Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Per the original post, the Arizona law allows police to do a blood test for even minor infractions, such as broken taillight. That is in no way probable cause IMO.
First of all, use or possession of Marijuana is against the law in Arizona (ARS 13-3405). Therefore, the presence of THC in the body is evidence that the law has been broken.
Second, Arizona has the concept of being impaired to the slightest degree (ARS 28-1381). If you have THC in the body then you fall foul of this law as well.
In the sense of this thread, the only real argument is the right of law enforcement to test drivers during a traffic stop. And that is really going to depend entirely on the circumstances of the stop and the demeanor of the driver. In Arizona you do have the right to refuse a field sobriety test. However, if the police officer feels they have probable cause (try getting out of that one) then you cannot avoid giving a blood test.
Inactive metabolites, where use in another state has been allowed for a medical purpose, shouldn't the let the person go if they present their state issued medical "marijuana" card. There is no proof they were using it in AZ.
THC metabolites or not, may not be slightest impairment, even. How many drinkers are charged with being impaired with a 0.01 BAC? When traces of metabolites are found, I assume they do not let the driver prove non-impairment with field sobriety tests?
What about roadblocks to force everyone to be tested & snoop around in their cars? Certainly roadblocks are not proof of impairment, but they have to claim someone was impaired if they want to get paid for doing more roadblock "testings".
The public gets no say in preventing bad laws, when police from many jurisdictions crowd committee rooms, crossing out nearly everything on a medical marijuana bill, that the governor has already said he will veto, after being bribed by police union. Of, by & for the people? The Feds are corrupt, too.
This is a ridiculous statement. I've been pulled over twice here in AZ for a broken headlight, no ticket just a repair order, and never even been asked to take a drug test.
Now if I acted strange or goofy then maybe I would've been asked to take one. And according to the police, one out of every 4 drivers are impaired, so it's reasonable for you to be tested if you act like you're impaired. It's for your safety as well as others on the road. If you were impaired and the cop let you go and then down the road you had an accident and killed someone that cop could be held responsible.
Are Mexicans more likely to be tested? Teen or adult males with long hair or beards or tattoos or jewelry or non-conformist clothes?
I think it might be reasonable to pull over someone who is driving poorly & find out why. But I can't think of another reason for police to pull someone over, unless their license plate indicates they are "wanted".
But then you have the problem of proving that you used the substance legally. The presence of THC in your blood in Arizona is probable cause for illegal use of the substance. You then have to prove that either 1) you used the substance legally in Arizona or 2) you used the substance legally in another state (e.g. by means of a prescription from a licensed practitioner).
By way of an analogy, testosterone is a controlled substance but it can be prescribed (e.g. Androgen gel) by a doctor. If you are stopped by the police and they find a tube of Androgen in the car then you better have a prescription or you are breaking the law.
It used to be innocent until proven guilty, now it seems to be guilty until proven innocent, and you seem very happy about this no longer being according to the Constitution? What is the purpose of putting likely harmless people in jail?
You don't have to be driving high. Impaired to the slightest degree is the legal catch-all here.
Also, you have no right to refuse a blood test. As one component of the "Admin Per Se/Implied Consent Affidavit" it is implied that you give consent to a test or tests of your blood, breath, or urine for alcohol or drug testing if you are arrested for DUI (ARS. 28-1321). The mere act of driving in Arizona triggers the implied consent.
Does the mere act of driving allow for random tests?
I think a person in AZ probably won't be arrested if their BAC is only .07%. But if they used cannabis weeks ago & there is no impairment, they'll probably be jailed despite no danger.
You absolutely cannot be forced to do a blood test for something like a broken light .... not even close
Here is from the link I provided with the court docs:
The driver consented to the blood test.
Many don't know the laws and will consent to a test when they are not required to do so. It is legal for the police to lie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
