4
| News |

Is the Thought of Charging a Sober Person With a DUI Complete Nonsense?

^
Keep New Times Free
I Support
  • Local
  • Community
  • Journalism
  • logo

Support the independent voice of Phoenix and help keep the future of New Times free.

Before the Arizona Supreme Court, people were actually arguing over whether stone-cold sober people can be convicted of DUI.

This issue was explored in a New Times cover story earlier this year: the state's "zero tolerance" law against a person driving with the slightest trace of marijuana in their system -- which can be the result of pot smoked weeks beforehand.

See also:
-Riding High: Arizona's Zero-Tolerance Stance on Pot and Driving
-Montgomery Prosecuting a Medical-Pot Patient for One Piece of THC-Infused Candy

The subject of this case, Hrach Shilgevorkyan, was charged with a marijuana DUI after a blood test revealed no active THC in his system. It did reveal an inactive metabolite of THC, though.

The presence of that inactive metabolite has nothing to do with any potential impairment.

A judge eventually dismissed the case, but the Maricopa County Attorney's Office appealed it, as the case eventually landed at the state Supreme Court.

Prosecutors have argued that this was actually the intent of the Legislature. Essentially, they've argued that if you smoke a joint -- medical marijuana patient, or not -- you are forbidden from driving, probably for a few days, and possibly up to a month. Really?

Here's what Capitol Media Services reported yesterday from the Supreme Court:

A prosecutor argued Tuesday there's nothing wrong with charging a motorist who smoked marijuana up to a month earlier with driving while drugged.

In arguments to the Arizona Supreme Court, Susan Luder, a deputy Maricopa County attorney, acknowledged that Carboxy-THC, a secondary metabolite of marijuana, can show up in blood tests for a month after someone has used the drug. And she did not dispute the concession of her own expert witness that the presence of that metabolite does not indicate someone is impaired.

But Luder told the justices the Legislature is legally entitled to declare that a positive blood test for Carboxy-THC can be used to prosecute someone who, if convicted, can lose a driver's license for a year.

Does that sound like complete nonsense to you? Do you think that the Legislature actually intended to convict sober people of DUI, and prosecutors should charge people as such?

Cast your vote below:


Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.

Keep Phoenix New Times Free... Since we started Phoenix New Times, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Phoenix, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Phoenix with no paywalls.

We use cookies to collect and analyze information on site performance and usage, and to enhance and customize content and advertisements. By clicking 'X' or continuing to use the site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. To find out more, visit our cookies policy and our privacy policy.

 

Join the New Times community and help support independent local journalism in Phoenix.

 

Join the New Times community and help support independent local journalism in Phoenix.