Arizona Court Ruling Upholds DUI Test for Marijuana

PHOENIX â?? An appeals court has issued a ruling that upholds the right of authorities to prosecute pot smokers in Arizona for driving under the influence even when there is no evidence that they are actually high.
The ruling by the Court of Appeals focuses on the chemical compounds in marijuana that show up in blood and urine tests after people smoke pot. One chemical compound causes drivers to be impaired; another is a chemical that stays in peopleâ??s systems for weeks after theyâ??ve smoked marijuana but doesnâ??t affect impairment.
The court ruled that both compounds apply to Arizona law, meaning a driver doesnâ??t have to actually be impaired to get prosecuted for DUI. As long as there is evidence of marijuana in their system, they can get a DUI, the court said.
The ruling overturns a decision by a lower court judge who said it didnâ??t make sense to prosecute a person with no evidence theyâ??re under the influence.
The lower court judge cited the proliferation of states easing their marijuana laws, but the Court of Appeals ruling issued Tuesday dismissed that by saying Arizonaâ??s medical marijuana law is irrelevant regarding DUI.
The Legislature adopted the decades-old comprehensive DUI law to protect public safety, so a provision on prohibited substances and their resulting chemical compounds should be interpreted broadly to include inactive compounds as well as active ones, the Court of Appeals said.
The case stems from a 2010 traffic stop in Maricopa County. The motoristâ??s blood test revealed only a chemical compound that is found in the blood after another compound produced from ingesting marijuana breaks down.
According to testimony by a prosecution criminalist, the compound found in the manâ??s blood doesnâ??t impair the ability to drive but can remain detectable for four weeks.
The manâ??s lawyer argued Arizonaâ??s DUI law bars only marijuana and â??its metabolite,â?� so only the first derivative compound that actually impairs drivers is prohibited.
Two lower court judges agreed, with one upholding the otherâ??s dismissal of the case against the motorist, Hrach Shilgevorkyan.
Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harrisâ?? ruling noted that several states have decriminalized pot, and that a growing number of states, including Arizona, have legalized medical marijuana.
â??Residents of these states, particularly those geographically near Arizona, are likely to travel to Arizona,â?� Harris said in her 2012 ruling upholding the dismissal. â??It would be irrational for Arizona to prosecute a defendant for an act that might have occurred outside of Arizona several weeks earlier.â?�
However, the Court of Appeals sided with prosecutors who appealed, saying that allowing the testing for marijuanaâ??s active compound would unduly restrict law enforcement.
The ruling said it serves the Legislatureâ??s intention to have a flat ban on driving under the influence to interpret the DUI lawâ??s reference to a prohibited substance and â??its metaboliteâ?� as covering both a substanceâ??s active and inactive compounds.
Michael Alarid III, a lawyer for Shilgevorkyan, said heâ??ll ask the Arizona Supreme Court to consider an appeal.
He added the testing issue is increasingly important because people legally using pot in two Western states â?? Washington and Colorado â?? that last year approved marijuana decriminalization laws could be convicted of DUI if arrested while driving in Arizona weeks later.

Californians are getting screwed from the back, we're getting screwed from the front...

Also, we can't have a gun here if we are registered. So we must give up our second amendment rights and driving privileges. <<Insert fascist neo-nazi conspiracy theory here.>>

Wow! This really sucks for Arizonian's. I think I'd stop driving, move or become an activist/legislator! We, Californian patients, were successful in getting Representative Torres' legislation 'pulled' last summer. Now a new one! Arizona Activists, need to get more active and get legislation through to circumvent this. It can be, a full time job!

We are going to be fighting another battle to keep from getting these laws on the books. Today, Representative Correa introduced Prop 286: Which will deal with new DUI laws of NO tolerance: Bad News:

This is California, since you mentioned it! Somehow, I have a feeling, it is going to be a full time job, to prevent this stuff. :stoned: pr


Home | Senator Lou Correa
CORREA INTRODUCES SB 289: ZERO-TOLERANCE DRUGGED-DUI MEASURE

February 19, 2013


LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKED BILL DESIGNED TO MAKE ROADS SAFER
Sacramento - State Senator Lou Correa (D – Santa Ana), joined by state-wide law enforcement and victims’ rights groups, introduced Senate Bill (SB) 289, a measure that would establish a zero tolerance policy for driving under the influence of drugs.
“Driving under the influence of illegal drugs is dangerous and cannot be tolerated. Creating a zero tolerance drugged driving policy will equip law enforcement with the tools needed to keep our communities and roads safe,” said Correa.
The percentage of drivers testing positive for illegal drugs has increased dramatically over the last decade. Unlike the .08 blood alcohol content standard, there is no statutory threshold for drug impaired driving. Though state and local law enforcement agencies are making efforts to better train officers to detect drugged driving, the prosecution of drug impaired drivers is often difficult and complicated under California Law.
“The California State Sheriffs' Association is pleased to co-sponsor SB 289," said CSSA President, Sheriff Keith Royal.
"Establishing a zero tolerance approach enables law enforcement to more effectively address driving while under the influence of drugs. We look forward to working with the Legislature to address the issue of drugged driving and ensure that the roadways are safe in our communities," added Sheriff Royal.
Sponsored by the California State Sheriffs’ Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Narcotics Officers Association and International Faith Based Coalition, SB 289 would join 17 other states and make it illegal for a person to drive a vehicle if his or her blood contains any detectable amount of Schedule I, II, III or IV drugs. SB 289 excludes medicine used with a valid prescription issued by a licensed health care practitioner. Over the counter medication (allergy, cold and cough medicine) do not require a prescription and thus are NOT a scheduled/controlled drug.
Retired California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Robert McGrory’s son Justin, who followed in is fathers’ footsteps and joined the CHP, was tragically struck and killed during a routine traffic stop by a drug impaired driver. “My issue is not with the young man who killed my son. Clearly the law as written does not have the teeth necessary to prosecute drugged drivers,” said Officer McGrory.
“Impaired driving is dangerous and completely preventable. If you have drugs in your system you should not be on the road,” added Correa.

This seems hardly different from the current law.

The scary part is how they will be legally allowed to get and test our blood.

My blood is private property--this is really messed up.

Can you imagine? "License and registration, and I'm gonna need to take a blood sample."

Arizona scares the f**k outta me. Is this not the state that refuses to accept "MLK" day? Don't get me wrong, I believe in a states right to govern w/o fed involvement BUT they accept government funding like every other state in the union? Racist Joe Arpaio!!

Sic Semper Tyranus

:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Txbizpro

This seems hardly different from the current law.

The scary part is how they will be legally allowed to get and test our blood.

My blood is private property--this is really messed up.

Can you imagine? "License and registration, and I'm gonna need to take a blood sample."

---

yep, i can. it happened to me crossing over from texas into oklahoma, i got pulled over for driving while californian and the dude demanded a blood test! :eek: this was a long time ago when i was much younger and never heard of such a thing. i told him no, i would not consent to having him take a blood sample. i went to jail, spent the night went to court the next day and charged with dui. had to pay shitloads of fines. worth every penny tho. :twocents: