Possible Case Against Arresting Police Officer?

[azhelpneeded]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

After working for 8 1/2 hours one night, my husband was running to the bank to drop off his work's night deposit in a company truck when the officer pulled him over, after following him for almost a mile, and asked him to get out of the truck. Mind you, he was being pulled over supposedly because he didnt fully stop when exiting the driveway of his work because there was no traffic on the road.

The officer asked if my husband did any illegal substances and he replied 'yes, i smoke weed'. When asked if he had been smoking that day, he replied 'no, i dont smoke when i have to work' (which is true). The officer proceeded to give him the roadside sobriety test, in which my husband stumbled and failed. He told the officer that he had a sprained ankle which made it hard for him to do it normally (which was true, he had sprained it at work a couple days before) and the officer responded that he believed that he was high and arrested him, with no form of proof. He did adminster a breathalizer or anything else on sight. They drew blood at the jail but my husband was told that the results can take up to 4 months to get.

When led to the holding cell, my husband asked the officer for his badge number (he was on the phone with me at the time) and the officer flat refused to give it to him. This is know for a fact, at least in Arizona, is against the law. All police officers MUST give out their badge number if asked for. (My uncle was Arizona DPS for 25 years). I asked to speak to the officer and once again the officer refused, saying that he wasnt going to explain anything to anyone that we could worry about it when we went to court.

My husband does not drink, well only on special occassions. He loves his job and never would have jepordized it. Yes, we do smoke marijuana on occassion but normally its just for sleeping aid because we both have insomnia. Neither of us will drive or work while high. He wasnt driving irratically though I believe he was going just a bit over the speed limit. As far as I know, if there is no traffic, by law, you do not have to stop before exiting a driveway if there is no stop sign or stop light. They are charging him simply for having an illegal substance in his system, which takes at a minimum 15-30 days to leave your system. Its effects are no longer felt after a couple of hours though.

Was the officer in the right to arrest and charge him with a DUI simply because he had smoked the night before (mind you, he was arrested at 8pm and had been at work since 11:30am)? He has lost his job because of this when he had done nothing wrong. He was not speeding (no more than 5mph over) and was not driving irratically. Those that we have asked about so far have all said that it sounds as if the officer did not even have reason to pull him over for in the first place and that we should be able to have the entire case dropped and take the officer to court for lost wages as well as personal distress. Is this true or do we even have a case that would be worth our while to get an attorney for?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

After working for 8 1/2 hours one night, my husband was running to the bank to drop off his work's night deposit in a company truck when the officer pulled him over, after following him for almost a mile, and asked him to get out of the truck. Mind you, he was being pulled over supposedly because he didnt fully stop when exiting the driveway of his work because there was no traffic on the road.

The officer asked if my husband did any illegal substances and he replied 'yes, i smoke weed'. When asked if he had been smoking that day, he replied 'no, i dont smoke when i have to work' (which is true). The officer proceeded to give him the roadside sobriety test, in which my husband stumbled and failed. He told the officer that he had a sprained ankle which made it hard for him to do it normally (which was true, he had sprained it at work a couple days before) and the officer responded that he believed that he was high and arrested him, with no form of proof. He did adminster a breathalizer or anything else on sight. They drew blood at the jail but my husband was told that the results can take up to 4 months to get.

When led to the holding cell, my husband asked the officer for his badge number (he was on the phone with me at the time) and the officer flat refused to give it to him. This is know for a fact, at least in Arizona, is against the law. All police officers MUST give out their badge number if asked for. (My uncle was Arizona DPS for 25 years). I asked to speak to the officer and once again the officer refused, saying that he wasnt going to explain anything to anyone that we could worry about it when we went to court.

My husband does not drink, well only on special occassions. He loves his job and never would have jepordized it. Yes, we do smoke marijuana on occassion but normally its just for sleeping aid because we both have insomnia. Neither of us will drive or work while high. He wasnt driving irratically though I believe he was going just a bit over the speed limit. As far as I know, if there is no traffic, by law, you do not have to stop before exiting a driveway if there is no stop sign or stop light. They are charging him simply for having an illegal substance in his system, which takes at a minimum 15-30 days to leave your system. Its effects are no longer felt after a couple of hours though.

Was the officer in the right to arrest and charge him with a DUI simply because he had smoked the night before (mind you, he was arrested at 8pm and had been at work since 11:30am)? He has lost his job because of this when he had done nothing wrong. He was not speeding (no more than 5mph over) and was not driving irratically. Those that we have asked about so far have all said that it sounds as if the officer did not even have reason to pull him over for in the first place and that we should be able to have the entire case dropped and take the officer to court for lost wages as well as personal distress. Is this true or do we even have a case that would be worth our while to get an attorney for?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

IMHO you or your husband do not appear to have a case for personal distress. Based on your husband's answers and behaviour the arresting officer acted appropriately.

[xylene]

Your husband basically admitted enough to be arrested with the "I smoke weed."

That and a failed FST...

[Zigner]

If there was "...no traffic on the road", where did the officer come from?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

Mind you, he was being pulled over supposedly because he didnt fully stop when exiting the driveway of his work because there was no traffic on the road.

If this is what the officer testifies to in court, and AZ law requires such a stop, then the detention would appear to be valid.

The officer asked if my husband did any illegal substances and he replied 'yes, i smoke weed'. When asked if he had been smoking that day, he replied 'no, i dont smoke when i have to work' (which is true). The officer proceeded to give him the roadside sobriety test, in which my husband stumbled and failed.

The admission of smoking weed (an illegal substance) would likely have given the articulable suspicion for the prolonged detention to investigate further. And, I doubt that one stumble was what caused him to "fail".

He told the officer that he had a sprained ankle which made it hard for him to do it normally (which was true, he had sprained it at work a couple days before) and the officer responded that he believed that he was high and arrested him, with no form of proof.

The officer's observations and opinion based upon his training and experience is "proof" ... at least in so much as it will be testimony at trial. The defense can bring forth the sprained ankle (hopefully a doctor can substantiate this) to try and cast reasonable doubt upon that portion of the FSTs. Note that the FSTs contain MORE than just walking ... only ONE standardized test requires him to walk, the others require additional divided attention tests.

He did adminster a breathalizer or anything else on sight. They drew blood at the jail but my husband was told that the results can take up to 4 months to get.

I assume you meant to write that he did NOT administer a breathalyzer at the site of the stop. Well, if marijuana was suspected, what good would that have done? Although, standard drug testing protocol involves the administering of a breath test of some kind anyway.

When led to the holding cell, my husband asked the officer for his badge number (he was on the phone with me at the time) and the officer flat refused to give it to him. This is know for a fact, at least in Arizona, is against the law. All police officers MUST give out their badge number if asked for.

It will be all over the paperwork he got when he was released, so I am sure he now knows who the officer is.

If the officer refused to provide his badge number when asked, your husband is free to make a personnel complaint with the agency. However, this is an entirely separate issue from the criminal case against him so he should not expect any procedural issue to help his DUI case.

I asked to speak to the officer and once again the officer refused, saying that he wasnt going to explain anything to anyone that we could worry about it when we went to court.

He does not have to talk to you. While he might choose to, and in some cases it can be beneficial to clear the air, so to speak, it is not required and if the discussion is going to be a debate as to the merits of the stop, the law, or something else, then it's often pointless to hold such a discussion.

Yes, we do smoke marijuana on occassion but normally its just for sleeping aid because we both have insomnia.

A "sleeping aid"? That's odd, since marijuana tends to raise pulse and blood pressure ... not sure how that result in it being a sleep aid.

He wasnt driving irratically though I believe he was going just a bit over the speed limit. As far as I know, if there is no traffic, by law, you do not have to stop before exiting a driveway if there is no stop sign or stop light.

If the court rules that he had no lawful cause for a detention, then the case will probably be dismissed. But, the officer may have articulated a number of other reasons for the stop.

They are charging him simply for having an illegal substance in his system, which takes at a minimum 15-30 days to leave your system. Its effects are no longer felt after a couple of hours though.

I suspect he is being charged for the impairment that the officer believes he observed, not for having the metabolytes of THC in his blood.

Those that we have asked about so far have all said that it sounds as if the officer did not even have reason to pull him over for in the first place and that we should be able to have the entire case dropped and take the officer to court for lost wages as well as personal distress.

Were "those" people attorneys? If not, then they may not have sufficient knowledge of the law to make that call.

IF the court rules the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop or probable cause for the arrest, then you might have a case. Chances are that won't be the end result, but you never know.

First, he needs to speak with an attorney to address the criminal issue. THEN, if acquitted or dismissed, he can speak with an attorney over any possible civil issue.

- Carl

[azhelpneeded]

IMHO you or your husband do not appear to have a case for personal distress. Based on your husband's answers and behaviour the arresting officer acted appropriately.

How can he not? He lost his job, which in turn may make us lose our apartment because there is no other income at the present time. He was arrested and detained over night for something that he did not even do. He wasnt under the influence of any drug or alchohol at the time of his arrest. I mean I do not know exactly what it takes for personal distress, but I would think that the added stress level added to everything else would be enough cause seeing as it never should have happened.

Your husband basically admitted enough to be arrested with the "I smoke weed."

Admitting that you do smoke SHOULD NOT be grounds for an arrest based on assumption. It is not against the law to smoke it or have it in your system, it is only illegal to possess it or sell it. By assuming that if a person smokes they are high all the time is discrimination. We're not bad people, we dont drink, we hold down good jobs and take care of our family first.

The officer's observations and opinion based upon his training and experience is "proof" ... at least in so much as it will be testimony at trial. The defense can bring forth the sprained ankle (hopefully a doctor can substantiate this) to try and cast reasonable doubt upon that portion of the FSTs. Note that the FSTs contain MORE than just walking ... only ONE standardized test requires him to walk, the others require additional divided attention tests.

According to my husband, the officer only gave him 3 tests. One, the walk the line test. Two, the stand on one foot balance test. And three, the follow the light test. He passed the last one easily but stumbled on both of the balance tests.

It will be all over the paperwork he got when he was released, so I am sure he now knows who the officer is.

The officer's badge number is no where on the police report. The only report he received when being released was the one that was filled out with his information and charges that the officer filled out when he was first booked.

In Arizona it is law that if the arresting officer is asked, by anyone, for his badge number for any reason he is to give the information. It is against state law for the officer to refuse. I know this for a fact because it was one of the things that my lawyer told me many years ago when I got arrested for a domestic argument back in 2001.

A "sleeping aid"? That's odd, since marijuana tends to raise pulse and blood pressure ... not sure how that result in it being a sleep aid.

Apparently you have never smoked before. Many people use it to help them sleep. That's why, when you do get a medical prescription for it, they say not to drive or operate machinery because it makes you drowsy. (Know this because he used to have a prescription in California but it is not valid in Arizona).

I suspect he is being charged for the impairment that the officer believes he observed, not for having the metabolytes of THC in his blood.

You would think this the case, but in fact he is. The first charge was DUI, the second was "Driving with an Illegal Drug or Metabolyte in system". So yes, he is being charged for simply having them in his system.

If there was "...no traffic on the road", where did the officer come from?

The officer was an undercover that he had seen PARKED near the other exit further down from where he pulled out from.

[justalayman]

first, from what I saw in Arizona statutes, you can get away with yielding to any traffic on the highway when exiting a parking lot. Unless there was a sign (was there?) I saw nothing that required a complete stop unless traffic would require one.

as to this:

He was not speeding (no more than 5mph over)

I found nothing that allowed a tolerance of 5 mph before one is considered to be speeding. Unless there is, speeding is speeding.


now, this one:

Was the officer in the right to arrest and charge him with a DUI simply because he had smoked the night before (mind you, he was arrested at 8pm and had been at work since 11:30am)?

I know some folks that have smoked a lot of pot in their day. At one time, I was of the mind that what they did on their own time is their business until one of these guys told me; I would not work next to anybody, if safety is of concern, if they were smoking the day before. That spoke volumes to me. He went on to state: your head is fuzzy. I don't care what somebody tries to tell you that they are fine and their head is clear, it isn't true.

and to this:

It is not against the law to smoke it or have it in your system, it is only illegal to possess it or sell it

.

WRONG.

28-1381. Driving or actual physical control while under the influence; trial by jury; presumptions; admissible evidence; sentencing; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:
1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.
2. If the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle.
3. While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body.

13-3401. Definitions
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Administer" means to apply, inject or facilitate the inhalation or ingestion of a substance to the body of a person.
2. "Amidone" means any substance identified chemically as (4-4-diphenyl-6-dimethylamine-heptanone-3), or any salt of such substance, by whatever trade name designated.
3. "Board" means the Arizona state board of pharmacy.
4. "Cannabis" means the following substances under whatever names they may be designated:
(a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin. Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except the resin extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
(b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol.

sounds like if he pops positive for marijuana, that is all it takes. There is not an impaired condition required to be charged with the statute.

the only thing I can see is; was the stop legal?

If the justification was not stopping, it may have not been legal. So, depending on what the officer states, this may or may not be contestable.

Time to find a good lawyer.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

Admitting that you do smoke SHOULD NOT be grounds for an arrest based on assumption. It is not against the law to smoke it or have it in your system, it is only illegal to possess it or sell it.

It is also unlawful to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana. An admission to smoking may be sufficient to justify a further detention in order to investigate that. Reasonable suspicion is a relatively low burden of proof.

According to my husband, the officer only gave him 3 tests. One, the walk the line test. Two, the stand on one foot balance test. And three, the follow the light test. He passed the last one easily but stumbled on both of the balance tests.

How do you know he "passed"? Was this somehow stated in the report? If it DID say he "passed", then the officer was either poorly trained or does not know what he is doing.

The officer's badge number is no where on the police report. The only report he received when being released was the one that was filled out with his information and charges that the officer filled out when he was first booked.

I would be amazed if his name and/or badge/ID number is nowhere on the report. I have never seen any such thing in all my years in law enforcement. But, even assuming his agency allows anonymous reports, his name or even refusal to ID himself is an entirely separate issue from his crime. One is entirely unrelated to the other.

Apparently you have never smoked before.

Apparently you are unaware of the pharmacology.

While marijuana CAN result in other effects in some people some of the time, it generally has the effect of raising both pulse and blood pressure.

Oh, and I know this because I have received oodles of training and have years of experience as a DRE ... not because I have imbibed.

You would think this the case, but in fact he is. The first charge was DUI, the second was "Driving with an Illegal Drug or Metabolyte in system". So yes, he is being charged for simply having them in his system.

He was arrested for DUI. He was not arrested for the presence of THC or metabolytes in his blood. Therefore, the officer believed he had probable cause to support that arrest for impaired driving. The defense can argue that there is insufficient proof to show that THC was the cause .. .but, depending on the FSTs and the officer's ability to articulate his observations, that may not be sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the issue.

- Carl

[azhelpneeded]

I would be amazed if his name and/or badge/ID number is nowhere on the report. I have never seen any such thing in all my years in law enforcement. But, even assuming his agency allows anonymous reports, his name or even refusal to ID himself is an entirely separate issue from his crime. One is entirely unrelated to the other.

I was mistaken on one part. They did not give a copy of the actual police report, simply the arrest report. That report which I have in my possession states no where the officer's name or badge number.

the only thing I can see is; was the stop legal?

If the justification was not stopping, it may have not been legal. So, depending on what the officer states, this may or may not be contestable.

Time to find a good lawyer.

So it sounds as if it's going to come down to his word against the officer's. He states that the officer himself never told him why he was being pulled over. He did tell him why he was being arrested but never gave a reason as to why he was pulled over. He was told by another officer when he left jail the next day that the officer had said that he had been pulled over for failing to stop when pulling out of the parking lot.

So my question now is, by Arizona driving law, does it state anywhere that a motorist MUST come to a complete stop when exiting a parking lot if there are little or no cars on the road that he was pulling onto? Stating of course, that the reason he was told was the reason that the officer states in his report. And if it does state that and there is no law stating that he had to stop, would it be fair to say that it there was no technical reason for the officer to have pulled him over?

[azhelpneeded]

I just found this scientific study called the Marijuana Policy Project. I included a couple of quotes to see if by chance any of this could be of use to my husband during his case.

[url=http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-how.html]Marijuana and DUI Laws: How Can We Best Guard Against Impaired Driving?[/url]

How long does it take for the psychoactive effects of marijuana to wear off?

Because smoked THC is rapidly transferred into the blood stream, THC levels in the blood rise quickly immediately after inhalation. Depending on the dose, THC typically reaches peak concentrations of more than 100 ng/mL five to 10 minutes after inhalation and then rapidly decreases to between one and four ng/mL within three to four hours.

However, the blood serum of moderate to heavy marijuana users may contain more than two ng/mL of THC at 24 or even 48 hours after smoking a single joint, a level that studies have shown does not produce impairment.[4]

Given that he smoked one bowl, which is equivelent to approximately half the amount of marijuana that a joint uses, sixteen hours prior to being arrested, according to the study it would appear that the levels of THC would be too low to cause any type of impairment. If this is true, then would the DUI be unconvictable seeing as it would also prove that he was NOT impaired by any substance at that time?

I also found this quote:

Does this mean that some DUID laws may actually criminalize sober drivers?

Yes, depending on the threshold of THC that the law sets. Furthermore, arresting and convicting motorists who only have traces of marijuana metabolites in their systems (from having used marijuana days before) will certainly cause people who are completely sober to be arrested and wrongly convicted of driving under the influence of drugs.

This sounds like it is common for people who are completely sober at the time of their arrest to be convicted simply for having traces left in their system from hours or even days before, even though they do not have nearly enough metabolytes in their system to cause any type of impairment.


If someone drinks the night before, and is pulled over the next night after work, they are not arrested because they have traces of alchohol in their system. From the studies I have read online, the effects of drinking impair a person far more than the effects of smoking (of course this is all depending on the amount of either). Why is it that a person can be considered still impaired over 15 hours after smoking two hits of marijuana but a person who drank an entire 18 pack 15 hours before is considered fine? I know that this may be slightly off subject but I feel that it seems relevent to the case. As the study quoted above shows, there should be no possibility of a person being still impaired from marijuana that many hours later and yet they can still be arrested for having it in their system (because it takes up 45 days to completely leave your system).

Is there some sort of level guidelines for THC levels in DUI cases or is it simply if it's found in your bloodstream at all your guilty? I also read somewhere that there are breathalizer type tests that can tell if a person has smoked marijuana within the last few hours...if these tests exists, why do they not use them?

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

I just found this scientific study called the Marijuana Policy Project. I included a couple of quotes to see if by chance any of this could be of use to my husband during his case.

[url=http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-how.html]Marijuana and DUI Laws: How Can We Best Guard Against Impaired Driving?[/url]

Sure, if you can get one of the qualified doctors that performed the study to testify on your behalf. The court will want the opinion of a qualified medical expert, not the 37 seconds of research performed by the defendants wife to get him out of a DUI.

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

Given that he smoked one bowl, which is equivelent to approximately half the amount of marijuana that a joint uses, sixteen hours prior to being arrested, according to the study it would appear that the levels of THC would be too low to cause any type of impairment. If this is true, then would the DUI be unconvictable seeing as it would also prove that he was NOT impaired by any substance at that time?

Again, the study will be helpful if you can produce the funds to compensate the doctors that performed the study to testify on your behalf. According to the laws of Arizona your husband was impared at the time.

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

I also found this quote:



This sounds like it is common for people who are completely sober at the time of their arrest to be convicted simply for having traces left in their system from hours or even days before, even though they do not have nearly enough metabolytes in their system to cause any type of impairment.

I'm sorry where did you get your PHD from again?

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

If someone drinks the night before, and is pulled over the next night after work, they are not arrested because they have traces of alchohol in their system. From the studies I have read online, the effects of drinking impair a person far more than the effects of smoking (of course this is all depending on the amount of either). Why is it that a person can be considered still impaired over 15 hours after smoking two hits of marijuana but a person who drank an entire 18 pack 15 hours before is considered fine? I know that this may be slightly off subject but I feel that it seems relevent to the case. As the study quoted above shows, there should be no possibility of a person being still impaired from marijuana that many hours later and yet they can still be arrested for having it in their system (because it takes up 45 days to completely leave your system).

If their BAC is still above the legal limit then they are considered legally impared. Alcohol is different then marijuana because alcohol is not illegal.

Originally Posted by azhelpneeded

Is there some sort of level guidelines for THC levels in DUI cases or is it simply if it's found in your bloodstream at all your guilty? I also read somewhere that there are breathalizer type tests that can tell if a person has smoked marijuana within the last few hours...if these tests exists, why do they not use them?

It appears as though any amount is sufficient. Bloodtests are much more reliable.

[justalayman]

=azhelpneeded;2287364]
So it sounds as if it's going to come down to his word against the officer's. He states that the officer himself never told him why he was being pulled over. He did tell him why he was being arrested but never gave a reason as to why he was pulled over. He was told by another officer when he left jail the next day that the officer had said that he had been pulled over for failing to stop when pulling out of the parking lot

.so now you are going to change the story. Typical.

So my question now is, by Arizona driving law, does it state anywhere that a motorist MUST come to a complete stop when exiting a parking lot if there are little or no cars on the road that he was pulling onto?

[url=http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp]Arizona Revised Statutes[/url]

Stating of course, that the reason he was told was the reason that the officer states in his report. And if it does state that and there is no law stating that he had to stop, would it be fair to say that it there was no technical reason for the officer to have pulled him over?

we weren't there. Maybe there were other reasons, maybe not.

Given that he smoked one bowl, which is equivelent to approximately half the amount of marijuana that a joint uses, sixteen hours prior to being arrested, according to the study it would appear that the levels of THC would be too low to cause any type of impairment. If this is true, then would the DUI be unconvictable seeing as it would also prove that he was NOT impaired by any substance at that time?

You don't read very well, do you?

I even copied the applicable law. It says nothing about any specific level of impairment of level of drug in the body. It says:

A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances

:

3. While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body.

that means that if there is any positive test on a drug screen, he is guilty. It has nothing to do with impairment. Impairment is not a requirement to be charged with the statute.


contact an attorney to see about the failure to stop. If that is the ONLY justification for the stop, then he may have a chance to get this tossed.

suing the officer or the force is an entirely different matter though and is not even worth considering unless he walks away from these charges completely due to the improper detention.

so, half a mil $ later when the SCOTUS decides this, let us know how it turns out.

[Zigner]

And, AGAIN I ask: If there was "no traffic" on the road, where did the police officer come from?

Perhaps your hubby missed him, thus failing to yield?

[proud_parent]

Originally Posted by Zigner

And, AGAIN I ask: If there was "no traffic" on the road, where did the police officer come from?

Perhaps your hubby missed him, thus failing to yield?

Or perhaps there is a sidewalk crossing the business's driveway.

Arizona Revised Statutes §28-856 Emerging from alley, driveway or building

The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway or building within a business or residence district shall:

1. Stop the vehicle immediately before driving onto a sidewalk or onto the sidewalk area extending across any alleyway or private driveway.

2. Yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian as necessary to avoid collision.

3. On entering the roadway, yield the right-of-way to all closely approaching vehicles on the roadway.

[url=http://law.justia.com/arizona/codes/title28/00856.html]

[CdwJava]

You missed the point of the DUI entirely.

To make an arrest for DUI the officer has to have probable cause to believe that the driver is operating a motor vehicle while impaired on drugs or alcohol. Depending on the officer's level of training and experience in DUIs this may or may not be an easy burden of proof for the state. The chemical test goes to confirm that impairment but does not prove it.

Merely having proof of THC in the blood (or alcohol, for that matter) does not prove DUI (unless the BAC is .08 or higher for alcohol). The DUI must be shown by impairment unless AZ makes it a crime to drive with any proof of THC in the blood (and I do not believe this is the case).

So, at trial, the officer will have to articulate his reasonable supicion for the detention and probable cause for the arrest. Both will be independent of his chemical test.

- Carl