DUI to the slightest degree

[growves]

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

I was driving back to California from Arizona on I10 where i got pulled over in a city called Salome Arizona. When the cop came up to my window and told me that they clocked me in 85 miles per hour via airplane, he asked for my info and before walking away he asked my why my car smells of weed. I replied saying i do not know officer, i do not have any weed in the car. So he asked me to sit and wait while he ran my info. As he was running my info another cop pulls up and they talk a little and he cops and asks me to step out the car. So i step out, he asks to search me, and fines nothing. He then begins to search the car. Which is when he finds my weed pipe and this is when i tell him im a medical marijuana patient. He asked to see it, i showed him the card he looked at it for a sec and then tossed both my pipe and my card back into my car. He then asked me if i had smoked today and i answered saying, i had smoked at 6 am and then fall back to sleep woke up around 11:30 am took a shower got my stuff together and left to California without smoking. So i wasn't high at all. He replied with an okay, and time for the field test. He first took my heart rate and kept asking me why my heart rate is so fast. All i said was because i just got pulled over im on the side of the road and its just a little scary. He asked me to follow the tip of his pen with my eyes only and i believe that was it. He then said he is arresting me for being impaired to the slightest degree. So i got my car towed taken to the office, where they tried to take a blood sample to test fir drugs. However they were unsuccessful in obtaining enough blood to test. About 2 hours after getting pulled over i was released to my sister and charged with dui drugs to the slightest degree. I am scheduled to appear by phone on the 21st of july for a pre-trail hearing. Is there any help, suggestions, comments, questions, or advice anyone can give me? I need help i don't know what to do

 

[HighwayMan]

"DUI drugs to the slightest degree" - is that the actual charge? What is it with you and "slightest degree"? Either it is or it isn't.

Seriously, you need an attorney. Period.

 

[CdwJava]

About all we can advise you is to engage in attorney.

Also, as a note for future reference: Marijuana reeks. It smells. A pipe has that odor, if you smoked earlier in the day, YOU have that odor, if you smoked in your car any time within days, your car likely reeks, and if you smoked in the clothes you are wearing, THEY likely reek (many users wear the same jackets and sweaters and are surprised that people think they smell like dope when they haven't smoked in a couple of days).

The unsmoked weed smells as does the resin in a bowl. The odor is usually sufficient to support a search in most states.

 

[dave33]

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

I was driving back to California from Arizona on I10 where i got pulled over in a city called Salome Arizona. When the cop came up to my window and told me that they clocked me in 85 miles per hour via airplane, he asked for my info and before walking away he asked my why my car smells of weed. I replied saying i do not know officer, i do not have any weed in the car. So he asked me to sit and wait while he ran my info. As he was running my info another cop pulls up and they talk a little and he cops and asks me to step out the car. So i step out, he asks to search me, and fines nothing. He then begins to search the car. Which is when he finds my weed pipe and this is when i tell him im a medical marijuana patient. He asked to see it, i showed him the card he looked at it for a sec and then tossed both my pipe and my card back into my car. He then asked me if i had smoked today and i answered saying, i had smoked at 6 am and then fall back to sleep woke up around 11:30 am took a shower got my stuff together and left to California without smoking. So i wasn't high at all. He replied with an okay, and time for the field test. He first took my heart rate and kept asking me why my heart rate is so fast. All i said was because i just got pulled over im on the side of the road and its just a little scary. He asked me to follow the tip of his pen with my eyes only and i believe that was it. He then said he is arresting me for being impaired to the slightest degree. So i got my car towed taken to the office, where they tried to take a blood sample to test fir drugs. However they were unsuccessful in obtaining enough blood to test. About 2 hours after getting pulled over i was released to my sister and charged with dui drugs to the slightest degree. I am scheduled to appear by phone on the 21st of july for a pre-trail hearing. Is there any help, suggestions, comments, questions, or advice anyone can give me? I need help i don't know what to do

There are a few things here that do not make sense to me, although I am not familiar with Arizona it still seems strange...

How could they not get enough blood to test?
"slightest degree"?
Pre-trial by phone?
He took your heart rate?
It seems to me he is busting your chops.

My only advice at this point is plead not guilty. goodluck.

 

[TigerD]

There are a few things here that do not make sense to me, although I am not familiar with Arizona it still seems strange...

How could they not get enough blood to test?
"slightest degree"?
Pre-trial by phone?
He took your heart rate?
It seems to me he is busting your chops.

My only advice at this point is plead not guilty. goodluck.

It sounds like an untrained officer playing DRE, which is some straight up voo-doo crap when they are "trained".
OP needs an attorney.

TD

 

[Just Blue]

It sounds like an untrained officer playing DRE, which is some straight up voo-doo crap when they are "trained".
OP needs an attorney.

TD

Sorry if this is a dumb question...But what is "DRE"?

 

[TigerD]

Sorry if this is a dumb question...But what is "DRE"?

Drug recognition expert. The law enforcement equivalent of using leeches to rid a patient of bad blood.

TD

 

[Just Blue]

Drug recognition expert. The law enforcement equivalent of using leeches to rid a patient of bad blood.

TD

Ahhh...Thanks!!

 

[Silverplum]

"DUI drugs to the slightest degree" - is that the actual charge? What is it with you and "slightest degree"? Either it is or it isn't.

Seriously, you need an attorney. Period.

I thought the same when I saw this thread earlier, so I looked it up. Yes, that's the name of a charge in AZ.

 

[CdwJava]

Drug recognition expert. The law enforcement equivalent of using leeches to rid a patient of bad blood.

TD

Hardly! It's actually quite involved, requires continued training and recertification, and is based upon scientific evidence and constantly evaluated and refined. Clearly you do not understand the program.

Oh, yeah - I'm DRE trained. We don't know whether the contacting officers were or not, but, it does not take a DRE (or even DAR - sort of a mini DRE) officer to make an evaluation for drugged driving.

 

[dave33]

Hardly! It's actually quite involved, requires continued training and recertification, and is based upon scientific evidence and constantly evaluated and refined. Clearly you do not understand the program.

Oh, yeah - I'm DRE trained. We don't know whether the contacting officers were or not, but, it does not take a DRE (or even DAR - sort of a mini DRE) officer to make an evaluation for drugged driving.

Cut it out Carl, you're not trying to convince a high school auditorium. I think everyone or almost everyone has enough experience to know this is a technique that is abused to the fullest extent. We both know if the officer thought the o.p. had any resources than he would have been on his way. No evidence? Except of course the officers word?

"Training and re-certification"? "Scientific evidence constantly evaluated and refined"? Really? What a croc. What a bunch of wasted resources. If you need Albert Einstein to determine whether or not the o.p. is impaired, maybe he's o.k. to drive.... Holy Toledo!!! What a novel idea.

I would also like to say that I mean no disrespect to you personally. This is just a subject that has spun out of control and is a perfect example of law enforcement doing more damage than good.

 

[CdwJava]

Cut it out Carl, you're not trying to convince a high school auditorium.

Given some responses here, I sometimes wonder.

I think everyone or almost everyone has enough experience to know this is a technique that is abused to the fullest extent.

Sorry to hear that some people are that uninformed.

We both know if the officer thought the o.p. had any resources than he would have been on his way. No evidence? Except of course the officers word?

What?? So, you are saying that if the OP had been driving high but appeared to have money he'd have been on his way? And you base this assumption on ... what?

"Training and re-certification"? "Scientific evidence constantly evaluated and refined"? Really? What a croc.

So, you DO NOT know anything about it. Gotcha.

What a bunch of wasted resources. If you need Albert Einstein to determine whether or not the o.p. is impaired, maybe he's o.k. to drive.... Holy Toledo!!! What a novel idea.

Nope. Albert Einstein would not have been qualified to conduct even a DUI evaluation.

And, as I said, you don't need to be DRE or even DAR certified to conduct a DUI evaluation. It helps! So much so that in many jurisdictions the courts will use the DRE evaluation and expert testimony as proof alone - even without a chemical test.

I would also like to say that I mean no disrespect to you personally. This is just a subject that has spun out of control and is a perfect example of law enforcement doing more damage than good.

Yeah ... dang it when we get impaired drivers off the road! How dare we!

You seem to be advocating for officers being less qualified to make these evaluations rather than more qualified. Yes, the political impetus has been to pursue MORE training, not less. And since there are no effective roadside chemical tests for marijuana impairment, the push in many states such as CO and WA is for enhanced training in an attempt to identify drug impaired drivers so that an arrest could be made and a chemical test mandated. In CA they have seen such an increase in drugged driving that they are pushing DRE and related training big time to combat the increase in such driving. Most officers are not as comfortable doing a drug DUI evaluation (more of a psychological fear than anything else). With training comes the confidence to make the call that might be necessary.

 

[dave33]

Given some responses here, I sometimes wonder.


Sorry to hear that some people are that uninformed.


What?? So, you are saying that if the OP had been driving high but appeared to have money he'd have been on his way? And you base this assumption on ... what?


So, you DO NOT know anything about it. Gotcha.


Nope. Albert Einstein would not have been qualified to conduct even a DUI evaluation.

And, as I said, you don't need to be DRE or even DAR certified to conduct a DUI evaluation. It helps! So much so that in many jurisdictions the courts will use the DRE evaluation and expert testimony as proof alone - even without a chemical test.


Yeah ... dang it when we get impaired drivers off the road! How dare we!

You seem to be advocating for officers being less qualified to make these evaluations rather than more qualified. Yes, the political impetus has been to pursue MORE training, not less. And since there are no effective roadside chemical tests for marijuana impairment, the push in many states such as CO and WA is for enhanced training in an attempt to identify drug impaired drivers so that an arrest could be made and a chemical test mandated. In CA they have seen such an increase in drugged driving that they are pushing DRE and related training big time to combat the increase in such driving. Most officers are not as comfortable doing a drug DUI evaluation (more of a psychological fear than anything else). With training comes the confidence to make the call that might be necessary.

1. Although in this case it is an assumption, it's common for people with obvious means to be treated differently than people without. The examples of this in the criminal justice system is endless. This is a weak case with no evidence but the officers observations.
2. Unfortunately and I mean unfortunately I know quite a bit about it. I also know that there can be several reasons for behaviors and appearances. A lot of money spent to talk about red eyes, nervousness, and the Always used smell and slurred speech. I know, it takes months and thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to "train" an officer to detect the not so obvious. Although it could be drug use or genetics or stress or light sensitivity or a million other things. Oh yeah, of course it could be nothing at all. Of course an officer can never admit this. I mean why not take easy money. Who's gonna admit their job is probably right sometime.
3. Genius or no, an evaluation of impairment is common sense with some experience mixed in.
4. I'm just not convinced he was impaired. The way the laws are now, an officer can wait outside any bar and arrest everyone who leaves. If you get behind the wheel it's a d.u.i. or a d.w.i. depends what state and if not if the officer is in a bad mood than public intoxication. No evidence needed if you are without resources. The officers know about the stiff max. sentences and also know how to fill out the paperwork for the strongest case. The actual facts seem to take a back seat to a strong case.

The DREADED camera. Why go through all the training and all the blah, blah, blah when you can just equip every cop with a body cam? Why are the cops fighting against this so hard? I mean truth and justice is the ultimate goal, right? If a cop is honest than why not get everything recorded? The thing is Carl, is that we all know why.

 

[Zigner]

Watch that step down from your soapbox...

1. Although in this case it is an assumption, it's common for people with obvious means to be treated differently than people without. The examples of this in the criminal justice system is endless. This is a weak case with no evidence but the officers observations.
2. Unfortunately and I mean unfortunately I know quite a bit about it. I also know that there can be several reasons for behaviors and appearances. A lot of money spent to talk about red eyes, nervousness, and the Always used smell and slurred speech. I know, it takes months and thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to "train" an officer to detect the not so obvious. Although it could be drug use or genetics or stress or light sensitivity or a million other things. Oh yeah, of course it could be nothing at all. Of course an officer can never admit this. I mean why not take easy money. Who's gonna admit their job is probably right sometime.
3. Genius or no, an evaluation of impairment is common sense with some experience mixed in.
4. I'm just not convinced he was impaired. The way the laws are now, an officer can wait outside any bar and arrest everyone who leaves. If you get behind the wheel it's a d.u.i. or a d.w.i. depends what state and if not if the officer is in a bad mood than public intoxication. No evidence needed if you are without resources. The officers know about the stiff max. sentences and also know how to fill out the paperwork for the strongest case. The actual facts seem to take a back seat to a strong case.

The DREADED camera. Why go through all the training and all the blah, blah, blah when you can just equip every cop with a body cam? Why are the cops fighting against this so hard? I mean truth and justice is the ultimate goal, right? If a cop is honest than why not get everything recorded? The thing is Carl, is that we all know why.

 

[dave33]

Watch that step down from your soapbox...

I may need a hand down, this morning my eyes are red and am a bit sluggish. I must be impaired.