Probable cause?

[Supmom810]

What is the name of your state? Florida
Carl, maybe you can anwer this question for me. This again goes back to DUI charges against the driver who hit us or lack of.
If someone smells of marijuana, passenger smells of marijuana, vehicle smells of marijuana and person admits to smoking marijuana, is that enough probable cause to perform a urine or blood test? Does someone have to totally fail a field sobriety test before it becomes probable cause to test?
Thanks

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Supmom810

What is the name of your state? Florida
Carl, maybe you can anwer this question for me. This again goes back to DUI charges against the driver who hit us or lack of.
If someone smells of marijuana, passenger smells of marijuana, vehicle smells of marijuana and person admits to smoking marijuana, is that enough probable cause to perform a urine or blood test? Does someone have to totally fail a field sobriety test before it becomes probable cause to test?
Thanks

It would depend on the status of state and case law in FL to answer for certain. But, in general, the odor and the admission would be sufficient to suspect the person is under the influence of marijuana. I doubt a "field sobriety test" is required of passengers in any event - though it would help to establish inebriation.

In CA simply ingesting marijuana is not a crime like it would be for the harder drugs (meth, cocaine, etc.). Out here the subject would have to be so intoxicated as to be unabel to care for their safety or the safety of others, so absent some stumbling, lack of coherence, etc. we would no be able to do anything about it. FL law may be different.

In FL if it is against the law to be under the influence of marijuana at all, then what you articulated would likely be sufficient to warrant a test.

EDIT: If you are asking whether the DRIVER can be tested, the answer to that would depend on the driver. He might not have to fail the FST, but the officer would almost certainly have to articulate why he believed the driver was DUI on marijuana. If the odor is present, the driver admits to smoking marijuana, and there is even the slightest indication of influence, then a chemical test would likely be in order (pursuant to state law).

- Carl

[toneytone]

in response to your question, if the occupents and vehicle smell of marijuana, then in accordance with state law, the officer can perform a field sobrioty, but the suspect does not have to give consent to give up bodily fluids.

[Supmom810]

Originally Posted by toneytone

in response to your question, if the occupents and vehicle smell of marijuana, then in accordance with state law, the officer can perform a field sobrioty, but the suspect does not have to give consent to give up bodily fluids.

I admit to having no legal background, therefore my questions. My question wasn't do they have to give up "bodily fluids" it was what would be considered probable cause to obtain a screen. Yes someone can refuse a screen, but the implications are as follows, especially if someone caused an accident, admitted to being under the influence and the officer feels he has reasonable cause.

Florida Statue
316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.--
b. Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to a urine test for the purpose of detecting the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s. 877.111 or controlled substances if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances. The urine test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such tests at the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances. The urine test shall be administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such test in a reasonable manner that will ensure the accuracy of the specimen and maintain the privacy of the individual involved. The administration of a urine test does not preclude the administration of another type of test. The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her urine will result in the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for the first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her urine and his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, he or she commits a misdemeanor in addition to any other penalties. The refusal to submit to a urine test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Supmom810

I admit to having no legal background, therefore my questions. My question wasn't do they have to give up "bodily fluids" it was what would be considered probable cause to obtain a screen. Yes someone can refuse a screen, but the implications are as follows, especially if someone caused an accident, admitted to being under the influence and the officer feels he has reasonable cause.

Probable cause is dependent upon the specific circumstances in a particular case. In general, it sounds as if there is sufficient cause to compel a test (accident, admission, smell), but there could be specifics that improve or diminish the probable cause.

- Carl

[Supmom810]

Thanks Carl, you have been a big help!! My last post was only to clarify something to toneytone, you answered my question fully in your first reply, but I appreciate that you again stated this for toneytone as well.