What's up with DUID?

[Nice Nice Baby!]

I guess I was thinking of the "responsible" drug user, if there is a term, where he/she was driving legally and was not impaired at the time of an accident or violation. The officer is going to have his suspicions for probable cause in order to test? Why? Is he going to test just because he can, because he knows even if you aren't impaired now, may be you have been in the recent past so he has every right to go back 3 weeks in time to prove your a drug user instead of driving impaired? There are way too many flaws to make this stand up in court, and a good lawyer knows it. Correct, or am I missing something about admissible evidence? Thank you for your thoughts.

[aj661]

Originally Posted by Nice Nice Baby!

I guess I was thinking of the "responsible" drug user, if there is a term, where he/she was driving legally and was not impaired at the time of an accident or violation. The officer is going to have his suspicions for probable cause in order to test? Why?

Sure, it could happen. Usually it would be because of a stupid statement along the lines of, "I was not smoking marijuana!!! I haven't smoked it in almost a week!"

Originally Posted by Nice Nice Baby!

Is he going to test just because he can, because he knows even if you aren't impaired now, may be you have been in the recent past so he has every right to go back 3 weeks in time to prove your a drug user instead of driving impaired? There are way too many flaws to make this stand up in court, and a good lawyer knows it. Correct, or am I missing something about admissible evidence? Thank you for your thoughts.

Not only will some test "just because they can", they'll arrest "just because they can". They are enforcing the 'letter' of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Personally I found many times (not DUIs) where I didn't see things in black and white. Honestly, every time I was in this situation, the driver was also in possession. I always arrested for that, but only arrested for DUI if I saw impairment.

Sure there are flaws in lots of statutes. But they didn't ask my opinion before signing any of them into law. However, it is what it is. A lawyer probably isn't going to get an acquittal in trail court if the drug in question is illicit. There are some prescription drugs listed that this law applies to. They might have a better chance of winning if the case is about the use of one of those and they have no evidence of impairment. That being said, almost anything is possible in a jury trail. OJ is a great example. Fortunately for the "responsible drug user" (never hear THAT one before-cute!), most drugs clear the human body in a week or less.

Just for the record, in my world, "Good Lawyer" is an oxymoron.

[Nice Nice Baby!]

Touchy, "good cop". Thanks for your views.

[and the]

I guess I was thinking of the "responsible" drug user, if there is a term, where he/she was driving legally and was not impaired at the time of an accident or violation. The officer is going to have his suspicions for probable cause in order to test? Why? Is he going to test just because he can, because he knows even if you aren't impaired now, may be you have been in the recent past so he has every right to go back 3 weeks in time to prove your a drug user instead of driving impaired? There are way too many flaws to make this stand up in court, and a good lawyer knows it. Correct, or am I missing something about admissible evidence? Thank you for your thoughts.

How about when you get into an accident that wasn't your fault. You get injured and go to the hospital. The cops get your blood results (they don't need a warrant for that) and see you tested positive for cocaine or weed.
That's enough to charge you and as the other posted posted, if you test positive for drugs when you were driving, you're in violation of the DWI statute.

If you think it can't happen, why don't you explain the legal reasons why not?

Also, certain drugs that you can get without a prescription, while not controlled substances while sitting in the pill bottle, metabolize into controlled substances in your body after you take them.

[aj661]

Originally Posted by and the

How about when you get into an accident that wasn't your fault. You get injured and go to the hospital. The cops get your blood results (they don't need a warrant for that) and see you tested positive for cocaine or weed.
That's enough to charge you and as the other posted posted, if you test positive for drugs when you were driving, you're in violation of the DWI statute.

If you think it can't happen, why don't you explain the legal reasons why not?

Whether you are at fault in the collision or not is irrelevant. Example: "The car/ped 'Act of God' collision." Drunk is walking home from the bar. He stumbles into the street in front of a car. The driver isn't speeding, and it's clearly the pedestrians fault that he got hit. Police arrive and interview the driver. Smell intoxicants on his breath, etc, etc. He gets hooked and booked for DUI (if it had been his fault, the charge would be aggravated assault or manslaughter). The circumstances fall into the same category of the drunk stopped for a headlight out. I think they are Acts of God.

I hate drunk drivers. Most are guilty many times over before they get caught or injure or kill someone. Alcohol is a legal drug and if people want to drink I don't mind. There is simply never any excuse to drive afterward. I was a "designated drinker" once for an HGN training class. I stopped drinking when I felt too "buzzed" to drive. It turned out my blood alcohol content was only .04%. It amazed me when I'd get someone over a .25%. That level would kill me. This is another flawed law-the penalties are too soft. I think even an 'experienced and aggressive attorney' would reconsider his career choice if he had to see if enough partially decapitated six-month old babies or his wife killed by drunk drivers.

Probable cause is required to get the hospital to release the blood to the police. The receiving officer must sign a statement that he has pc. The definition of probable cause is, "That amount of knowledge which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed the crime." Sometimes it comes down to a totality of the circumstances. Often (almost always) the bad guy and his lawyer will claim the officer did not have pc. The officer will say he did and is required to articulate the pc in his report and booking paperwork.

Originally Posted by and the

Also, certain drugs that you can get without a prescription, while not controlled substances while sitting in the pill bottle, metabolize into controlled substances in your body after you take them.

News to me, I had no idea. I'm not a doctor nor did I ever play one on TV.

Hope this answers some of your questions. I'm done with the police stuff for awhile. (Besides, I'm retired. I should get at least $65.00 to talk about this stuff...)I 'd rather talk about why I love hot weather, why swamp coolers need to make a comeback and why Apache Junction isn't as bad as everyone thinks.

[and the]

Probable cause is required to get the hospital to release the blood to the police. The receiving officer must sign a statement that he has pc. The definition of probable cause is, "That amount of knowledge which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed the crime." Sometimes it comes down to a totality of the circumstances. Often (almost always) the bad guy and his lawyer will claim the officer did not have pc. The officer will say he did and is required to articulate the pc in his report and booking paperwork.

Do you know if that's specific to AZ? Because federally speaking, I know that you don't need a warrant or even PC to admit the BAC result from blood that was drawn for treatment purposes.

Whether you are at fault in the collision or not is irrelevant.

I know, I was giving an example of how a "responsible drug user" could get popped for DUID with no outward manifestation of driving influenced by drugs.

News to me, I had no idea. I'm not a doctor nor did I ever play one on TV.

Some people, often bodybuilders, take the muscle relaxant Soma, either to relax their muscles, or for a buzz. You can get it without a prescription via the internet. However, it metabolizes into Meprobamate, which I believe is a controlled substances. Get caught driving with that in your system and........................

[aj661]

Originally Posted by and the

Do you know if that's specific to AZ? Because federally speaking, I know that you don't need a warrant or even PC to admit the BAC result from blood that was drawn for treatment purposes.

Any info I provided is based on Arizona laws and Maricopa County hospitals.

Originally Posted by and the

Some people, often bodybuilders, take the muscle relaxant Soma, either to relax their muscles, or for a buzz. You can get it without a prescription via the internet. However, it metabolizes into Meprobamate, which I believe is a controlled substances. Get caught driving with that in your system and........................

Vicodin and other drugs can be purchased over the internet too, for a price. But from what I understand, they tiptoe around DEA laws by having the buyer answer a questionnaire which is 'reviewed' by a "doctor" who "prescribes" it to you.

In the course of an investigation a few years before I retired, I looked into that. The drug in question then was vicodin. I remember the price was outrageous. A person would have to be desperate to pay those prices. Even without insurance, it would be cheaper to see a doctor and get an Rx. I can't imagine going the internet route (at least for vicodin) unless they couldn't get a doctor to write the script because the buyer wanted them for casual use rather than pain relief. I've heard Soma can be purchased in Mexico without an Rx. Soma is still a controlled substance that requires a Rx here--it can't be bought over the counter.

[and the]

Soma is still a controlled substance that requires a Rx here--it can't be bought over the counter.

Soma may be a controlled substance in AZ, but not in most other states, and it's not on the federal schedule.

Most diverted drugs are scheduled controlled substances (see TABLE 1). Carisoprodol (Soma, Wallace; Carisoprodol, various), however, is the most abused, non-federally scheduled drug in the U.S.11,6 In 1993, Mississippi reported 71,000 missing dosage units of Soma.7 Pharmacists were selling it in large quantities without a prescription for monetary gain. Carisoprodol is metabolized to meprobamate (Equanil, Wyeth-Ayerst; Miltown, Wallace), a schedule IV antianxiety agent.6,13 Six states (GA, HI, KY, MA, NM, and OK) have already scheduled carisoprodol as a C-IV narcotic.

I'm surprised AZ has a tighter stance on blood results than MI. We don't need a warrant to get blood results. Sometimes the hospital will require one to get the results, and sometimes not. Sometimes they'll require a subpoena, and sometimes not. Our courts pretty much follow the federal rulings on blood results as evidence. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the characteristics of your blood. If he police want to take it, they have to get a warrant, not because of what's in your blood, but what it will take to get it, ie. a needle. However if the hospital takes if for treatment, it's fair game no matter how we obtain the results. The only reason they won't give it up sometimes without a warrant or a subpoena is to cover their asses under the HIPAA laws.