marijuana dui

[hdjx20]

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

My brother was stopped for a burned out license plate light and the officer informed him there was a smell of marijuana in the car. he was given a sobriety test and passed every part of it. he informed the officer that marijuana was smoked in the car and was placed under arrest but not read the miranda rights. can what he said be used against him in court? and how can they prove he was actually driving high with a blood test doesnt marijuana stay in your system for x amount of days? also this was a friends car and a pipe was found in the glove box that belonged to the owner of the vehicle that he was unaware of. he was also charged for paraphernalia. their was no search warrant either. is he out of luck with it all?

 

[CdwJava]

My brother was stopped for a burned out license plate light and the officer informed him there was a smell of marijuana in the car.

So the detention (the traffic stop) was based upon a valid reason, and then the officer smelled the odor of an unlawful and impairing substance which gave rise to reasonable suspicion to expand the detention.

he was given a sobriety test and passed every part of it. he informed the officer that marijuana was smoked in the car and was placed under arrest

If he "passed" every part of it then he would not have been arrested for DUI. Clearly he did not "pass." Officers frequently tell suspects they are "doing fine" or "okay" while conducting the evaluations. All because the officer made those comments does NOT mean that the officer believed your brother was not impaired.

If the officer made an arrest for DUI without the articulable probable cause to believe that he was, in fact, operating a motor vehicle while impaired, then your brother will not only prevail in court but he would likely have a nice claim for false arrest against the officer and agency. I doubt that is the case.

but not read the miranda rights. can what he said be used against him in court?

Only those statements made AFTER he was arrested and made as a result of the officer's interrogation. Standard booking questions and the like are not generally covered under Miranda.

Only about 1 in 10 arrests will ever require Miranda.

and how can they prove he was actually driving high with a blood test doesnt marijuana stay in your system for x amount of days?

That depends on the test they use and the concentration found in his system. His admission of use coupled with the odor of marijuana, his performance on the FSTs, and the presence of the metabolites by THC in his blood or urine will likely be sufficient for a conviction.

Driving baked is still DUI.

also this was a friends car and a pipe was found in the glove box that belonged to the owner of the vehicle that he was unaware of. he was also charged for paraphernalia. their was no search warrant either. is he out of luck with it all?

He might be able to argue that the pipe wasn't his ... but, he had to smoke the dope somehow. He better hope a roach was found in the car or the pipe suddenly becomes the likely tool.

He needs to consult legal counsel ASAP.

 

[hdjx20]

thanks for clarifying some things up. so only what he said after the arrest can be used in court right? and if in fact every part of the sobriety test was passed would that mean anything to him? or all that really matters is the result of the blood test from here on out? and he had not smoked in the car apparently it was earlier in the day at home.

 

[CdwJava]

thanks for clarifying some things up. so only what he said after the arrest can be used in court right?

No. Miranda applies when both custody AND interrogation occurs. At the time of the FSTs, he was only detained. Had he been handcuffed or restrained with the amount of force equivalent to a custodial arrest, then a Miranda issue might apply. That is not the case in typical DUI arrests.

and if in fact every part of the sobriety test was passed would that mean anything to him?

It could mean an unlawful arrest. However, I suspect that the report will reflect observations that give rise to suspicion of DUI.

or all that really matters is the result of the blood test from here on out? and he had not smoked in the car apparently it was earlier in the day at home.

When he smoked is not as important as his impairment. Certainly an admission to smoking that day will play into the situation because it shows - by his own admission - that he consumed marijuana. Coupled with the odor, his admission, the FSTs, the pipe, and a positive test, he's pretty much left with the hope of a plea deal that offers diversion.

 

[hdjx20]

thanks, just to clarify, alright so everything he said can and will be used against him in court?

 

[CdwJava]

thanks, just to clarify, alright so everything he said can and will be used against him in court?

More than likely, yes. (Unless stated AFTER the arrest as a result of interrogation by the officer.)

 

[hdjx20]

thanks though

 

[jshergert]

My marijuana dui

In my state, WI, the police do not have to show that you have been smoking or are impaired. I was pulled over after only having one drink at a friends house (absolute truth, .03 BAC). He said my car looked like a car which was recently involved in a hit and run, although that car was supposed to have damage on the back and mine did not. He smelled alcohol so he took me for a blood test for that simple reason. I passed field sobriety tests and was given a blood test which came back THC. There was no marijuana in the car or used by me for at least 3 days before this.. My lawyer, the DA, and the judge all explained to me that all they have to prove for a controlled substances DUI in the detectable presence of a controlled substance in your blood. Your level of intoxication if any whatsoever is irrelevant. I fought and lost with an attorney and was convicted for DWI-drugs THC with absolutely no evidence presented that I was driving a vehicle impaired at any time. Even in the police report it claims I did well on the field sobriety tests and was cooroperative and respectful and did not seem impaired (did not slur, did not have red eyes, nothing like that.)

Not only do they only have to provide report saying you did drugs, in my case the standard of prosecution was "clear and convincing" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" so I was deprived of what I feel is my right. My experience has been ridiculous, nobody cares about the facts, the police officer who arrested me stole many small items from me, including the back of my phone, 20 dollars and a zippo lighter, my lawyer did not either know the law or lied when I hired him or else I would not have fought this case which an easy reading of the statute would show to be nearly impossible. The police all worked together, someone made a clerical error that I was arrested at 730 but in reality I was arrested at 530. The police made all of the reports and when the blood was drawn and put in times which matched their timeline, even though I had proof that I was picked up by family before the police would admit I was transported to the station (at 7:45) and was smoking at home by the time they said took my blood (I had 2 witnesses, one who picked me up and my friend came by). Their testimoney did not make a difference. I just wanted you to know for your self that law enforcement will frame you and hit you with everything they can and then lie about it in court. Good luck

 

[CdwJava]

In my state, WI, the police do not have to show that you have been smoking or are impaired.

For a DUI/DWI? Absolutely they do.

I was pulled over after only having one drink at a friends house (absolute fact, .03 BAC). He smelled alcohol so he took me for a blood test for that simple reason. I passed field sobriety tests and was given a blood test which came back THC.

If you were ARRESTED without probable cause to believe you had committed an offense, than the arrest was unlawful and you may well have won the lawsuit lottery. I suspect, however, that the officer's report reflects his observations that allowed him to form the opinion you were impaired. As such, I doubt that the officer will agree with you that you "passed" the FSTs.

My lawyer, the DA, and the judge all explained to me that all they have to prove for a controlled substances DUI in the detectable presence of a controlled substance in your blood.

That is because WI statute 346.63 makes it a crime to drive with any detectable amount of a controlled substance in your system EXCEPT for THC metabolites. Though they do apparently test for THC-9 which is not a metabolite. I cannot say whether that includes even trace amounts, or whether that includes a positive test over a specific concentration cutoff.

Even in the police report it claims I did well on the field sobriety tests and was cooroperative and respectful and did not seem impaired (did not slur, did not have red eyes, nothing like that.)

Then why were you arrested and taken for a chemical test (mandated AFTER an arrest)? Clearly the officer felt you were impaired, or was able to articulate some reason to believe you were operating a vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance.