Jump to content

Drugged Driving: Michigan Supreme Overturns Itself On Marijuana Metabolites Issue

mike.03385

Recommended Posts

mike.03385 Newbie

mike.03385

Posted
Posted

The Michigan Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that it is not illegal to drive while having marijuana metabolites in the body, reversing a 2006 decision by a more conservative version of the court. Marijuana metabolites are not a controlled substance under state law, and their mere presence thus cannot be the basis of a conviction under the state's drugged driving law, the court held.

 

 

The ruling came in People v. Feezel, in which the court overturned the conviction of a driver in the death of a severely drunk pedestrian walking in the middle of a five-lane road at night. The driver, George Feezel, was himself borderline intoxicated on alcohol, blowing a 0.009, and also tested positive for marijuana metabolites, which can linger in the system for days or weeks after the pot high is gone. Feezle was found not guilty of drunk driving causing a death, but convicted of second-offense drunk driving (a misdemeanor in Michigan), leaving the scene of a fatal accident, and driving under the influence of marijuana -- although there was no testimony to the effect that he had used marijuana that evening and there was testimony to the contrary.

 

 

The court ruled that a Washtenaw County jury should have been allowed to hear evidence the victim was drunk, remanding the case back to circuit court. But in ruling that marijuana metabolites are not a controlled substance, the court invalidated what was in effect a per se zero tolerance drugged driving law that allowed for people to be convicted of driving while impaired when they were not actually shown to be impaired.

 

"We hold that 11-carboxy-THC is not a schedule 1 controlled substance under MCL 333.7212 [controlled substances act] and, therefore, a person cannot be prosecuted under MCL 257.625(8) [drugged driving act] for operating a motor vehicle with any amount of 11-carboxy-THC in his or her system," read the opinion.

 

The opinion, largely a demolition of the previous Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in People v. Derror that marijuana metabolites are a controlled substance, thus allowing for drugged driving convictions based solely on their presence, noted that Michigan is now a medical marijuana state and that allowing Derror to stand would unfairly impact medical marijuana patients.

 

Under Derror, Justice Corrigan wrote for the majority, "Individuals who use marijuana for medicinal purposes will be prohibited from driving long after the person is no longer impaired. Indeed, in this case, experts testified that, on average, the metabolite could remain in a person's blood for 18 hours and in a person's urine for up to 4 weeks."

 

It's not just about medical marijuana patients, the opinion suggested: "Thus, under Derror, an individual who only has 11-carboxy-THC in his or her system is prohibited from driving and, at the whim of police and prosecutors, can be criminally responsible for choosing to do so even if the person has a minuscule amount of the substance in his or her system. Therefore, the Derror majority's interpretation of the statute defies practicable workability given its tremendous potential for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."

 

It is neither fair nor just nor in the interest of public safety to charge people with drugged driving who aren't impaired. Finally, there is a Michigan Supreme Court that recognizes this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bisharoo Advanced Member

Bisharoo

Posted
Posted

I believe since we all share the same roads together and we all want to be safe, I propose that everyone pass a fairly stringent proficiency test for all substances.

Some people should not medicate with cannabis and drive, while many millions do it safely every day. Some should not take their prescription meds. and drive. Some can.

What about alcohol? Heroin? Acid? Probably can't be tested out to drive on these substances.

What about tobacco, caffeine, coffee, pop, food?

I know people who have used cannabis for many years and are professional drivers. That is, they drive for a living, some of them driving literally millions of miles over the decades, and always being as safe as anyone out there.

Get rid of subjectivity in our judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and get objective realists who understands Plato's Law of Identity. This will lead to individual liberty being restored as well as banishing all our subjective laws!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snarkler Advanced Member

snarkler

Posted
Posted

"Finally, there is a Michigan Supreme Court that recognizes this"

 

And the change in the Court that brought this about was the defeat of Clifford Taylor by Diane Hathaway in the 2000 election at the same time as our favorite initiative passed. Taylor was the fourth vote in People v. Derror, which this case overrules.

 

Justice Robert Young, who wrote the dissent in Derror, is up for election in 2010. If you take the time and read the dissent (it comes last) at the above link, you will note that he and his three remaining republican amigos are not MM-friendly, nor do they like the wholesale reversal of many of their decisions by the new Court. In fact, they are pissed.

 

Justice Elizabeth Weaver, who is the fourth republican on the Court, but votes with the three democrats as she did here in the cases that are reversed, is also up for election in 2010. There is so much bad blood that Justice Young has said he will not run on the same ticket as her. There will be much political drama and money spent on this election.

 

...with the point of all of this being that it will probably be the Court as it is made up after the 2010 elections that has a chance to rule on the "test" cases we read about here, or maybe bigger issues about the act itself. Supporting the right candidate may be as important in this election as the governor and AG races.

 

If this case is the litmus test for your vote, the lesson is that defeating Justice Robert Young is extremely important to MM issues, and is an opportunity to safeguard the narrow majority made up of the three democrats plus Justice Weaver. Retaining Justice Weaver is also important, but not as critically so as defeating Justice Young. I think as the election unfolds, you will hear much about his record, some of it true, that will support voting for anyone but him.

 

(The Supreme Court Justices are on the non-partisan ballot, which identifies which candidates are incumbents. Both major political parties nominate candidates, but those affiliations are not listed on the ballot, and voting a straight ticket casts no vote for Justice. The references to republican justices above is for purposes of identification, and to point out their ugly split with Justice Weaver, and are not intended to be pro-democratic party as such)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
snarkler Advanced Member

snarkler

Posted
Posted

Bump - Today, on election day, read the dissent in the linked decision, and decide for yourself if Robert Young is MM friendly.

 

I conclude he definitely is not, and would recommend voting for the two D's, Alton Davis and Denise Langford Morris, in the Supreme Court portion of the ballot. It comes after the partisan ballot, and is not included when you vote a straight party ticket.

 

Davis and Denise for Supreme Court, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverblue Advanced Member

+Silverblue

Posted
Posted

Bump - Today, on election day, read the dissent in the linked decision, and decide for yourself if Robert Young is MM friendly.

 

I conclude he definitely is not, and would recommend voting for the two D's, Alton Davis and Denise Langford Morris, in the Supreme Court portion of the ballot. It comes after the partisan ballot, and is not included when you vote a straight party ticket.

Davis and Denise for Supreme Court, simple as that.

WHAT? Does this mean we can't vote straight D? I'm hoping to feel good enough to go vote, so I need an answer ASAP.

 

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TajMahal Advanced Member

TajMahal

Posted
Posted

WHAT? Does this mean we can't vote straight D? I'm hoping to feel good enough to go vote, so I need an answer ASAP.

 

Sb

 

NO!.......after you mark your vote in the partisan section, straight ticket or split, then mark your selections for the court justices.

 

You can view a sample ballot, the links are here, will find it for you. :)

 

Be right back!

 

 

Here ya go............https://webapps.sos.state.mi.us/mivote/

 

https://webapps.sos.state.mi.us/mivote/

 

 

 

Peace

Taj

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

NO!.......after you mark your vote in the partisan section, straight ticket or split, then mark your selections for the court justices.

 

You can view a sample ballot, the links are here, will find it for you. :)

 

Be right back!

 

 

Here ya go............https://webapps.sos.state.mi.us/mivote/

 

https://webapps.sos....e.mi.us/mivote/

 

 

 

Peace

Taj

Thanks for the link

we already voted and used the M D Morris and Davis but that link will help people out like Sb and others here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverblue Advanced Member

+Silverblue

Posted
Posted

Taj, thanks for the link. I had trouble with the form, don't have the patience to struggle with it, I'm really tired, and I'm not feeling well, not sure I'm gonna make it to the polls. I feel really awful about this. Please don't be mad at me, I'm hurting enough and dreading what may come later, no medicine can fix or replace what we really need, though it's better than nothing. If I'm not feeling better soon I'll have to go back to bed.

 

Sincerely, Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverblue Advanced Member

+Silverblue

Posted
Posted

GODDAMN PA'S ARE MAKING PEOPLES' LIVES HELL. I feel sorry for anyone they drag through the courts. What part of "the judge has dismissed the case" don't they understand. IDIOTS. GET THAT AZZHOLE'S NAME, GET ALL THOSE AZZHOLES' NAMES. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP.

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TajMahal Advanced Member

TajMahal

Posted
Posted

From the comments section of the story.

 

 

 

"Anyone that would like to come down and hold a sign with us please make it to our next NORML meeting. November 16th in Esky. Bay, Heirman building room #963 6:30 pm. Delta county sub-chapter If you cant make it to the meeting but still want to know more about the rally please email me at escanabajosh1983@yahoo.com"

 

 

 

More:

 

 

"Common Sense - she was speeding. She was on M35 towards Rock and was speeding, so what. She wasn't high, that is the problem. The courts won't use the arrest video from the police, because she was fine. There wasn't a field sobriety test, because she was fine. They drew blood from her after the arrest, because they wanted to seize her money, this case was about money, not speeding. She won that case a few months ago. Do some research into this case and find out the facts, the judge wanted to settle and Brenda offered to plea to the speeding, because she was speeding. The problem is the prosecutor. Find out the facts of the case, Common Sense and then see how much money is being spent on this case. Common sense should tell you that since this happened in January and it is still a big deal, that there is something to this. She was doing nothing wrong, and is being harassed by this court. She has received HUNDREDS of phone calls from people offering her encouragement. Look into this case more and you may very well change your mind."

 

 

 

"Her lawyer is John Bergman out of Escanaba. He is representing her criminal case, but it appears that he will not go after the State Police Officer, and the jail, when this case is finally over - someday."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TajMahal Advanced Member

TajMahal

Posted
Posted

maybe the MMMA will help ask blueberry if he can help her out we should have a Rally for her lets see if we could get the buses to go up their

 

does any one know how far that is from Ferndale?

 

Google maps says 7.5 hours.......that is center to center of city since I don't know address's

 

Cross mac bridge, don't know what the toll is anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smokeythebear Advanced Member

smokeythebear

Posted
Posted

ya were about 3 hours from the bridge. The town aint that big so it only takes a minute to get there.

 

I'll get in touch with blueberry and post up a thread about the case. I belive brenda has a computer so she can come on her too.

 

the case is at 8am. I can work out a group rate on a motel or somthing if there's chances of a bus, that would fricken rock!

 

I am working on organizing a rally. last year when this all first started we had 20+ out there for the first rally.

 

keep your eyes open for a thread on the yooper duid case. been busy with schuette's BS and the elections but plan on starting working on brendas case more after elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...