and completing of, any test or tests of the person's breath or blood when so requested and directed by a law enforcement officer having probable cause to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of the prohibitions against DUI, DUI per se, DWAI, habitual user, or UDD. Id. § 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(I).
If a person refuses to take or to complete any test or tests and such person subsequently stands trial for DUI or DWAI, the refusal to take or to complete, or to cooperate with the completing of, any test or tests shall be admissible into evidence at the trial. Id. § 42-4-1301(6)(a)(III)(d).
Neither the results of such preliminary screening test nor the fact that the person refused such test shall be used in any court action except in a hearing outside of the presence of a jury, when such hearing is held to determine if a law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that the driver committed a violation of this section. The results of such preliminary screening test shall be made available to the driver or the driver's attorney on request. Id. § 42-4-1301 (6)(h)(i)(III).
The department shall revoke the license of a person for refusal of test for one year for a first refusal, two years for a second refusal of test and three years for a third or subsequent refusal. Id. § 42-2-126(3)(c)(I).
Generally, an arrested person has no right to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test. Drake v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 674 P.2d 359 (1984).
When an arresting officer invokes the sanctions of the implied consent law by requesting the driver to submit to chemical testing, the officer has a corresponding duty to comply with the driver's request for a blood test. People v. Gillett, 629 P.2d 613 (1981).
Penalties

First offense (DUI, DUI per se, or habitual user) - imprisonment in the county jail for a mandatory minimum of five days but no more than one year; fine of at least six hundred dollars, but no more than one thousand dollars; at least forty-eight hours but no more than ninety-six hours of useful public service; the court may impose a period of probation that shall not exceed two years, which probation may include any conditions permitted by law.Id. § 42-4-1307(3).
First offense (DWAI)* - imprisonment in the county jail for a mandatory minimum of two days but no more than one hundred eighty days; fine of at least two hundred dollars but no more than five hundred dollars; at least twenty-four hours but no more than forty-eight hours of useful public service; the court may impose a period of probation that shall not exceed two years, which probation may include any conditions permitted by law. Id. § 42-4-1307(4).
* "Driving while ability impaired" or "DWAI" means driving a motor vehicle when a person has consumed alcohol, one or more drugs, or a combination of both, that affects the person to the slightest degree which fails to meet the level for DUI impairment. There is only a sentencing disparity when it comes to the first offense. After the first DUI or DWAI each subsequent DUI or DWAI is punished without distinction.
Second offense - imprisonment in the county jail for a mandatory minimum ten consecutive days but no more than one year; fine of at least six hundred dollars but no more than one thousand five hundred dollars; at least forty-eight hours but no more than one hundred twenty hours of useful public service; a period of probation of at least two years. Id. § 42-4-1307(5).
Third and subsequent offense - imprisonment in the county jail for a mandatory minimum of sixty consecutive days but no more than one year; mandatory participation in a court-ordered alcohol and drug driving safety education or treatment program; fine of at least six hundred dollars but no more than one thousand five hundred dollars; at least forty-eight hours but no more than one hundred twenty hours of useful public service; a period of probation of at least two years. Id. § 42-4-1307(6).
Sobriety Checkpoints

Sobriety checkpoints are permissible in Colorado under both the state and federal Constitution.

In light of the state's substantial interest in combating drunk driving, sobriety checkpoint was not "unreasonable" under Fourth Amendment. The stops averaged no longer than three minutes and were found to be a relatively minor burden on motorists. Checkpoint was held permissible when officer did not stop vehicles that turned around to avoid checkpoint. People v. Rister, 803 P.2d 483 (Col. 1990).
Case Law

Stanger v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., State of Colo., 780 P.2d 64 (1989) -- An arresting officer has the discretion to demand a driver to submit to tests in order to reveal the presence of drugs if driver is suspected of DUI-drug offense. The driver has no right to choose which test.

Cox v. People, 735 P.2d 153 (1987) -- Since driver may have reason for refusing to submit to test that is unrelated to consciousness of guilt, inference of intoxication that is permissible from evidence of driver's refusal to take blood or breath test is rebuttable.
Drake v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 674 P.2d 359 (1984) -- Generally, an arrested person has no right to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test. If a defendant refuses to consent to testing before talking to an attorney, such behavior will generally be deemed a refusal.

Halter v. Department of Revenue of State of Colo., Motor Vehicle Div., 857 P.2d 535 (1993) - Officers' request that driver undergo drug testing was reasonable where breath test showed no presence of alcohol but driver displayed various indications of intoxication. If an officer has probable cause to supported arrest and breath alcohol test, officer also may request that driver submit to drug test. If driver passes the breath test, drug use is a reasonable explanation for driver's intoxication regardless of whether other evidence existed to support search for drugs.

Dayhoff v. State, Motor Vehicle Division, 595 P.2d 1051 (1979) -- Driver not driving on public highway is not controlled by implied consent statute. Driver may refuse test without license suspension.

Thompson v. People, 510 P.2d 311 (1979) -- Standard of proof for DUI is "substantially under the influence," rather than intoxication to the "slightest degree". The degree of intoxication must be substantial so as to render one incapable of safely operating a vehicle.

Per Se Drugged Driving Laws

No per se Drugged Driving laws exist for this region.

i dont think a police officer with no medical training should be allowed to take blood at their discression to motorists.

it says you still get a jury trial for the duid, but they can revoke your license automatically with no trial for refusal of the test?

[MtnLionCO]

so if i understand it correctly, if you refuse test and win trial, you still lose license for 1 year for refusal of test.

[MtnLionCO]

shouldnt they tell you this information when you get your drivers license? im sure i would have remembered this. that you must submit to test or lose license with no trial.

i question the accuracy of said tests, and also possibility of infecting someone with a disease sticking them with needles on the side of the road in the dark. its a violation of personal privacy.

[MtnLionCO]

check it out, officer cannot stop vehicles that turn around to avoid sobriety checkpoint. Colorado DUID - NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=duid)

In light of the state's substantial interest in combating drunk driving, sobriety checkpoint was not "unreasonable" under Fourth Amendment. The stops averaged no longer than three minutes and were found to be a relatively minor burden on motorists. Checkpoint was held permissible when officer did not stop vehicles that turned around to avoid checkpoint. People v. Rister, 803 P.2d 483 (Col. 1990).

[copobo]

it's not up to anyone to tell you your rights. the cops are ALLOWED to tell you anything & lie to you. If you don't know your rights, now is the time to figure them out.

If you drive a car in Colorado, you have already consented to being tested. this is not state specific, but it's a good place to start. Watch it, then watch it again in a week, and in a month. Knowledge is power.

check it out - YouTube - BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA)

[senorx12562]

The license revocation hearing for refusing the test is conducted before a dmv hearing officer, and the issues are typically limited to:(1) whether the officer had reason to pull you over, known as "reasonable suspicion" that an offense has been committed. which is why violating any traffic laws or having a light out or whatever when you are holding is stupid; (2) whether the officer has "probable cause" to request a test which is the "smelled a strong odor of (insert substance here), watery bloodshot eyes, slurred speech...", etc. language that appears in EVERY police report re: a DUI/DUID filing. Also, do not make ANY statement of any kind, and DO NOT perform roadsides. These are merely tools for the officer to get from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. Doing either can ONLY hurt you, they cannot help you, and you are not required to do either. Unless things have changed drastically in the last seventeen years, cops do not draw blood themselves. Finally, the hearing officer's decision is appealable as of right to the District Court, but they are rarely overturned if there is ANY support in the record for their decision.

[HighPopalorum]

Here's a point I'm not quite clear on:

Am I correct in believing that if I am stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and score below .05 (the DWAI threshold) I am not liable for a DUI charge? Am I also correct in believing that no matter what level of THC is detected, I still am liable for a DUID charge? This was why I was arguing in that other thread for a per se THC level.... we need a reasonable limit so that when we test under it, we drive away, just like booze! As things stand, I see no reason at all to submit to a drug test if there is no chance it will exculpate me. We only lose by taking the test. At least the drunks have a chance to win if they take it.

The more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with refusing a blood test under any circumstances. I don't drink and drive so I would submit to the breathalyzer if asked.

[canniwhatsis]

You have the right to refuse anything the cop asks you to do at the site of the stop. However, they will take any refusal to mean you're hiding something, then use that suspicion as grounds to move their agenda forward.


Refusing the roadsides is an automatic 1 year suspension, but if it results in no other charges, it'll cost you about $15k less than a DUI.

[showstopper]

Refusing the roadsides is an automatic 1 year suspension, but if it results in no other charges, it'll cost you about $15k less than a DUI.

wrong, never do a roadside test they are set up to make you fail. If you haven't been drinking do a Breathalyzer, if you have, then dont do roadside or breath, they will take you to jail and then you can do a blood test and lawyers have better chances of fighting for you with just the blood test.

[senorx12562]

You have the right to refuse anything the cop asks you to do at the site of the stop. However, they will take any refusal to mean you're hiding something, then use that suspicion as grounds to move their agenda forward.


Refusing the roadsides is an automatic 1 year suspension, but if it results in no other charges, it'll cost you about $15k less than a DUI.
That is incorrect. Your license will not be suspended for not doing roadside tests (touch your nose, walk a straight line, etc.). But you will probably fail them, thus providing the probable cause necessary to request a chemical test, refusal of which will result in suspension.

[senorx12562]

Here's a point I'm not quite clear on:

Am I correct in believing that if I am stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and score below .05 (the DWAI threshold) I am not liable for a DUI charge? Am I also correct in believing that no matter what level of THC is detected, I still am liable for a DUID charge? This was why I was arguing in that other thread for a per se THC level.... we need a reasonable limit so that when we test under it, we drive away, just like booze! As things stand, I see no reason at all to submit to a drug test if there is no chance it will exculpate me. We only lose by taking the test. At least the drunks have a chance to win if they take it.

The more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with refusing a blood test under any circumstances. I don't drink and drive so I would submit to the breathalyzer if asked.
No. You could theoretically still be charged with driving with ability impaired if you blew under the .05 mark. They would have to prove that your ability to drive was impaired "to the slightest degree" by the consumption of alcohol, notwithstanding your low BAC. As a practical matter, I don't see it happening. Even Frank Azar could beat that one. The BAC presumptions in the law have really become bright lines that both sides rely on; under .05 your'e ok, over .05 your'e screwed ,over .08 your'e really screwed. As to your DUID question, regardless of the blood test results, since the law contains no such presumptions regarding a certain concentration of THC/THC metabolites equaling a certain level of impairment, the state would still have to prove that your ability to drive was impaired to either the slightest, or a substantial , degree to find you guilty of DWAID or DUID respectively. The law you were arguing in favor of would effectively relieve them of that burden by having a presumption for THC in your blood.

[quetzal]

If you are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs, you must submit to a blood test or face the same civil penalty. If you refuse a test, prosecutors will use this in court as part of their DUI case for your guilt. My own personal belief is that no test that comes back positive for any amount of THC will be exculpatory. I would refuse the test and trust my lawyer to win in court. Also, I have other compelling reasons: a DUI conviction would have professional consequences and since I seldom drive, I wouldn't be seriously inconvenienced by the loss of my license.

This is what I was thinking also. The new THC while driving guidelines will at least make it CLEAR at what level you can be charged with DUID. That level may be low, though not according to NORML :wtf:, but at least its understood. Now if they pull you over and suspect MJ, your only hope is to do or say whatever you have to to avoid the blood test, because any test is a bad test.

[HighPopalorum]

The BAC presumptions in the law have really become bright lines that both sides rely on; under .05 your'e ok, over .05 your'e screwed ,over .08 your'e really screwed.

Exactly. This is what we need for pot as well: bright lines that both sides rely on. Below X you're ok, above X you're screwed, above Y you're really screwed. What those limits should be and the method of testing I leave entirely up to others.

[TheReleafCenter]

How do I know what my nanogram level is before I drive? I understand that more than two drinks an hour and I'll be intoxicated and can make a judgment based on that.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

BBC Stoned Driving Experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU)

:jointsmile:

[HighPopalorum]

How do I know what my nanogram level is before I drive? I understand that more than two drinks an hour and I'll be intoxicated and can make a judgment based on that.

Well, if you want to know your nanogram level, the only method I know of is a blood test. (Anyone feel free to correct me, I have no idea if their are other methods.) To avoid the inconvenience and expense of constant blood tests, I think you should choose a rule of thumb, similar to your "two drinks an hour" rule. Your rule and mine will likely be different: I can get pretty lit after two drinks. Like with booze, choosing to drive high is going to be a judgement call we each make slightly differently.

[quetzal]

How do I know what my nanogram level is before I drive? I understand that more than two drinks an hour and I'll be intoxicated and can make a judgment based on that.

That is the key question for patients, though lawmakers and police won't take the time to answer it for us. Its in our best interest to push for this issue to be studied and resolved as is possible. A good place to start is the CA NORML study which these 5 nanogram limits are based on:

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf

I think they're suggest 3-4 hours is the impairment window (for 5 ng) considering a medium to strong dose.

But since THC levels related to impairment vary so much from person to person and strain to strain, its going to be a struggle for patients to have their concerns heard and answered with the new DUID rules. How can you justly enforce a law based on criteria which citizens have no way of measuring!?

[senorx12562]

Exactly. This is what we need for pot as well: bright lines that both sides rely on. Below X you're ok, above X you're screwed, above Y you're really screwed. What those limits should be and the method of testing I leave entirely up to others.
If the scientific basis is accurate, meaning that if THC content at level x really does mean you're ripped and shouldn't be driving, and not "well, you might be ripped, or you might just be a pothead who smokes an oz a week but hasn't smoked in 8 hours, but since we can't tell the difference we'll charge you and shift the burden of proving you weren't impaired to you" I guess I would be ok with concentration level x being the trigger for a rebuttable presumption that a driver is impaired. If it really is the latter though, not so much,as Borat would say.

[GratefulMeds]

Hi All, well it's happened! Saturday afternoon a friend of mines little brother who is a long time connoisseur (and a mmj card holder) was pulled over after leaving his favorite dispensary in a speed trap on I-25 at 58th ave in Denver!! :apachecopter:

There was a familiar "medication" smell coming from his car and he was asked if he had partaken in said medication and stated yes! he had smoked "earlier" that day! :stoned: police did not believe him and asked him to open his mouth, they said his tongue looked funny or something and believed he had smoked more recently?

He was basically told "blood test" or loose your license!! tested positive for medication and was givin a D.U.I.D!!:asskick:

And YES! it's as serious and as costly as a D.U.I!!:cool:

Never ever give up any body fluids respectively decline the test invoke your right to be silent and call your lawyer, A good lawyer that has beat many driving while stoned cases is James (Skip) Wollrab and actually has told me it is one of the easier cases to beat as long as you do not give up body fluids and keep your mouth shut. just some advice for anybody in the same situation. and you should never admit to smoking for any less then 3 hours.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[leadmagnet]

and you should never admit to smoking for any less then 3 hours.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Three hours hell, you don't admit to EVER having ingested cannabis to the cops. Good fucking grief.

flexyourrights.com