Risk of being pulled over

[Vaked420]

I live in Washington where we are recreationally legal, but that also means a 5 ng/ml limit is in place. First off I have no idea what it takes to be legal or not. At least with alcohol there's 10,000 videos online of people drinking till they're at .08, but I have no idea what "sober enough" in terms of the law is for me.

As for me I always gauge it like anything else. I feel out how I'm feeling and for the most part, I vape medically and only to be buzzed and it's mostly through the day so my levels are usually pretty low, but I have no clue, am I at risk all day every day or am I never really even above the limit?

But even besides that my question is, what is a police officer capable of doing if they pull me over? I can tend to have a stereotypical stoner look when I don't try not to, but what are they able to do? I usually don't have weed with me in the car and when I do I'm not vaping it in the car so there's never a smell and it's usually sealed away in my backpack. I rarely have red eyes, but are they able to say hey you look stoned and pull me out of the car and give me a blood test? Cotton swab? Take me in to get me tested? Wtf! I don't want a DUI for just trying to live my life...

Also side note I do my best to be the safest driver I can be and do my best to accurately tell myself whether I feel safe to drive. There are plenty of times where I don't drive or wait it out because I'm too stoned, I just have no idea how my idea of not too stoned aligns with a legal blood test...

 

[nondarb]

what is a police officer capable of doing if they pull me over?

Taking you to jail for DWI if he can for any reason tell you're medicated. Same as if you were prescribed xanax or other anxiety medications and went out intoxicated.

They have oral tests now that essentially test whether you have consumed recently but I'm unsure on specifics on this newer test. I have a DWI from years ago, there was two guys in the same boat for herb. The gist is don't get "stoned" before driving, the gap between lightly medicated and stoned as a shithouse rat is a wide one but I don't suggest pushing the envelope..

 

[Tranquility]

I live in Washington where we are recreationally legal, but that also means a 5 ng/ml limit is in place. First off I have no idea what it takes to be legal or not. At least with alcohol there's 10,000 videos online of people drinking till they're at .08, but I have no idea what "sober enough" in terms of the law is for me.

The government seems heading towards zero tolerance for DUI and they don't have an interest in showing people what sober enough to drive is. (The excuse is that there is NO level of use that is safe.)

As for me I always gauge it like anything else. I feel out how I'm feeling and for the most part, I vape medically and only to be buzzed and it's mostly through the day so my levels are usually pretty low, but I have no clue, am I at risk all day every day or am I never really even above the limit?

The structure of penalties and incentives want you to err on the side of not driving.

But even besides that my question is, what is a police officer capable of doing if they pull me over? I can tend to have a stereotypical stoner look when I don't try not to, but what are they able to do? I usually don't have weed with me in the car and when I do I'm not vaping it in the car so there's never a smell and it's usually sealed away in my backpack. I rarely have red eyes, but are they able to say hey you look stoned and pull me out of the car and give me a blood test? Cotton swab? Take me in to get me tested? Wtf! I don't want a DUI for just trying to live my life...

Each state is different; as are the facts of the situation. Police can do many things, depending on the situation. "Looking like a stoner" can be used as a data point in regards to the totality of the circumstances required to have the police be able to reasonably detain, search or arrest. While the look of a stoner alone is probably not enough for a search, I remember reading a case where a rear view mirror with many deodorant hangings was considered enough for a search when combined with the nervousness of the driver. (Really unusual right? A driver who was pulled over is being nervous. Or, not being nervous--figure that out.)

"Plain smell" has often been approved by the courts in a similar fashion of plain sight or plain feel. If the officer can immediately identify the sense as being associated with contraband, that is probable cause for a search. (Some courts will say it is merely a seizure and not go through a probable cause analysis.) Make sure your "never smell" is a reality.

Most any report by the police for a DUI arrest is going to have some description of the suspect's eyes. Something like, "As we talked, Vaked420, displayed bloodshot and watery eyes and had a strong order of marijuana emanating from his clothes and person." True or not, the state of the arestee's eyes will be noted.

If the police have probable cause to believe you have been driving and are under the influence, they can arrest you. Often, to build up the case, they will continue to "investigate" with the tactics of field sobriety tests (FST's) and the use of the device carried by the individual officer. Submitting to those are voluntary. However, understand that if you refuse, most cops will find they already "formed the opinion" you were under the influence of drugs or alcohol while driving and arrest you.

Once arrested, you must submit to chemical testing under the implied consent regime. Failure to do so will give you civil penalties and a pejorative instruction at trial. At least one state that increased penalties for failure has had the statute be declared unconstitutional so the change criminal penalties increase with a refusal may be lessening in the U.S. As to if a refusal will result in you suffering a forced blood draw depends on the jurisdiction, facts and the state of the law. Generally, the police need a warrant to tie you down and take your body fluids. Not always. And, when set up properly, getting a telephonic warrant for easy to describe facts and situations is not that hard. While police don't go down that path much, they go down it sometimes. Once arrested and brought to the station, you have the duty to provide answers to general identifying questions in a normal booking procedure. Failure to do so will lead to an additional obstruction-type charge.

Also side note I do my best to be the safest driver I can be and do my best to accurately tell myself whether I feel safe to drive. There are plenty of times where I don't drive or wait it out because I'm too stoned, I just have no idea how my idea of not too stoned aligns with a legal blood test...

Pro tip: If stopped, avoid this line of thinking and, for God's sake, say nothing like it to anyone. In law jargon, that might be called an "admission".

 

[cannabis.pro]

Best to know your rights during a law enforcement encounter. Never tell them anything and always best to answer their questions politely with a question rather than an answer.

In terms of driving, it is best to have all cannabis related paraphernalia in the trunk of your car, nothing in the drivers compartment within reach. Never give consent to a search. Don't smoke/vape while driving.

Trying to convict a cannabis related DUID should be hard especially if you are a medical patient and have that status vs. an adult use (recreational) consumer.

The limits and thresholds are bullshit and the "cop" mentality of relating cannabis consumption to alcohol in terms of a magic number is unfounded and detrimental to consumers. It's best to act like it is still illegal in a law enforcement situation but also important to not incriminate yourself by lying to the police.

A good code to live by is "One crime at a time". Never give up your right to privacy, never consent to a search. If you are under arrest, never talk to the police, only your lawyer. Magic words "I'm invoking my right to remain silent and wish to speak to my attorney." If law enforcement has the need to search your vehicle, they aren't going to ask permission.

Here is a good resource for this type of stuff:
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/law_enforcement_encounters_know_your_rights

 

[invertedisdead]

If you live near Cauli4nia there is enough armed and dangerous police officers on the road to give you a small anxiety attack just leaving your driveway. I have heard some come to your driver door already with puppies just to ask for L&R.

As always the best thing to do is avoid getting pulled over.

So floor it.


But seriously gang, stay safe out there. Be polite, respectful, courteous, and most importantly know the law better than them.

 

[Tranquility]

If law enforcement has the need to search your vehicle, they aren't going to ask permission.

Actually, they almost always do. They love relying on consent over trying to prove probable cause.

 

[nondarb]

Trying to convict a cannabis related DUID should be hard especially if you are a medical patient and have that status vs. an adult use (recreational) consumer.

It's just as easy as getting a DUI under the influence of other prescribed medications (extremely.). The medicinal factor holds no water in this instance, inebriation does.

 

[Tranquility]

I just saw the video of an FST of a person who was arrested, tested and found to have no drugs or alcohol in her blood. (The city has not dropped charges as yet.) When I look at the video, I don't think there is trained officer who would not believe the driver is under the influence based on the FST. The errors she makes are obvious.

Because she tested clean, I suspect she will not be convicted. However, I also suspect she will not be able to make the case she was arrested without probable cause.

http://www.crimejunkie.com/index.ph...rested-groped-dashcam-tells-whole-story/#2774

 

[Tranquility]

That quacked me up! Cuff her boys!

Since she proved completely innocent I hope she gets off 100%. But seriously, the young lady needs to watch the video of herself so she can see why she was arrested.

So, when they get you out of the car and start describing the first FST:

"Just say No."

 

[cannabis.pro]

It's just as easy as getting a DUI under the influence of other prescribed medications (extremely.). The medicinal factor holds no water in this instance, inebriation does.

If you are a medical patient who consumes edibles regularly and/or has a high tolerance these numbers pulled out of the sky are just that in terms of impaired or not impaired. Obviously it depends on the locality and laws, but I'm sure there are lawyers and experts out there working to set precedent to overturn bad laws. Notice I said "trying to convict"
http://www.duifortcollins.com/not-g...e-influence-of-marijuana-case-in-record-time/

 

[herbivore21]

That quacked me up! Cuff her boys!

Since she proved completely innocent I hope she gets off 100%. But seriously, the young lady needs to watch the video of herself so she can see why she was arrested.

Man I gotta say, what if she was disabled somehow and this caused her to be poorly coordinated. The major problem with FST is that it discriminates against those who have problems with shit like walking in a straight line because of disability, by leaving them subject to a negative judgement by an LEO based on their symptoms. This is even worse when we consider that some relevant conditions cause secondary anxiety and sometimes even difficulty for the individual in communicating that they have a condition!

The average level of blood found in a human being (in a metric measurement in keeping with the original figure) is 5 litres, or 5000ml. 5ng/ml of blood = .005mg/L of blood. The fact that the limit is set at .5ng/ml tells us this is equivalent to a total limit of .025mg of THC in a human being with the average 5L of it. That is next to nothing. The transfer efficiency of THC according to scholarly studies (some shared around FC) suggest that one small sized dab could surpass this threshold.

Chances are, by this rule, most of you could be found to be over the legal limit of THC to drive in Washington.

EDITED FOR A CONVERSION ERROR.

 

[Tranquility]

...but it is unlikely you will fail a FST if you are at all coherent. I have had three and I was baked everytime and passed them all with flying colors. I think it all comes down to if you can pass the FST. What other way could the police do it other that a FST?

The main thing the standard FST is trying to discern is intoxication from alcohol. That's where all the studies and statistics are in regards to reliability. Sometimes, other drugs affect some of the functions tested too, but that is not the focus of the test.

I could certainly see how marijuana intoxication would not show up on the FST if the person is "at all coherent" as marijuana does not cause the divided attention impairment of alcohol. Also, marijuana is not usually associated with the nystagmus (The...bouncing...of the eye when looking to the side.) and tracking issues associated with alcohol.

But if the officer has some reason to think you are under the influence of something and his "investigation" does not lead him to think of alcohol, where will his thoughts lead next?

As to the other ways, there are roadside tests coming out where a swab can tell. There is an specialty in law enforcement called a "Drug Recognition Expert" that is an additional training in ways to further test and discriminate between various sources of intoxication. Some states are also trying to "Bridge the Gap" between the standardized field sobriety test and calling out one of the specialists with advanced roadside impairment driving enforcement (ARIDE) training. A good article is at:
http://www.jrandslaw.com/dui-laws/aride/

 

[herbivore21]

Good point but she would have had to make her disability clear to the officer giving the FST. I mean she was obviously speaking very well and could have said. Wait a minute I have a disability.

Still it is fun to create scenarios that didn't happen to banter around.

Actually man, what I said was that some conditions lead somebody in a stressful situation to be unable to express that they have a disability at all, or in a socially acceptable way that won't lead to more trouble. I am looking specifically at a number of neurological conditions. I am not saying this is definitely the case, what I am saying is that you don't know the exact scenario either and this leaves the possibility of laughing at somebody with a health condition which I'm sure you wouldn't mean to do bro.

People with neurological conditions often come across as incoherent (and sometimes inconsistently so!) to those whose brains function in the usual ways. There are some such conditions that could leave somebody's speech sounding quite coherent until a neurological sticking point is reached in the interaction (raising one's own condition to a stranger, when symptoms of this condition have routinely lead to difficulties with others is profoundly challenging for some). These conditions do not necessarily mean that the person in question is not safe to drive. All I am saying is that many who have such conditions are legally allowed to drive, but may still have problems in this LEO situation.

Just wanting to see a little more understanding that not everyone is in the same situation out there in the world brother. Not looking to point score or argue