JcMack
Member
How do the police in your state determine what constitutes driving while under the influence?
Last edited:
Question for those who's states allow legal marajuana recreational use
- Thread starter JcMack
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
They count up the number of candy wrappers and empty Doritos bags in your car.
Bajadoc
US Veteran
In California, they legalized the weed before figuring out how to test for driving under the influence. The lawmakers were probably stoned. It's a mess.
Still undetermined in IL. Goes into effect legal recreational use Jan 1.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Believe it or not: Yes, that’s part of it. There is no defined numerical legal limit for driving; police rely on officers’ observations as to possible impairment if you get pulled over for a traffic violation.
Directly from the Oregon State Police Sgt. in charge of the Drug Recognition program: Officers look for the obvious signs, “like bloodshot eyes, candy wrappers, and the typical Beavis-and-Butthead laugh”. Then come field sobriety tests and such.
The problem with setting a “legal limit” appears to be that THC levels don’t correlate to impairment. Levels are really high right after imbibing, but have dropped of significantly by the time impairment is most significant. That’s unlike alcohol, which remains pretty steady and metabolizes predictably.
Departments that have them will use drug recognition experts if an officer suspects impairment with a drug other than alcohol.
There are a number of indicators that can appear in a field sobriety test and if positive, the full evaluation is done at the station in a controlled environment. It includes a more expanded FST as well as looking for numerous physiological markers
Physiological markers for cannabis can include dilated pupils, elevated pulse, rebound dilation, lack of convergence, eyelid tremors, and body tremors.
The problem however is separating actual markers for a drug from things people do or don't do when sober. For example, someone may have early onset macular degeneration and still pass a VDL eye exam (or at least hasn't failed one yet, or been reported by an eye doctor) and that can cause nystagmus. Some people also just can't cross their eyes, so they'll be false positive on a convergence test. Stress can also cause an eyelid tremor as well as poorly corrected near vision. (The guy may just be in denial that he needs reading glasses, and that's something that can be pretty obvious if he can't read small print, especially in low light.)
Dissimilar pupil response always indicates an underlying medical condition, rather than drug use. It may indicate a stroke or TBI, where immediate medical attention is warranted. There's a 90 minute sweet spot to treat a stroke with good potential for full recovery and you absolutely do not want to be jerking someone around over a traffic stop and keeping them from getting immediate treatment. I've also encountered people who have an enlarged pupil following not so successful cataract surgery. In that case it's not a stroke but rather a normal condition for that eye.
----
In short it's pretty complicated stuff. Not surprisingly some states just use THC levels, despite the lack of correlation with impairment.
There are a number of indicators that can appear in a field sobriety test and if positive, the full evaluation is done at the station in a controlled environment. It includes a more expanded FST as well as looking for numerous physiological markers
Physiological markers for cannabis can include dilated pupils, elevated pulse, rebound dilation, lack of convergence, eyelid tremors, and body tremors.
The problem however is separating actual markers for a drug from things people do or don't do when sober. For example, someone may have early onset macular degeneration and still pass a VDL eye exam (or at least hasn't failed one yet, or been reported by an eye doctor) and that can cause nystagmus. Some people also just can't cross their eyes, so they'll be false positive on a convergence test. Stress can also cause an eyelid tremor as well as poorly corrected near vision. (The guy may just be in denial that he needs reading glasses, and that's something that can be pretty obvious if he can't read small print, especially in low light.)
Dissimilar pupil response always indicates an underlying medical condition, rather than drug use. It may indicate a stroke or TBI, where immediate medical attention is warranted. There's a 90 minute sweet spot to treat a stroke with good potential for full recovery and you absolutely do not want to be jerking someone around over a traffic stop and keeping them from getting immediate treatment. I've also encountered people who have an enlarged pupil following not so successful cataract surgery. In that case it's not a stroke but rather a normal condition for that eye.
----
In short it's pretty complicated stuff. Not surprisingly some states just use THC levels, despite the lack of correlation with impairment.
Marijuana, unlike alcohol, doesn't have a set limit for intoxication in Oklahoma. The limit for drivers would have to be set by lawmakers and so far they haven’t done it.
The politicians never thought it through. This medical marijuana mess in OK is out of control. I live in Norman with a population of 128,000 and there are 62 pot shops. There seems to be one on every block.
Norman has an arts festival the first Tuesday of every month and Main Street is packed on that evening. I see a lot of stoners out there. Reminds me of the hippie sixties.
The politicians never thought it through. This medical marijuana mess in OK is out of control. I live in Norman with a population of 128,000 and there are 62 pot shops. There seems to be one on every block.
Norman has an arts festival the first Tuesday of every month and Main Street is packed on that evening. I see a lot of stoners out there. Reminds me of the hippie sixties.
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Another unintended consequence. Basically if a policeman pulls you over and smells weed and suspects impaired driving it is his observations as recorded that will convict the driver. If you smoke and drive pray that there is a body cam or that the cop is honest and won't embellish the reported observations.
I'm gonna stop here
I'm gonna stop here
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 15,425
- Reaction score
- 37,510
Looks like a breathalyzer is on the way: Pitt Researchers Develop Marijuana Breathalyzer Technology | Pittwire | University of Pittsburgh
Farmer17
Member
I'm working for a California company right now remodeling a shopping center for a dispensary and another 5500 square foot building for a facility that makes edibles. I think the edibles are baked things like muffins or brownies but they also have gummy bears and tootsie pops but you can't smell anything and you can't always tell when people are stoned because some people just act weird all the time. From the cops I talk to they pretty much ignor people who are driving high because its hard to tell.
robvious
Member
possession of a microwave burrito is probable cause...
Erich
Member
I don't live there, but I'm licensed to practice in CO. Their Department of Transportation website has a good FAQ that discusses this.
FAQs: Cannabis and Driving —
FAQs: Cannabis and Driving —
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
Only thing I can add is that there are several levels applicable to any law enforcement action:
Reasonable suspicion; knowledge of facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, or is being, committed. Essentially, this is the legal standard allowing an officer to intervene in peoples' actions in order to conduct an investigation. Not sufficient for arrest (or extended detention), not sufficient for search or seizure.
Probable cause; knowledge of facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, or is being, committed. This is a higher standard of evidence that may support arrest and/or search and seizure.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt; a level of evidence sufficient to support conviction in a court of law.
These standards have a long history in jurisprudence with literally millions of precedents. While many citizens have little or no understanding of the differences, properly trained LEOs are fully aware of the thresholds at each step of the process. One of the major elements will always be the "reasonable person" standard, which seems to be a moving target for some cops, many attorneys, and the general public.
As CAJUNLAWYER alluded to, there are officers who may embellish, exaggerate, occasionally even fabricate in some cases, and body cams or other means of accurately recording events and observations can provide significant protections for everyone involved.
Reasonable suspicion; knowledge of facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, or is being, committed. Essentially, this is the legal standard allowing an officer to intervene in peoples' actions in order to conduct an investigation. Not sufficient for arrest (or extended detention), not sufficient for search or seizure.
Probable cause; knowledge of facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, or is being, committed. This is a higher standard of evidence that may support arrest and/or search and seizure.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt; a level of evidence sufficient to support conviction in a court of law.
These standards have a long history in jurisprudence with literally millions of precedents. While many citizens have little or no understanding of the differences, properly trained LEOs are fully aware of the thresholds at each step of the process. One of the major elements will always be the "reasonable person" standard, which seems to be a moving target for some cops, many attorneys, and the general public.
As CAJUNLAWYER alluded to, there are officers who may embellish, exaggerate, occasionally even fabricate in some cases, and body cams or other means of accurately recording events and observations can provide significant protections for everyone involved.
Last edited:
Around here, its what BB57 said, drug recognition experts. They keep floating the idea of a saliva test, but evidently thats wrought with constitutional rights problems. But the tried and true fall back is to look at the smashed cars and dead bodies...both of which have spiked after they legalized it.
daglockman
Member
Like others have stated, it is a mess. Then there is the person who has a couple drinks and is not above the limit for alcohol, but smokes some ultra potent buds and compounds the effects. In Colorado, if you are convicted of DUI for being under the influence of weed, you still may be regulated to have a ignition interlock device, even though you may not even drink. How would that make any sense? I know of a guy (not me) at work that doesn't drink at all, and had one put on his car for DUI. He was smoking while driving though, REAL hard to hide the smell of the weed they are selling here. Smells like peppy Le Pew is riding with you. From what I understand, weed as recent as the 90's was at about a 9-11%THC content. Weed being sold in Colorado tests in the 25-30+% range. There are multiple dispensaries that advertise and brag about how many strains that they sell over the 30% THC level. Hash and oils for Vaping in the 80-95% THC levels. Almost pure THC.
Above all else and doesn't matter about state laws, medicinal and recreational use is against FEDERAL law. Lie on a 4473 and they will get you.
4506517
Member
It is the same as with alcohol.
You don't have to show a numerical "limit" or threshold.
As long as you can prove impairment, that's all you need.
BEFORE everyone loses their minds.......
The numerical "limit" or "threshold" or "standard" is the number you meet in the place of showing impairment.
Many statutes state that impaired driving is proving impairment -OR- having a BAC of .08 as measured.
There are many other tests (vary from state to state) which are judicially recognized by each individual state's court system.
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are a widely accepted battery of tests.
Now if we are looking for a "number" or "threshold" I would assume a measurement of THC parts per million per whatever measurement of blood would perhaps be a starting point.
Am I explaining that clearly? I can try to clarify if this doesn't make sense.
You don't have to show a numerical "limit" or threshold.
As long as you can prove impairment, that's all you need.
BEFORE everyone loses their minds.......
The numerical "limit" or "threshold" or "standard" is the number you meet in the place of showing impairment.
Many statutes state that impaired driving is proving impairment -OR- having a BAC of .08 as measured.
There are many other tests (vary from state to state) which are judicially recognized by each individual state's court system.
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are a widely accepted battery of tests.
Now if we are looking for a "number" or "threshold" I would assume a measurement of THC parts per million per whatever measurement of blood would perhaps be a starting point.
Am I explaining that clearly? I can try to clarify if this doesn't make sense.
Just like the old have you been drinking? I only had 1 beer.
Have you been smoking weed. Yes, but I didnt inhale!
Guy told me about a job he worked and when you hired on the did some simple tests and one of them involved a rather simple video game. They established YOUR base line. Upon entering job site you could be subject to the testing. Fail to hit in with in so much of your base line and you go home. He said the boozers with hang overs went home a lot more than any of the pot smokers.
Why not have a base line for your driving ability. If you can't preform hand eye coordination stuff you get busted.
Why not have a base line for your driving ability. If you can't preform hand eye coordination stuff you get busted.
LVSteve
Member
Just lately in Vegas the impaired killers have made it easy for LE. They reek of booze and MJ, and have coke/meth/more MJ in their pockets. Talk about a slam dunk.
