Articles on legalizing marijuana in Arizona

Arizona's "implied consent" DUI or DWI law says that when you get a driver's license or is that a drivers license and sign the application that you waive your 4th Amendment right to being searched by the police and that YOU must submit to a DUI or DWI test if stopped by the police and accused of DUI.

If you don't consent to the DUI test, you will be automaticlly convicted of DUI and lose your license for a year.

In this article the Arizona Supreme Court said that is a bunch of BS and that the "implied consent" DUI law is unconstitutional.

PHOENIX -- Police cannot use the state's traffic laws to draw blood from suspected drunk drivers without a warrant absent their specific permission at the time of the test, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous decision, the justices rejected the contention by the Pima County Attorney's Office that all Arizona motorists give "implied consent" to having blood, breath or urine tests as a condition to be licensed to drive. They said that means, absent a clear -- and voluntary -- consent immediately prior to the blood draw, it is an illegal search without a warrant.

In a wide-ranging ruling, the high court also said that the ability of juveniles to give that voluntary consent is not absolute -- and not the same as an adult. Justice Scott Bales, writing for the court, said a trial judge must consider all the factors, including the age of the suspect and the failure to notify parents.

But the justices refused to rule that the absence of a juvenile's parents automatically means any consent is not voluntary.

Thursday's ruling most immediately means that charges of driving under the influence of drugs will be dropped against the youth, identified in court records only as Tyler B. because he was 16 at the time of the arrest.

But he is not out of the legal woods yet. Deputy County Attorney Nicolette Kneut said Tyler, who has since turned 18, still faces charges of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia in justice court as an adult.

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said Thursday's ruling will complicate the job that police statewide are required to do. She said the high court has provided no guidance.

"How is the officer supposed to know whether or not it's been an express consent," she said. "It just makes it really, really tough because there isn't any bright line."

LaWall said the ruling means that her office will advise police to get a court-ordered warrant whenever possible before drawing blood, even when a motorist -- and now, especially a juvenile -- gives approval for a blood draw. That, she said, eliminates any possibility of having that consent later ruled involuntary.

According to court records, Tyler and two friends arrived late to school. A school monitor smelled marijuana on the boys and also saw drug paraphernalia in Tyler's car.

The boys were detained in separate rooms while sheriff's deputies were contacted.

A deputy read Tyler his Miranda warnings against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney. But the court files said that Tyler, in the presence of several school officials, admitted he had driven his car to school after smoking marijuana and that he owned some of the paraphernalia in the car.

When the deputy placed Tyler under arrested, the youth became agitated and was placed in handcuffs while the deputy retrieved a blood-draw kit from his car.

On returning, he saw Tyler had calmed down and he removed the cuffs. He then read Tyler from the law which says that Arizona motorists must consent to blood or other tests and that refusal will result in automatic suspension of driving privileges.

Tyler agreed verbally and in writing to the blood draw. But when the case went to court, Tyler argued his consent was not voluntary and that, as a minor, he lacked capacity to consent.

When the court commissioner agreed and suppressed the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Bales said the issue has never been decided in Arizona.

Bales rejected arguments by prosecutors that "implied consent" law means there is no need to determine whether a consent at the time of the blood draw is voluntary.

"A compelled blood draw, even when administered pursuant to (the implied consent law) is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment's constraints," he wrote for the court. "Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual's most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy."

He said the law says only that an officer must ask a suspect to submit to the test -- and that if a person refuses, a warrant is needed and the suspect's licenses is suspended.

Bales said a motorist can allow a warrantless search "provided the consent is voluntary." But that, he said has to be decided by a court based on all the circumstances, including the suspect's age -- and even whether a parent is present.

In this case, Bales wrote, the court commissioner was correct in ruling that, based on the evidence she had, Tyler's consent was not voluntary.

He said Tyler was detained for about two hours in a room in the presence of school officials and a deputy, without his parents.

"Tyler initially was shaking and visibly nervous," Bales wrote, and placed in handcuffs until he calmed down. And he said that the law read to him about "implied consent" ended with the statement, "You are, therefore, required to submit to the specified tests."

Thursday's ruling drew a special comment from Justice John Pelander. He said his own review of the evidence leads him to believe Tyler did voluntarily consent.

But Pelander said Arizona law requires he and the other justices not to reweigh the evidence but only to consider whether the court commissioner abused her discretion in suppressing the evidence.

Arizona - marijuana metabolites can't be used to convict for DUI

Prop 203, which is Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act specificlly says the police can NOT charge medical marijuana patients for the crime of DUI because they have marijuana metabolites in their bodies.

The terrorist police have said f*ck that law. If we obey it we can't get any DUI convictions, and the police have been illegally arresting medical marijuana patients for DUI solely because they have marijuana metabolites in their bodies.

This court ruling says that is a bunch of BS and must stop.

I beleive this ruling also makes Arizona's law which says it is a crime to drive with any detectable amount of an illegel drug in your body unconstitutional too.

I beleive the courts ruling says that for you to be arrested for DUI, you must actually be drunk or stoned.

Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:20 p.m. MST April 22, 2014 medical marijuana

Motorists who have used marijuana cannot be charged with driving under the influence on that basis alone, even if some traces of the drug are detected in their blood, the state's top court ruled Tuesday.

Arizona Supreme Court justices disagreed with the Maricopa County Attorney Office, which argued before the court in November, that drivers whose blood tests reveal the presence of an inactive marijuana metabolite known as Carboxy-THC can be prosecuted for driving while impaired.

The court was unconvinced the mere presence of the metabolite, which can remain in the bloodstream for 30days, is valid evidence of impairment.

The court wrote that marijuana users break the law if they drive while "impaired to the slightest degree" and if they are discovered with metabolites in their system that are known to impair. But, wrote Justice Robert Brutinel, drivers cannot be convicted "based merely on the presence of a non-impairing metabolite that may reflect the prior usage of marijuana."

The opinion affects motorists who use marijuana illegally, as well as the estimated 40,000 people who participate in the state's medical-marijuana program. Those cardholders are legally allowed to ingest pot to treat ailments ranging form chronic pain to glaucoma, and many of those cardholders have argued that traces of metabolites do not prove impairment.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said in a statement that the court had engaged in "interpretive jujitsu." The court should have asked the state Legislature to clarify whether it contemplated impairment based on the presence of a non-impairing metabolite, Montgomery wrote.

"By acting as it has, our State Supreme Court contributes to citizen cynicism particularly when it involves the whys and wherefores of drafting and passing legislation," he wrote. "Why should citizens work through our republican form of government and petition their duly elected legislators for statutory change when they can take a shot at only having to persuade just three Justices?"

The ruling stems from the case of Hrach Shilgevorkyan, who was pulled over for speeding and making unsafe lane changes. The driver admitted to smoking "some weed" the night before and volunteered to take a blood test, which revealed the presence of Carboxy-THC.

He was charged with driving with an illegal drug or metabolite in his body. A judge threw out the charges.

The Arizona Supreme Court concluded in Tuesday's ruling that interpreting the law so that any byproduct of cannabis proves impairment "leads to

"Most notably, this interpretation would create criminal liability regardless of how long the metabolite remains in the driver's system or whether it has any impairing effect," the Supreme Court's ruling said. "For example, at oral argument the State acknowledged that, under its reading of the statute, if a metabolite could be detected five years after ingesting a proscribed drug, a driver who tested positive for trace elements of a non-impairing substance could be prosecuted."

Additionally, the court wrote, "this interpretation would criminalize otherwise legal conduct."

Ruling: Arizona medical marijuana law doesn't give immunity under DUI law

This ruling seems to conflict with the ruling from the previous article which preceeds this.

My understanding is that Prop 203 allows medical marijuana patients to be convicted of DUI if they are stoned and driving. But Prop 203 also says that marijuana metabolites in a persons body can not be used as the only reason to convict them of DUI if they have a medical marijuana card.

First Posted: October 21, 2014 - 6:28 pm
Last Updated: October 21, 2014 - 6:32 pm

PHOENIX — Arizona residents who have medical marijuana cards that allow them to legally smoke pot can still be prosecuted for driving under the influence in the state, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel's ruling Tuesday addressed the question of whether medical marijuana users should be immune from prosecution under DUI laws. Travis Lance Darrah was arrested in December 2011 on charges that he was driving while impaired and under the influence while having marijuana in his system.

He was acquitted of driving while impaired but convicted on a DUI law that prohibits anyone from operating a vehicle while having a prohibited drug or its compound in their system.

Darrah filed an appeal, arguing that part of the medical marijuana law was intended to make authorized users immune from prosecution unless they drive while impaired.

But the appeals court disagreed, saying the 2010 voter-approved medical marijuana law made no reference to immunity under DUI laws.

"If Arizona voters had intended to completely bar the state from prosecuting authorized marijuana users .... they could have easily done so by using specific language to that effect," the court ruled.

As medical marijuana laws have been enacted around the country, Legislatures and the courts have struggled with how to enforce DUI laws and how they relate to pot. There is no standard test to determine if a driver is high on THC, the ingredient in marijuana that gets people high. The result has been confusion over how to develop uniform rules for "driving while high."

Medical marijuana patients can be convicted of marijuana DUI

This part of Prop 203 or Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act says

1) It's still DUI to drive when you are stoned on marijuana

"This chapter does not authorize ... Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana"

2) But you are not guilty of DUI if you just have marijuana metabolites in your body

"a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment"

This chapter does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal or other penalties for engaging in, the following conduct:

A. Undertaking any task under the influence of marijuana that would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

D. Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.

Homeless in Arizona