Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Bennyboy

(10,440 posts)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:28 PM Dec 2012

So it all begins: DWI for pot even though driver not at fault.... [View all]

I-502 In Action: Cops Say Driver 'Technically At Fault' Because He Had THC In His System

Before Washington state "marijuana legalization" Initiative 502 passed last month, some in the community, Toke of the Town included, publicly worried about the fallout from the measure's section on driving under the influence of cannabis. It appears those concerns were not groundless -- a driver, not at fault in a fatal accident, has been charged with DUI-marijuana in a deadly crash which ended the life of a pedestrian.

According to the Vancouver Police Department, this is probably the first deadly crash involving marijuana since it became legal in Washington. The driver was not at fault, but was charged anyway, since police "believed him to be under the influence of marijuana."

The victim, a male in his 50s, was believed to have been walking back home from a grocery store and stepped out into the middle of traffic around 5:50 p.m. at East Mill Boulevard and Andresen Road on Monday, according to police.

Officials said the victim was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, "but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault," reports KPTV.

But because the cops at the scene of the accident "believed" driver Scott Rowles to be "under the influence of marijuana," he was charged with DUI anyway. If his blood test shows that he was over five nanograms per milliliter (5 ng/ml) THC blood level, he will be considered automatically guilty; that's the legal effect of an arbitrarily set "per se" THC limit, as unscientific and as unfair it may be.


MORE AT LINK:

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/12/so_it_begins_not-at-fault_driver_charged_with_mari.php

203 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Same thing would happen with alcohol, why should pot be different? Lil Missy Dec 2012 #1
The two drugs are completely different with respect to how long they can be dected in your body. morningfog Dec 2012 #8
he was judged to be under the influence "at the scene", which means Lil Missy Dec 2012 #23
I'm suggesting THC in the blood does not an impaired driver prove. morningfog Dec 2012 #41
well he hasn't been given anything yet qazplm Dec 2012 #128
Most of us DON'T. But it stays in the blood for A MONTH after use. kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #133
What does? He failed the sobriety tests at the scene. pnwmom Dec 2012 #145
It's against the law to drive under the influence. Whether you cause an accident or not. nt Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #161
If he was not impaired, then "and so it begins," indeed--the medical establishment will have MADem Dec 2012 #202
Yes, but they are testing for a specific level Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #51
And that is precisely why a cheap, accurate, non-invasive field test MUST be developed Care Acutely Dec 2012 #74
because THC can stay in your system for more than a few hours. JesterCS Dec 2012 #17
it was determined at the scene that he was "under the influence", Lil Missy Dec 2012 #24
Determined by whom? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #25
The article says nothing about how that determination was made. morningfog Dec 2012 #43
There is a big difference between judging someone to being high and proving it TroglodyteScholar Dec 2012 #80
the determination is this "The officers believed." librechik Dec 2012 #168
But it wouldn't cause you to fail the physical sobriety tests for 40 days. pnwmom Dec 2012 #29
Some people can't pass the field sobriety test when they are perfectly sober. Yavapai Dec 2012 #155
True, and I'm guessing I'm one of them. So I'd be extra careful pnwmom Dec 2012 #160
k & r! nt wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #2
They finally have a marijana related death. It took a legalization bill to accomplish that. brewens Dec 2012 #3
you thought police would give up any of their welfare drug money without a fight? nt msongs Dec 2012 #4
Spot on, msongs. Expect a lot more of this bullshit. DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #5
+1! Bozita Dec 2012 #13
And this is wrong because.....? Generic Brad Dec 2012 #6
THC remains in the blood long after any effects. morningfog Dec 2012 #10
But it wouldn't remain at that level for weeks, at least for occasional users. pnwmom Dec 2012 #30
It stays at varying levels for varying users. morningfog Dec 2012 #42
Anyone, I smoked some swag at 7:30 this morning... snooper2 Dec 2012 #46
One cannot state that with any certainty. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #102
You share the road with impaired drivers much more often than not. mick063 Dec 2012 #11
Sleep deprivation can actually be the most deadly of all. EOTE Dec 2012 #56
Completely fucking wrong. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #58
Because of a lot of reasons..... Bennyboy Dec 2012 #14
That is an excellent response Generic Brad Dec 2012 #16
That was part of the initiative. former9thward Dec 2012 #18
plenty of people questioned it prior to it's passing frylock Dec 2012 #19
I wouldn't have voted for it without some limit. pnwmom Dec 2012 #33
It was questioned, and this arrest was anticipated. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #105
You are being optimistic. former9thward Dec 2012 #120
Indeed, I am, and for good reason. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #123
If it is true that Scott Rowles failed the sobriety test and admitted to smoking pnwmom Dec 2012 #139
If that is the case, I see no way for him to be acquitted. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #153
Even smoking one modern marijuana cigarette reduces reaction time by 40%. pnwmom Dec 2012 #31
There's TONS of misinformation at that link, some might call them lies. EOTE Dec 2012 #59
US Government patent #6,630,507 green for victory Dec 2012 #91
Nonsense. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #108
So which side do you think it's safest to come down on? randome Dec 2012 #109
On the side of science. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #114
You just said the same studies can be interpreted differently. randome Dec 2012 #117
No, we need real studies. New ones, that use the scientific method to determine blood level cleanhippie Dec 2012 #119
There aren't studies BainsBane Dec 2012 #36
Pot does affect your motor reactions Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #50
Thanks. I voted for legalization in Washington, pnwmom Dec 2012 #75
Right - drink or toke at home Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #78
No one should be saying it doesn't, and that is not the issue. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #125
Do you not believe in sobriety tests either? For any drivers, or just for possibly pnwmom Dec 2012 #140
You and I have several subtreads going. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #154
My THC content stays at 200 nanograms sorefeet Dec 2012 #175
People shouldn't drive for 30 days after getting high? DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #15
Thats rediculous. Seriously , educate yourself. bowens43 Dec 2012 #177
This hasn't run it's legal course yet. mick063 Dec 2012 #7
If you drive under the influence, djg21 Dec 2012 #9
and if you get in an accident a few weeks after having a couple of beers.. frylock Dec 2012 #20
Why should the level be this high if the person hasn't smoked in a few weeks? n/t pnwmom Dec 2012 #34
It could be this high from smoking yesterday or even early in the morning to night. morningfog Dec 2012 #44
Not according to the research that supported this limit, pnwmom Dec 2012 #71
You should educate yourself on the matter before blindly providing ridiculous links. EOTE Dec 2012 #60
You should educate yourself on the research that supports the law's blood levels. pnwmom Dec 2012 #68
The driver may have been charged regardless... Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #12
Some science............... Bennyboy Dec 2012 #21
How long can THC stay in your blood? B Calm Dec 2012 #22
it's never NOT in a regular user's blood. uncle ray Dec 2012 #26
As I understand it, driver 'hits' someone/thing, elleng Dec 2012 #27
Wouldn't he have been charged under the old law, too? pnwmom Dec 2012 #28
not necessarily green for victory Dec 2012 #32
But this driver was exhibiting signs of being under the influence. pnwmom Dec 2012 #35
The article doesn't say exhibiting signs. It says the cop believed he was under the influence. morningfog Dec 2012 #48
Why? Yavapai Dec 2012 #158
Good point. n/t Lil Missy Dec 2012 #37
From the YES on 502 campaign: the science behind the blood limit. pnwmom Dec 2012 #38
Here's an article about it. Son of Gob Dec 2012 #39
Thank you! So it seems that 5 nano grams is a reasonable standard. pnwmom Dec 2012 #40
If his blood results come back under 5 ng, will they drop the DUI? morningfog Dec 2012 #47
That was my understanding from reading the article. I guess we'll have to see. n/t pnwmom Dec 2012 #69
So what's the answer, then? Always assume that anyone with pot in their system is OK? randome Dec 2012 #45
When in doubt, throw the fucker in jail. EOTE Dec 2012 #62
So you don't have an answer. randome Dec 2012 #64
I know what the answer ISN'T and that's a presumption of guilt. That's antithetical to decency. EOTE Dec 2012 #65
No, the answer is the blood test that the people in the state voted for. pnwmom Dec 2012 #70
"Unlikely", what a fucking great standard. EOTE Dec 2012 #85
And you are apparently fine with the unlikely possibility pnwmom Dec 2012 #92
Uhhh, no. What I want would have zero bearing on that. EOTE Dec 2012 #98
Well, yes, because that happening is, well, UNLIKELY! cleanhippie Dec 2012 #129
If you'd read the rest of the thread, you'd understand the point I was making. pnwmom Dec 2012 #135
Put some of that anger to better use. randome Dec 2012 #94
No shit that's against the law, did I say it wasn't? EOTE Dec 2012 #99
Maybe he DID show evidence of being impaired. randome Dec 2012 #100
So one step closer to cops being judge, jury and executioner. Fantastic. EOTE Dec 2012 #103
How do you think tickets are handed out these days? randome Dec 2012 #106
I would still have an issue with this if it were alcohol involved, but there would be many EOTE Dec 2012 #110
Neither you nor I know what the cop's 'hunch' was. randome Dec 2012 #113
Yes, I do. The cop's hunch was that the guy was intoxicatied by marijuana. EOTE Dec 2012 #116
I'm with you. He failed the sobriety tests and admitted to smoking pot within 90 minutes pnwmom Dec 2012 #144
That is just plain false. Both NORML an ACLU disagree with you on that. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #127
If so, then they disagree with the YES on 502 committee that supported legalization. pnwmom Dec 2012 #136
They did (and do) support 502. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #151
Well, this should be interesting then. But if Scott Rowell turns out to have high blood levels pnwmom Dec 2012 #159
Agreed. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #167
Field Sobriety Test DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #130
How about we prove actual impairment, like the old law? Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #134
Put yourself in the driver's position; could you pass a field sobriety test? MindPilot Dec 2012 #49
Revenue, baby-Revenue fredamae Dec 2012 #52
"believed" mikeysnot Dec 2012 #53
Will they be conducting "tests" on the pedestrian ? ? ? MagickMuffin Dec 2012 #54
Same thing would happen with prescription drugs nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #55
I knew a woman back in the 80s who was busted for DUI for cold medicine - prescription Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #79
You're not supposed to drive impaired. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #57
You're supposed to read an article before commenting on it. EOTE Dec 2012 #63
Having a high level means one is likely to be impaired. Here: pnwmom Dec 2012 #73
I keep hearing this word "likely". EOTE Dec 2012 #84
So are you. You think it's likely that people who smoke pot won't ever drive while stoned, pnwmom Dec 2012 #93
No, that's not what I think at all. EOTE Dec 2012 #97
Then you should have no problem with this case, pnwmom Dec 2012 #137
Only because they let him go. EOTE Dec 2012 #141
He smelled like pot, admitted to using, and failed the sobriety tests. pnwmom Dec 2012 #143
The other driver very well could have prevented him from seeing the pedestrian. EOTE Dec 2012 #146
Smoking pot and then driving under the influence isn't legal, whether he was at fault or not. pnwmom Dec 2012 #147
How does that defeat the legal doctrine within the court system of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Selatius Dec 2012 #90
How do you know the behavior of the guy who hit the pededestrian? randome Dec 2012 #95
'cause its herb man, it's from like nature and shit Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #77
What a surprise to see you come down on the side of the authoritarians! Romulox Dec 2012 #88
The corollary dogmatic defense of sacred cows are just as unsurprising. LanternWaste Dec 2012 #196
Where is the evidence this driver was impaired? I don't want any "common sense" Romulox Dec 2012 #87
I don't think the charging officer needs to present evidence to DUers. randome Dec 2012 #96
A fact-free world view. Typical for you. nt Romulox Dec 2012 #121
BTW, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" is the basis of our entire justice system. Romulox Dec 2012 #122
No one has proven anything. There is a charge. randome Dec 2012 #138
Don't have a problem with this. Don't smoke and drive. nt Skip Intro Dec 2012 #61
It's entirely possible the driver wasn't smoking and driving. Occulus Dec 2012 #67
According to the research, it's unlikely it would be that high if he'd just smoked the night before. pnwmom Dec 2012 #72
Correct! Just because his blood had more than the arbirary limit does not mean impairment. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #112
Of course you don't have a problem with it. You have no idea what the issue at hand is. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #111
So what do you think would be evidence of impairment for someone who smokes pot? randome Dec 2012 #115
Field sobriety test, for starters. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #118
I am really missing the problem. They believe he was driving impaired. NCTraveler Dec 2012 #66
true dicksonm Dec 2012 #76
The actual level in your blood is irrelevant to a DWI charge. Xithras Dec 2012 #81
Most informative post in the thread... AgainsttheCrown Dec 2012 #179
Ok DUers, here's your $1 million dollar idea - design a sobriety test for pot usage/drivers riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #82
Make them stand on one leg and dangle a bag of cheetos in front of their face. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #83
Logic problem: why is a special test needed? If you can't tell someone is high, Romulox Dec 2012 #86
The police can stop you for any reason really, at random. riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #156
Nonsense. Look up "probable cause" and get back to me, Perry Mason. Romulox Dec 2012 #174
Actually the threshold is lower AgainsttheCrown Dec 2012 #180
Yeah, well obviously you've never been stopped at a random checkpoint. riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #181
You said "any reason"--a random sobriety checkpoint is a VERY SPECIFIC case. Romulox Dec 2012 #186
They can and do pull people over because they have 2 screws holding a license plate on, instead of 4 riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #195
No sympathy from me... brooklynite Dec 2012 #89
Marijuana doesn't impair motor skills. *FACT* based community, remember? Romulox Dec 2012 #124
If my attention to the road is distracted by my mind "being expanded"...that's not an improvement brooklynite Dec 2012 #132
That's a big "if" though. SCIENCE, (not your "common sense") has to fill in those gaps. Romulox Dec 2012 #152
so, do you have science to Prove DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #157
That's not how it works. YOUR claim, YOUR burden. And links from drugabuse.org Romulox Dec 2012 #172
the studies done were done by government agencies DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #189
your quote was that science DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #190
The fact is that it does Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #163
"Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths" Romulox Dec 2012 #170
"Marijuana Smoking Associated With Minimal Changes In Driving Performance, Study Finds" Romulox Dec 2012 #171
But that is at low levels Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #182
That's not evidence of impairment. You've moved the goalpoasts AND changed the game. nt Romulox Dec 2012 #185
This case, and the few others that will follow, will be overturned. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #101
Such bullsh*t! Rider3 Dec 2012 #104
DUI doesn't require an accident at all treestar Dec 2012 #107
DUI is *supposedly* based on the *science* of observed driver impairment... Romulox Dec 2012 #126
A friend of a friend was in an accident - solo, when drunk treestar Dec 2012 #131
The OP leaves out several pertinent points that, if factual, pnwmom Dec 2012 #142
Imagine that... Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #148
"Perps"? Are you role playing your avatar? Romulox Dec 2012 #150
No, just recognizing a well worn pattern Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #165
Nonsense. This guy was a LEGAL USER who was NOT AT FAULT. Romulox Dec 2012 #169
The facts of this case remain under investigation, so you can't say with certainty pnwmom Dec 2012 #191
and after failing a sobriety test advised the police he had just "smoked a bowl" Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #198
Well, it definitely should be investigated Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #162
what needs further investigation? would an alcohol incident be further investigated? Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #166
I call nonsense on the "failed roadside sobriety test". No details in the articles to Romulox Dec 2012 #173
here ya go DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #193
sometimes, a sweet baggie of grass is a seriously delicious sacred cow. LanternWaste Dec 2012 #197
Details, details. Everyone knows after the Missionaries of Charity... Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #201
The other guy slammed his brakes on though treestar Dec 2012 #178
If you tell the police you just "smoked a bowl" after failing a sobriety test... Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #199
The blood test Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #183
He is being charged with vehicular homicide (but wait) Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #184
They didn't drop the DUI charge Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #200
IMO MJ driver is not at fault treestar Dec 2012 #176
Pedestrians have the right of way DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #192
Depends on state law, but treestar Dec 2012 #203
Not defending him, but if he was to the right of the other car, he probably ecstatic Dec 2012 #187
That could be an explanation. But there is still the problem pnwmom Dec 2012 #188
And your anecdotes about your alcoholic friends reveal exactly *what* about marijuana? Romulox Dec 2012 #149
2 weeks ago: Legal pot newest target for Wash. DUII sting green for victory Dec 2012 #194
State kidnapping. Injustice. The jury should acquit regardless of the evidence. Vattel Dec 2012 #164
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So it all begins: DWI fo...