AZ DUI drugs while sober

[gigungle]

Nov,29 I was pulled over for speeding and charged with DUI drugs while being completely sober. I consented to a UA FST's and was cooperative with the officers. I was accused of smoking meth that morning smoking marijuana and told that without a doubt I was under the influence. I was then taken to jail and held under a 1455$ bond.

When did police officers get the authority to put people in jail for simply "thinking" they were on drugs?

How does a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) Officer have enough background to do so after a nine day course?

What it happening to this country and in our legislation that we don't know about?

to all of you out there that aren't be afraid, be very afraid.

[vollbree]

Well, you have to be leaving SOMETHING out.
Did you have drugs in your car?
Were you under the influence of drugs recently?
WHY did you get pulled over? There has to be a reason you got pulled over, it wasn't for being under the influence initially.

There isn't enough to this story.

[gigungle]

I was pulled over initially for speeding, the officer who observed this allegedly could tell using his eyes and markers that I was doing 42 in a 30, after I stopped he began citing me for speeding and asked me to step out of the car. He then asked me to lean my head back and close my eyes. He stated that he observed eye tremors associated with marijuana use and asked me to wait for the DRE Officer to arrive.

Upon the arrival of the DRE officer I was Subjected to more FST's including heart rate, and estimating 30 sec with eyes closed. After the heart rate FST the officer asked me how much meth I had smoked that morning. I replied that I did not use EVER! They insisted that I was on "something"

After aggressive interrogation without being informed of my miranda rights I admitted to smoking marijuana a week prior to that day.

I was then cuffed and taken to a mobile unit set up solely for the purpose of DUI. My car was searched and nothing was found. I was given a breathalizer, .000 given more FST's and consented to a UA, after all this I was cuffed and taken to jail.

I'm aware now that AZ law states that if a UA shows a drugs metabolite in your system (in my case THC from a week ago) you can be charged with DUI, having a prior this presents a serious problem, this of course being contingent on the UA showing any drug.

After bailing out of jail I took a UA at a FDA certified Lab for my defense and am now awaiting my arraignment on the 6th in which I will make a plea of not guilty.

I know the public relies on our police system for safety but recent laws have given them the power to detain you without factual evidence. zero tolerance law are in need of reform.

If anyone has any advice for my defence or for my complaint please reply

[BigMistakeFl]

You need and deserve a lawyer on your side. Unless there's something missing in your story, you should fight this charge. Your test results should help support your defense. The reason for the cop's suspicion is your prior. Once that pops up on the report as they run your license, you are in a state of culpability.

[gawm]

Originally Posted by gigungle

the officer asked me how much meth I had smoked that morning. I replied that I did not use EVER! They insisted that I was on "something"

After aggressive interrogation without being informed of my miranda rights I admitted to smoking marijuana a week prior to that day.

Thats where you messed up.There are three rules when you get pulled over and accused of DUI or DWI. They are:
1. DENY
2. DENY AGAIN
3. DON'T STOP DENYING

I got pulled over in AZ for expired tags. The officer said my eyes looked like I was on meth or weed. I told him no, I don't do drugs. He started to aggressively interrogate me. He told me if I admitted to using drugs I will stay out of jail but if I keep denying it, I would go to jail. I told him that did not make any sense and he got more and more upset when I kept denying it. He kept me there for 2 1/2 hours trying to get me to submit to a blood or hair test. He also wanted to search my car (which I would not agree to). After about six of his buddies show up, they are saying all these stupid things like you're going to jail if you don't admit to using drugs, and now they think I have drugs in the car, and they are going to find them. I had my pit bull (poor baby) in the car also , the jerks started to threaten to take him to the pound. Finally they brought the k9, had me remove my dog (they knew my dog would kick that k9's ass) and then said the dog indicated I had drugs in the car. They didn't believe me when I told them the dog was lying. When they found nothing in the car they were like, oh, he must of smelled your dog or something. Drove home with just a ticket for expired tags.
Lesson? Had I admitted to something I may or may not of done, it would of been a whole different scenario. Remember the 3 rules!

[sukharev]

Google up cases where evidence was thrown out because of Miranda. Good luck.

[gawm]

Originally Posted by sukharev

Google up cases where evidence was thrown out because of Miranda. Good luck.

He was not under arrest when he was be aggressively interrogated. They arrested him after he admitted to smoking pot a week ago. Miranda would not apply here.

[stephenk]

Miranda would apply once the officer told he suspected he was under the influence of drugs and would not allow him to leave.

[gigungle]

Miranda rights are merely slightly relevant in my case, I am more concerned with the violation of my constitutional rights, police are required to have probable cause to search your vehicle or person, otherwise is a violation of the fourth amendment. There should be no reason for an officer to "suspect" drug use with a sober person. These officers are simply banking on THC showing up in my system because of my admition to prior use. I admit my first mistake was admitting to using marijuana, by simply denying it I could have saved myself from alot of trouble.

But I am a strong believer in truth and think that a system set up to use that against you is inherently evil. I was not under the influence of any drug. The officer pulled me over with the intention of charging me with DUI. (hence the DUI R.V. set-up that day) My constitutional rights were violated.

I'm not posting on this forum to be criticised or accused of lying. All you people that think that the justice system is this winged angel to save us all can **** off, errors happen even with police officers. They are not always right and often take advantage of innocent people.

Anyone that can help me with my defense or my complaint please reply, more importantly now my complaint. When should I file? I have a lawyer who is willing to work on a contingency basis but don't know if he has experience in county matters, should I keep looking? What kind of settlement should I expect?

[gawm]

Originally Posted by gigungle

What kind of settlement should I expect?

None. It's not that I don't have sympathy for you, but would you go to Vegas and bet against the house? That's kind of what you're doing here with this lawsuit.

[gigungle]

4th Amend. ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," and the Warrants Clause which follows). A large body of caselaw has interpreted the Warrants Clause. E.g. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (persons arrested without a warrant have the right to a "prompt" judicial determination of whether "probable cause" existed.) There are also underlying due process concerns here. See Rotunda, §17.4, at 28-30.

[gawm]

If you get out of this with no charges, consider yourself lucky! Don't buy into all that 4th amendment hype. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, but you'll see what I mean. You said it best when you said

all you people who think the justice system is this winged angel to save us all can **** off errors happen even with police officers. They are not always right and often take advantage of innocent people

Maybe you'll get the charges dropped. You won't however, capitalize on a lawsuit.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by gigungle

When did police officers get the authority to put people in jail for simply "thinking" they were on drugs?

They don't. They can only make an arrest based on 'probable cause' to believe that a person is under the influence of drugs. Whether that P.C. was present in your case will be a matter for a court to decide.

How does a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) Officer have enough background to do so after a nine day course?

Because it generally IS sufficient. It's actually an 80 hour course including a battery of supervised and confirmed evaluations after completion of the course so the total hours until completion is about double the 80.

What it happening to this country and in our legislation that we don't know about?

What are you refering to?

to all of you out there that aren't be afraid, be very afraid.

I'm not.

- Carl

[tommieboi]

I'm not sure of other states, because it varies between states. Here in California they are zero tolerance and it doesn't matter if you were sober and even had a blood alcohol level of .00. I don't remember what exactly it says, but it states something like so long as the police officer believes you are under the influence of ANYTHING, than they can charge you for DUI regardless of you being sober. Trying to get a lawyer will only cost you a lot of money and is an likely chance you will still be chared with the DUI. So you're pretty much screwed. Also from what I hear many states are starting to adapt to CA DUI laws.

I was pulled over for DUI before and took the 3 month DUI class. There are stories you wouldn't believe. From people just standing by their car with their key in engine(not even turned on) to people getting charged for DUI just for working on their car in their driveway while holding a beer, and many other bizarre various reasons.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by tommieboi

I'm not sure of other states, because it varies between states. Here in California they are zero tolerance and it doesn't matter if you were sober and even had a blood alcohol level of .00.

Uh ... not quite.

We have to believe they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and have to be able to articulate the probable cause to support that belief in the matter of an arrest.

I was pulled over for DUI before and took the 3 month DUI class. There are stories you wouldn't believe.

And jails are filled with innocent people, too.

Don't believe all the tales of woe ... they likely are not completely true.

- Carl