driving

Phoenix, AZ – A Court of Appeals in Phoenix delivered a ruling on Thursday that could set a precedent as legal systems grapple with the question of driving under the influence of cannabis.

“Medical marijuana users cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence of the drug absent proof that they were actually impaired, the state Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

In a major setback for prosecutors, the judges pointed out that Arizona, unlike some other states, has no law that spells out that at a certain level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the blood a person is presumed to be impaired…

What that means is every case where prosecutors charge a medical marijuana user with breaking the law requires expert testimony to show that particular individual was impaired at that particular level of THC.”

This is a huge win for citizens and for rationality itself, as it negates the government’s assumption that an arbitrary number means a driver is impaired, which provided grounds for criminal conviction.

Nadir Ishak was pulled over in 2013 after his vehicle drifted out of its lane. Instead of invoking his 5th Amendment right to remain silent, Ishak admitted to smoking cannabis that morning when the cop probed him for some sign of “criminal” behavior. The cop said Ishak had bloodshot eyes and “body tremors and eye tremors” during a field sobriety test.

Advertisment

Ishak was charged with ‘driving while impaired to the slightest degree’ and ‘driving with marijuana in his body.’ Jurors convicted him of the second charge, but even though Ishak had a state-issued medical card, the city judge refused to allow him to tell this to jurors.

READ MORE:  New Study of Shakespeare's Belongings Finds Multiple Pipes Containing Marijuana Residue

Presenting the medical cannabis card would have shown the jury that “Ishak was legally entitled under the 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act to use the drug and have it in his system.” Judge Diane Johnsen at the Court of Appeals recognized that Ishak was denied a fair trial, and further pointed out the city judge was wrong to rule that “it was up to Ishak to prove he was not impaired.”

The city prosecutor had actually stated it’s irrelevant whether a defendant is actually impaired or not, and suggested the 2010 law means medical cannabis cardholders have to prove through expert testimony that THC in their blood does not cause impairment in “people generally” or “in any person.”

It appears city judges and prosecutors had set up a nice little trap for medical cannabis patients – but the higher court just demolished it.

Nothing in the statute … requires a cardholder to present expert testimony (or precludes a cardholder from offering non-expert testimony) on the question of whether the cardholder was impaired due to THC,” wrote Judge Johnsen. “Further supporting this conclusion is the reality that, at present, there is no presumptive impairment limit established by (Arizona) law.

Johnsen also rightfully pointed out: “And, according to evidence here, there is no scientific consensus about the concentration of THC that generally is sufficient to impair a human being.

Even though Ishak had a blood-THC level of 26.9 nanograms, there was no foundation to prove this causes impairment.

Indeed, there is no widely accepted way to test cannabis impairment in drivers, as THC metabolites can show up in the blood long after a person has ingested cannabis. Also, experienced users can be completely unimpaired even if they test above an arbitrarily-derived blood-THC limit.

“The Arizona Supreme Court already has ruled that the mere presence of metabolites — the chemical compounds caused the the breakdown of marijuana in the body — is insufficient by itself to prove impairment. That’s because those chemicals can remain in the body for days or weeks afterwards.”

Despite the best efforts of local prosecutors to criminalize medical cannabis patients when they drive vehicles, it appears that state courts are having none of it.

“Thursday’s decision is the latest in a string of appellate court rulings that have limited the ability of prosecutors to bring various charges against medical-marijuana patients. These range from limiting the kind of evidence that prosecutors can use to bring drugged-driving charges, to requirements for law enforcement officers to give back drugs taken from legal users.”

Here’s a novel idea. Cops and prosecutors should stop harassing medical cannabis patients and focus on real criminals.

SHARE
Justin Gardner is a peaceful free-thinker with a background in the biological sciences. He is interested in bringing rationality back into the national discourse, and independent journalism as a challenge to the status quo.
  • Michael Marath

    I know from experience that it does not.

  • Jim Balderas

    I own and operate a small business that produces high quality fineal components in multi million dollar homes. I smoke at least 4 grams per day or more. If I was impaired, would I earn nearly 500,000 dollars into my shop? Or stay on top of 5 of the largest contractors in the Seattle region? I think not

    • JT1

      Can i get a job?!

  • Jim Balderas

    But I have met many who do not have any kind of tolerance such as yourself

  • Patrick Fleming

    The problem cops and prosecutors have with this decision is that it takes away the EASY route to conviction. It is far easier to simply have to prove ingestion of a substance, or even an arbitrary amount of ingestion, that in it is to prove actual impairment. Yet proving impairment is what was part and parcel of every DUI case for decades before breath testing and arbitrary blood level statutes. And it still is when someone refuses a test. If a car is weaving all over the road, if a person can’t stand when doing Field Sobriety Tests, if they slur words and are confused, these are signs of impairment and a jury will usually convict if presented with enough of them. But that means work. It is far easier to just present some lab or machine results. But why should convictions ever be easy?