AZ Supreme Court Rejects Presence of THC Metabolite as Proof of Drugged Driving

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:37:00 PM EST
Tags: marijuana reform, drugged driving (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors need proof a driver was impaired by his consumption of marijuana to convict of drugged driving. The presence of THC metabolites in the driver's blood is not enough.

The opinion, available here, states that medical evidence shows the presence of Carboxy-THC does not equate to impairment.

“Because carboxy-THC can remain in the body for as many as 28 to 30 days after ingestion, the state’s position suggests that a medical-marijuana user could face prosecution for driving anytime nearly a month after they had legally ingested marijuana,” Brutinel wrote. “Such a prohibition would apply even when the driver had no impairing substance in his or her body.”

[More...]

The state prosecutor and its expert witness agreed.

In arguments to the high court, Susan Luder, a deputy Maricopa County attorney, acknowledged that carboxy-THC, a secondary metabolite of marijuana, can show up in blood tests for a month after someone has used the drug. And her own expert witness said the presence of that metabolite does not indicate impairment.

The effect of the ruling:

The ruling most immediately affects the 40,000-plus Arizonans who are legal medical marijuana users. It means they will not be effectively banned from driving, given how long the metabolite, carboxy-THC, remains in the blood.

It also provides legal protection against impaired-driving charges for anyone else who drives and has used marijuana in the last 30 days — legal or otherwise — as well as provides a shield for those who might be visiting from Washington or Colorado, where recreational use of the drug is legal.

< DOJ Announces Broadened Clemency Criteria for Drug Offenders | Friday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

AZ Supreme Court Rejects Presence of THC Metabolite as Proof of Drugged Driving | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Reckless / Drunk driving (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Mikado Cat on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:42:55 PM EST

I don't see a clean clinical resolution, X% blood alcohol and you are drunk, or the obvious behavior of erratic driving with a weed smoker. What is the reason for pulling someone over, driving too slow?

Some don't want to let weed smokers get away with driving high, but aren't we a very long way from any reliable field assessment of impairment? Plus the connection between impairment and creating a hazard.

Seems to me in many cases people who get really high a lot of the time learn to accommodate the intoxication and do most normal tasks.

This seems like a really big deal (none / 0) (#1)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:37:22 PM EST

I was wondering how law enforcement was going to deal with the lingering traces in blood tests and if it would be used to blame any and every accident on pot.
I hope this is the shape of things to come.

Sound science, sound ruling... (none / 0) (#2)
by kdog on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:43:29 PM EST

Still getting used to reason having a seat at the drug policy table...how sweet it is!

Who thought either of us (none / 0) (#3)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:52:41 PM EST

Would live to see that?


Detection of THC in tox screen was (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:02:06 PM EST

never sufficient for conviction (or charging) in CA.


: Lots of things (none / 0) (#5)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:09:19 PM EST

Are not sufficient in CA that end up being more than sufficient other places. I knew that only because I lived there.

Good ruling (none / 0) (#6)
by ExcitableBoy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:35:31 AM EST

But with legalization, at some point they'll have to come up with some kind of standard akin to the blood alcohol reading for drunk driving. That's not an actual indicator of impairment either, just a legal definition of it.

Yes, because (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 04:37:01 PM EST

this

It also provides legal protection against impaired-driving charges for anyone else who drives and has used marijuana in the last 30 days -- legal or otherwise

isn't possible. Maybe the sentence is just written poorly, but there is no way someone can sit around getting high and then immediately go drive somewhere and have "legal protection from charges".


You misunderstand (none / 0) (#8)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:45:17 PM EST

Traces of pot stay in your blood for roughly 30 days. You certainly do not, unfortunately, remain impaired for 30 days. More like 3 or 4 hours. The sentence is saying that it helps to protect someone from being charged with driving impaired just because there are detectable amounts of pot in their bold.


: I understand completely (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 09:01:18 AM EST

but that's not what this sentence

It also provides legal protection against impaired-driving charges for anyone else who drives and has used marijuana in the last 30 days -- legal or otherwise

says.