semi driver in fatal, 'on' marijuana

so does this mean his piss test was positive, or that he was ripped at the time of the accident? 'had been smoking marijuana' - when? while he was driving? a half hour ago? yesterday? 2 weeks ago??

--

Semi driver smoking pot during Commerce City double fatal - The Denver Post

A semi-tractor trailer driver had been smoking marijuana when he crossed into oncoming lanes and caused a fiery crash with a dump truck that killed himself and the other driver earlier this year.

Daniel Seilheimer, 41, of Colorado Springs, was driving a bobtail tractor for England Trucking south on Quebec Parkway on May 27 when he veered into the oncoming lane at the 7500 block and collided head-on with a Waste Management truck.

Both trucks burst into flame and Seilheimer and George Mendoza, 52, were killed, said Chris Dickey, spokesman for the Commerce City police department.

A later toxicology test determined that Seilheimer was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, Dickey said.

"His ability to safely operate a motor vehicle was significantly impaired," he said.

It is illegal to operate any motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including medical marijuana, Dickey said. Authorities do not know whether Seilheimer was authorized to use medical marijuana.

I'm with you, how can they determine a dead guy was under the influence at a specific time?

Also, how in the hell can the authorities NOT know if he's a patient? Aren't patients registered? Would it really take that much legwork on their part to put a truthful answer to the question of his legality?

Either way, it's a shame.

A blood test can determine if a person is under the influence, or high, unlike urine tests.

I didn't know that. wonder if a blood test can tell if ~I~ am high?

like, for instance, when first taking some anti-depressants or sleep aids, they can have side effects that could alter your driving ability, but after awhile, the side effects dissipate and driving is fine. what about someone who's been smoking daily for ~30 years? (or much less!)

I'm sure a person like that would have plenty in their blood... but 15 minutes after smoking a j, rest assured, the buzz is gone.

Well from what I know, and I researched it extensively after someone I know was in a fatal car crash (they smoked the night before) I found that when any substance is in the blood stream then you are under the influence of that substance, as soon as it leaves the bloodstream then you are no longer. After leaving the bloodstream thc becomes stored in your fatty tissues and is eliminated slowly through urine.

The person I know that this happened to was in a fatal car accident at around 7AM and she had smoked around midnight the night before. Anytime there is a fatality involved they automatically take blood and test it for drugs and alcohol, so she was really freaked out about it. The test came back negative thank god.

*shrug*

I was in a rollover crash to which marijuana use was a contributing factor many years ago. The driver dropped a joint in her lap and off the edge we went. It wouldn't surprise me if the crash happened while the driver was fiddling with lighters or pipes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

A blood test can determine if a person is under the influence, or high, unlike urine tests.

---

I think you are incorrect. Can you cite a source?

norml seems to be down.

here's the cached version:
Drug Testing Tips - NORML

learn something new every day.

BLOOD TESTS: In some situations, including accidents and roadside sobriety checks, blood tests may be used. Blood tests are a much better gauge of current impairment than urine tests because they detect the actual presence of THC in the system; however, they can be sensitive to other metabolites as well. Blood tests generally register positive for just a few hours after smoking, though heavy chronic smokers may be positive for a couple of days. Less sensitive are saliva tests, which register positive for about 2-4 hours after smoking. If you have used marijuana in the last few days but are not currently under the influence, you should insist on a blood (or saliva) test instead of a urine test if at all possible, since you are more likely to turn up clean. On the other hand, if you have smoked recently, you may do better to take a urine test, since this will at least leave open the question as to whether you were under the influence. Also, urine doesn't turn positive until several minutes after smoking.

Interesting.

I guess the lesson here is if you are high and a cop pulls you over and suspects you may be high don't let them take a blood test, although I think in some states you may not have a choice. I remember reading an article where in at least one state cops carried a kit with them and could literally force you to give blood on the spot. The day I live in a society where cops can legally force a needle in me is the day I find a new place to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

The day I live in a society where cops can legally force a needle in me is the day I find a new place to live.

---

I second that, if they get blood from me, it'll be out of my lifeless body. Under no circumstances in this world would I let some snot nose hater stick a needle in me. I would certainly be jailed first.

Quote:

---

The explanation of implied consent says that consent assessed when the surrounding circumstances lead a reasonable person to believe that consent has been granted even though word of agreement were not direct, express or explicit. Implied consent is used by law enforcement when it comes to determining whether you are intoxicated or not. In the case of drunk driving, most states have adopted the law that if you are driving a vehicle, you have then given consent to submit to the approved test to find out if youâ??re driving under the influence of alcohol. When you are stopped and youâ??re not sure of what your alcohol level is, you cannot refuse to take a breathalyzer test. As soon as you got your drivers license, you gave consent in advance to do this. If you refuse, you will find yourself in bigger trouble than you would have by submitting to the test. This implied consent is automatic in the case of anyone who drives a vehicle.

In addition, some states consider your refusal to submit to chemical testing as an admission of guilt and allow your refusal to be used as evidence against you in a DUI trial. Certainly you are likely to face more severe punishment by the courts if you refuse chemical testing.

---

I believe implied consent applies regardless of substance; alcohol or MMJ. Bottom line, don't toke and drive. Keep it at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

so does this mean his piss test was positive, or that he was ripped at the time of the accident? 'had been smoking marijuana' - when? while he was driving? a half hour ago? yesterday? 2 weeks ago??

--

Semi driver smoking pot during Commerce City double fatal - The Denver Post

A semi-tractor trailer driver had been smoking marijuana when he crossed into oncoming lanes and caused a fiery crash with a dump truck that killed himself and the other driver earlier this year.

Daniel Seilheimer, 41, of Colorado Springs, was driving a bobtail tractor for England Trucking south on Quebec Parkway on May 27 when he veered into the oncoming lane at the 7500 block and collided head-on with a Waste Management truck.

Both trucks burst into flame and Seilheimer and George Mendoza, 52, were killed, said Chris Dickey, spokesman for the Commerce City police department.

A later toxicology test determined that Seilheimer was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, Dickey said.

"His ability to safely operate a motor vehicle was significantly impaired," he said.

It is illegal to operate any motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including medical marijuana, Dickey said. Authorities do not know whether Seilheimer was authorized to use medical marijuana.

---

Immediately after an accident--blood tests are run. I am not certain with marijuana--how long it stays in the blood after use--but would be interested in knowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

I guess the lesson here is if you are high and a cop pulls you over and suspects you may be high don't let them take a blood test, although I think in some states you may not have a choice. I remember reading an article where in at least one state cops carried a kit with them and could literally force you to give blood on the spot. The day I live in a society where cops can legally force a needle in me is the day I find a new place to live.

---

In the state of Colorado you don't. If the police want you to take a test and you don't. By your refusal you just admitted guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denvertoad

I believe implied consent applies regardless of substance; alcohol or MMJ. Bottom line, don't toke and drive. Keep it at home.

---

Yeah.. implied consent means that when you drive in Colorado, you consent to blood, breath or urine tests. You can refuse politely, but it will mean surrendering your license for up to a year. Also, you might still be convicted without the test, and then you would be faced with that penalty in addition to the penalty for refusing the test. That's my layman's understanding, anyway.

Don't toke while you drive. Don't even toke before you drive. Better yet, just don't drive and ride a bike or walk instead!

Are you guys really discussing roadside blood tests to determine drug sobriety?

That's retarded. If a cop thinks you are under the influence of drugs, you get arrested, the cop writes "watery, bloodshot eyes, slow coordination, poor reflexes, failed every roadside test administered."

I don't understand why you guys are even discussing roadside blood tests. That would entail keeping the sample cold and having enough checks/balances that the evidence can't be challenged in court. If you refuse a breathalyzer after an accident, they take you to a hospital for a blood test, because the hospital has regulations in place that make that blood test reliable, whereas a test like that administered by some cop will never stand up in court.

Does anyone really trust cops to properly handle biological evidence? Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

Are you guys really discussing roadside blood tests to determine drug sobriety?

That's retarded. If a cop thinks you are under the influence of drugs, you get arrested, the cop writes "watery, bloodshot eyes, slow coordination, poor reflexes, failed every roadside test administered."

I don't understand why you guys are even discussing roadside blood tests. That would entail keeping the sample cold and having enough checks/balances that the evidence can't be challenged in court. If you refuse a breathalyzer after an accident, they take you to a hospital for a blood test, because the hospital has regulations in place that make that blood test reliable, whereas a test like that administered by some cop will never stand up in court.

---

Whatever you say dude.

Police: Blood draws will help stop drunk drivers - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

BOISE, Idaho â?? When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he'll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver's arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

"I was looking at people's arms and hands, thinking, 'I could draw from that,'" Dowell said.

It's all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program's aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it's still the main reason that drunk driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study.

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can't hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood â?? a practice that's been upheld by Idaho's Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

-----------------

Police-ordered DWI blood tests spark a furor in Texas | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

A new Texas law allowing police to draw blood from DWI suspects without a judge's OK is riling defense attorneys, pleasing prosecutors and has crime labs gearing up for more work.

The law, which takes effect Sept. 1, also has sparked debate among constitutional experts, including some who are troubled by the prospect of allowing the state to invade a person's body on suspicion of a crime.

Police will be allowed to order blood drawn from a person suspected of driving while intoxicated without judicial review under certain circumstances, including instances in which the suspect is a repeat offender, a passenger died or in which a child under 15 was a passenger in the vehicle.

â??The real problem is they've taken authority away for judicial review, and it's now at the sole discretion of police officers,â?? said Houston lawyer Doug Murphy, who co-chairs the DWI committee of the Texas Criminal Defense Attorney's Association. â??There are no checks and balances. Once you give police officers sole discretion, one branch of government can run amok.â?�

A more practical concern is that authorities could become overwhelmed with blood tests once the process of presenting a warrant to a judge no longer is needed.

â??For us, we're not sure if it will go up drastically ... that's what we will have to monitor,â?? said Mary Daniels, director of operations for the Harris County Medical Examiners Office.

Currently, police and prosecutors seeking a blood sample from a DWI suspect who has refused a breath test must convince a judge there is probable cause to authorize a search warrant. The new law will allow police to order blood tests, without a warrant, in certain circumstances. It also expands the definition of judge to include magistrates, who only have to be licensed lawyers, in all other cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irydyum

I second that, if they get blood from me, it'll be out of my lifeless body. Under no circumstances in this world would I let some snot nose hater stick a needle in me. I would certainly be jailed first.

---

it is always best to refuse a roadside test even if not under the influence. these tests are designed to make you fail. take you jail and get a lawyer.

high or not it doesnt matter to them. one month ago is the same as right now.

meded so you can mededicate to mededitate