hi5inferno
Junior Member
What is the name of your state?tn
okay so back in nov. i got pulled over speeding..given a fst told i was drunk..arrested..then wife was arrested also for allowing me to drive drunk..got a blood test taken..go to court first time and test wasnt finished so i got a continuance.. go back again a month later and the alcohol test came up under the limit... im wondering about the drug test for drugs now..i went to a party like 2 weeks before and smoked up..im alittle worried. im just wondering how they distinguish the difference if at all in terms of drugs in the system and if its arguable in court.? and whether my lawyer should have even allowed for the test to be allowed in the first place.. i just want to make sure that im not getting railroaded..it seems sort of a catch 22 really.marijuana leaves the blood in 3 days or so it shouldnt show.. im just wondering how the courts allow that flaw in the law at all? i can see how it is useful, but it is also a sort of trap in a way to get you on something else..if the state tests me for alcohol and the troopers intentions were such that he gives me a test for alcohol, how can drug use a couple of days earlier be applied to the b.a.c test? they cant prove that i smoked the night i was pulled over, only that drugs are in your system.they can prove you are drunk but not high..see what i mean.. anyways thanks.
okay so back in nov. i got pulled over speeding..given a fst told i was drunk..arrested..then wife was arrested also for allowing me to drive drunk..got a blood test taken..go to court first time and test wasnt finished so i got a continuance.. go back again a month later and the alcohol test came up under the limit... im wondering about the drug test for drugs now..i went to a party like 2 weeks before and smoked up..im alittle worried. im just wondering how they distinguish the difference if at all in terms of drugs in the system and if its arguable in court.? and whether my lawyer should have even allowed for the test to be allowed in the first place.. i just want to make sure that im not getting railroaded..it seems sort of a catch 22 really.marijuana leaves the blood in 3 days or so it shouldnt show.. im just wondering how the courts allow that flaw in the law at all? i can see how it is useful, but it is also a sort of trap in a way to get you on something else..if the state tests me for alcohol and the troopers intentions were such that he gives me a test for alcohol, how can drug use a couple of days earlier be applied to the b.a.c test? they cant prove that i smoked the night i was pulled over, only that drugs are in your system.they can prove you are drunk but not high..see what i mean.. anyways thanks.