Question for LEO on DUI.

[Californio]

I guess this November I have to vote on legalizing Pot.

I understand the body of case law and accepted procedures concerning alcohol and accepted tests for DUI of alcohol.

My question does California LE have an court accepted test available for determining DUI of Pot. I am concerned a bunch of new people driving DUI and no way to easily arrest them like those that have been drinking.

Thanks

[Unit74]

Blood is the standard for any drug suspicion.

[fullrearview]

Vertical gaze Nastagmus

And blood of course!

[webfoots]

Vertical gaze Nastagmus

And blood of course!

I think you probably meant lack of convergence. Drug DUI's are handled mostly the same way as alcohol DUI's. Field sobriety tests are given in the field and the violator is required to submit to a blood or urine test after being arrested. Many departments have officers trained as drug recognition experts to assist in determining impairment.

There isn't a set level (as in .08% BAC) for any drugs. It's up to the arresting officer to articulate impairment in his report.

[WILDMAN442]

I think you probably meant lack of convergence. Drug DUI's are handled mostly the same way as alcohol DUI's. Field sobriety tests are given in the field and the violator is required to submit to a blood or urine test after being arrested. Many departments have officers trained as drug recognition experts to assist in determining impairment.

There isn't a set level (as in .08% BAC) for any drugs. It's up to the arresting officer to articulate impairment in his report.

This.

At least for my department. Only a handful of our guys have been to 11550 school so theyre really the ones you need around on a weed deuce.

Justin

[norcal01]

There isn't a set level (as in .08% BAC) for any drugs. It's up to the arresting officer to articulate impairment in his report.

This is my one and only reason for not wanting pot to be legalized. Without having a standard way to determine if a person was impaired at the time, other than the officer's observations, it seems that it would be hard for the average patrol officer to articulate a weed DUI. It stays in your system for so long compared to alcohol and other drugs that as far as I'm aware, there is no way chemical test to determine whether or not the person smoked 5 minutes earlier, the day before, a week before, etc... especially with people who use frequently. If a test was developed to show whether or not they were impaired I would feel differently. As it is now, if some pothead runs someone over and kills them and refuses FST's at the scene it would be essentially impossible to determine if they were under the influence, whereas with alcohol the officers can do a blood draw and that can be enough to make a case. My understanding is that as of right now no such test exists for marijuana, and if it were legal simply having a positive blood test wouldn't be enough to prosecute them.

[djack12]

It is all up to the Officer. I know at my department at times we will say we know you are under the influence but we will give you a chance....call for a ride. Just to close to call. IDK how other Academies work but I was 11550 H&S certified in the Academy.

[1911su16b870]

FWIW there are no THC blood concentrations above 0.00% that would consitute not under the influence of weed...I think CA LEAs and DOJ will have to work this out...(i.e. 0.04% BAC could be wet reckless and not DUI (0.08%) in CA...)

Please someone else chime in if you know more about this!

[tyrist]

Yes there is...when you don't have nastagmus but have a lack of convergence.

[Donny1]

It is all up to the Officer.

I was 11550 H&S certified in the Academy.

Very scary!

As far as the certification, is the determination of DUI based on symptoms? If so I can't see this as a realistic understanding of a persons impairment. Since an experienced drunk can pass a sobriety test, without some type of definitive chemical test it's at the judgment of an individual. That bothers me.

Although it's been over twenty years since I've done it, I can tell you that my experiences were that no levels of THC (from smoking) were enough to do much more than a slight delay in reaction time. Less than what one beer does to me and at no time did it make my judgment "disappear" as seems the case with alcohol. It always made me even more aware of my surrounding and act more cautiously because I was able to recognize my level of impairment. Never the case with alcohol even though some people think so, when their DUI. I do understand that the marijuana now is much stronger but the differences are apples and oranges.

Compare any statistics you want between DUI deaths of marijuana and alcohol. The marijuana only related deaths will seem non-existent.

[DriftinG Z32]

I made 5 drug related DUI arrests last year (2 Marijuana, Meth, Coke, & Oxy). In all of the arrests the arrestee was what I would consider "obviously high." To relate it to level of intoxication, they were all above .08% BAC.

With the help of a neighboring department's DRE I conducted the DUI investigation using 11550 FSTs (Rohmberg, Pupil, Pulse, & HGN) coupled with a few alcohol DUI FSTs (HGN, Rohmberg, Walk & Turn, One Leg Stand).

Based on those test results coupled with objective signs of impairment / suspect statements, I made the arrest. If the arrestee agreed to a blood test that was icing on the cake. The blood test would confirm my suspicions and support my arrest with concrete evidence.

To answer the OP's question, the accepted test would be a blood as previously stated. However, the officer who made the arrest also has to articulate the supporting facts to justify the contact (driving ops) and arrest in the first place.

[ArtP88]

suspect statements, I made the arrest. If the arrestee agreed to a blood test that was icing on the cake.

Not being a pot smoker (or a user of anything) and not caring about the subjects guilt, I am mostly interested in conviction methods. I gather from your casual report that if it weren't for the subjects admissions you would get an arrest but not a conviction.

A couple posts ago I suggetested there is no legal way to convict a person of being under the influence of marijuana without a coroborating statement from the user. I continue to wonder, with the tremendous amount of marijuana floating around, how convictions (DUI) are achieved without an admission of guilt?

Alright - plain English. If a guy refuses to confess or consent to a seach and refuses a pee test - how can you convict? Please shoot straight and admit that you use your skills and wear down subjects until they confess.

I'm not judging law enforcement for that tactic. I use whatever tactic necessary to do my job. But lets put it out in the open, okay? If tactics and methods are hidden or only amongst other personal it suggests.... It suggests cops are counting on a subject to confess after enough pressure.

I'm begging to be proved wrong and I'm respectful and sympathetic to the job law enforcement performs. I hate thugs as much as the next guy, but with all the money poured into our local coffers, I say lay off until you all come up with a method for doing it right. I'd rather see nine guilty people go free than one innocent nailed for a crime he didn't commit.

[KillZone45]

So basically looking "high" and not getting a blood test from the subject means that the subject can get away every time? I know people who wear contacts and if they do not change them after the recommended change time their eyes turn bloodshot. I personally do not smoke marijuana so I 'care just interested in how one would be convicted in court over it.

[tyrist]

There are to many drug offenders in jail taking up space that should be used for keeping violent criminals in jail. Including repeat DUI (alcohol) offenders, they will kill eventually.

The revolving door has to stop.

The drug offenders are violent criminals.

[DriftinG Z32]

Not being a pot smoker (or a user of anything) and not caring about the subject’s guilt, I am mostly interested in conviction methods. I gather from your casual report that if it weren't for the subjects admissions you would get an arrest but not a conviction.

A subject’s admission/statement in a DUI arrest/investigation is just one aspect of many in getting a conviction. What's needed in a conviction varies from DA to DA, case to case, and will depend on the individual circumstances. Wish I could give you more of a definitive answer, but I can't. Maybe someone on the board with more experience can chime in.

A couple posts ago I suggetested there is no legal way to convict a person of being under the influence of marijuana without a corroborating statement from the user. I continue to wonder, with the tremendous amount of marijuana floating around, how convictions (DUI) are achieved without an admission of guilt?

You seem to be stuck on admissions w/ DUIs. They are a small aspect of the entire investigation for the most part. If there is other overwhelming evidence involved then a admission from the subject may not even be relevant.

Alright - plain English. If a guy refuses to confess or consent to a search and refuses a pee test - how can you convict? Please shoot straight and admit that you use your skills and wear down subjects until they confess.

This would be a great question to ask your local DA, since his/her office is solely responsible for charging subjects with crimes. Also, I've never warn anyone down in a DUI investigation. Not sure where you're going with that statement.

I'm not judging law enforcement for that tactic. I use whatever tactic necessary to do my job. But lets put it out in the open, okay? If tactics and methods are hidden it suggests....

Again, I'm not sure where you're going with this secret tactic talk.