Jump to content

How To Protect Yourself From A Drugged Driving Charge.


Recommended Posts

Or who would want their retinas scanned or fingerprints used for any reason? What benefit would this be to the patients? Sounds like a veiled threat, either you give them all your personal information and be even more surveiled or you will be arrested or killed? When folks voted to allow people to use medically, it was to allow use without fear from prosecution. Now we see that, if we do not submit to their total control, we will be killed or imprisoned for wanting to get our own medicine. A harmless herb that can soothe and heal. Thanks a lot mediswipe and others like them. Any time the government says "Just give up more of your rights so we can proect you", we know that means we get screwed while the government/corporate entity grows stronger at the expense of millions of individuals (who have harmed no others). I hope this never comes. We will all suffer if they do this.

Peace...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont smoke and than drive, and you wont get caught, people should be thinking of a way to not get caught and not how to get around the legal part of it, if I drink I dont drive, if i medicate I dont drive, and if I do my bad, no one will hear me cry I need help, I wouldnt burden people with my mess up!

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by a "road test?"

dont do a pbt on the road, although it will automaticly loose your liscense for a yr or 6 months, been a while,  i did that and was told by my attny to not ever refuse the pbt on the road, it could change for the lower by the time they get you back to the station, that is the one that realy counts for your charges!

 

Peace

Jim

 

edit= I got out of one, i blew over on the road, but when we got to the police station i blew under the legal limit, and we got out of it, the pbts they take out on the roads have to be reset or they have to recalculate them to make sure they all are good as the one in the station, sometimes they dont write that the portable pbt was updated before the shift, that is better than not doing a pbt on the road!

Edited by phaquetoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

i got pulled over on my way home but it was cold and i had the heater on i was out of meds and had picked some up from a friend my window dint roll down so i opend my door the MI state  cop asked me where i was heading i said home and then he asked me how much weed i had in the car (i assumed he knew because of the smell in the car it was pretty aeromatic stuff )i pulled it out of my pocket and handed it too him it was an 8th of green and an 8th of bubble hash he looked at me kida funny and i exclaimed i have a card he said let me see it i gave him my paitent card and he asked me how much i had to smoke today i said none it was 9pm and i said i havent smoked since yesterday morning he checked my card and licence came back and gave me my green and hash back 

 

i asked the cop while i have you here how long do you have too wait before driveing after smooking and he said @ least 12 hrs. then he said you know federaly it is still illegal and he could take me back to his car do some eye test and through me in jail with over 5000$ in fines i said ok......... have a nice day started my car and left  

 

i know my rights i just wanted to see  what they whould do if completly honest and this is what i got 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i got pulled over on my way home but it was cold and i had the heater on i was out of meds and had picked some up from a friend my window dint roll down so i opend my door the MI state  cop asked me where i was heading i said home and then he asked me how much weed i had in the car (i assumed he knew because of the smell in the car it was pretty aeromatic stuff )i pulled it out of my pocket and handed it too him it was an 8th of green and an 8th of bubble hash he looked at me kida funny and i exclaimed i have a card he said let me see it i gave him my paitent card and he asked me how much i had to smoke today i said none it was 9pm and i said i havent smoked since yesterday morning he checked my card and licence came back and gave me my green and hash back 

 

i asked the cop while i have you here how long do you have too wait before driveing after smooking and he said @ least 12 hrs. then he said you know federaly it is still illegal and he could take me back to his car do some eye test and through me in jail with over 5000$ in fines i said ok......... have a nice day started my car and left  

 

i know my rights i just wanted to see  what they whould do if completly honest and this is what i got 

It is great you got back on the road with your meds and just a warning.  A word of caution: when driving in a vehicle, keep your meds contained in the trunk, in a case. (or far back in an SUV/hatchback.)  There have been 4 people receiving "Illegal transport" tickets in my county in just a few weeks.  (probably more, I received word/proof of 4 thus far)   

 

This also shows how bad information gets around.  There is not a guideline for these cops to go by (the 12 hours you claim that he quoted).  One gentleman that was ticketed in our county last week was told that you CAN NOT possess a drivers license as a cardholder. (who knows where the cop came to that conclusion)  His license was taken by the cop.   It seems everyone that I have talked to that has been ticketed has received different feedback, even within one county. 

 

You could have received a ticket for having it in your pocket!  You were indeed VERY lucky!  Stay legal and keep it in the back, inaccessible from your seat!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE:  #1, sometimes folks with Parkinson's have the choice drive stoned, or not drive ever due to great shaking of limbs, which thc quiets. 

Now that is a hard, hard one cause if you are not mobile--then u r really 'handicapped,' as i know from enduring 2 years of no driving (not due to Parkinsons).

Not saying it is right, but fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE:  #1, sometimes folks with Parkinson's have the choice drive stoned, or not drive ever due to great shaking of limbs, which thc quiets. 

Now that is a hard, hard one cause if you are not mobile--then u r really 'handicapped,' as i know from enduring 2 years of no driving (not due to Parkinsons).

Not saying it is right, but fact.

 

Fact is:

 

We all have choices in life.  There are many levels of handicapp.  If a person can not drive safely (without great shaking or being "stoned") then perhaps they should not be jeopardizing others on the road! 

 

We have guidelines to follow and one of those includes not having our medication accessible while driving.  If you can not drive without access to your medication, have someone else drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is great you got back on the road with your meds and just a warning. A word of caution: when driving in a vehicle, keep your meds contained in the trunk, in a case. (or far back in an SUV/hatchback.) There have been 4 people receiving "Illegal transport" tickets in my county in just a few weeks. (probably more, I received word/proof of 4 thus far)

 

This also shows how bad information gets around. There is not a guideline for these cops to go by (the 12 hours you claim that he quoted). One gentleman that was ticketed in our county last week was told that you CAN NOT possess a drivers license as a cardholder. (who knows where the cop came to that conclusion) His license was taken by the cop. It seems everyone that I have talked to that has been ticketed has received different feedback, even within one county.

 

You could have received a ticket for having it in your pocket! You were indeed VERY lucky! Stay legal and keep it in the back, inaccessible from your seat!!!

Yea,I'm sure if we went allowed to have a drivers license that we would know about it. Hopefully that person got their license back, that's bull for the cop to just take it. Not any where in the law do I see it saying you can't be a card holder and have a drivers license!

 

Besides why would they just add that new law about putting it in your trunk WHILE DRIVING with it if patients couldn't have a license to begin with. I don't know what they were thinking.

Edited by b_lucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 9 months later...

I know this thread is old. My question is I am a cardholder / patient and my spouse is not. If she drives me to get meds and I place them in a locked box in trunk...Is she illegal for being in the car with me? Same premise...growing at home within legal limits and enclosed locked space...obviously my spouse lives here with the knowledge of the grow. Is she illegal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no she would not be in trouble for being in the vicinity of the medical use of cannabis.

 

the only time you would need to be concerned is if and when you transport live plants.  there is specific language that regulates who can be in the vehicle.... that does not apply to dried cannabis..only live plants.

 

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%281ezxxuee1trvcw454c1ofij2%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26424

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

(1) The vehicle is being used temporarily to transport living marihuana plants from 1 location to another with the
intent to permanently retain those plants at the second location.
(2) An individual is not inside the vehicle unless he or she is either the registered qualifying patient to whom the
living marihuana plants belong or the individual designated through the departmental registration process as the
primary caregiver for the registered qualifying patient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

something I've said again and again in here is that EVERY court decision is an opportunity to be safer. If the court faults someone because the grow facility is not covered, that is YOUR CLUE to cover yours. If they pull someone over because they smell it in the car, don't let your car smell that way.

 

with every court decision, try to figure out what the learning point is.... AND DO IT.

 

Dr. Bob

nevery thought about it that way thats a great tip thank u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Here is an interesting presentation entitled "Traffic Safety Legal Update" presented by a "Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor".

It gives a Michigan law enforcement perspective on MM and other drugs as of March 2014:

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Ken_Stecker_452069_7.pdf

 

gallery_1712_1214_49957.jpg

 

A few of the relevant parts:

 

Michigan Compiled Law 257 states:

 

• A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway…within this state if the person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1 under section 7212 of the public health code,…or a rule promulgated under that section, or of a controlled substance described in section 7214(a)(iv) of the public health code.

 

OPERATING WITH THE PRESENCE OF SCHEDULE 1, OR COCAINE

 

• Requires evidence of specified substance in the blood

• This will require a blood draw

• Does not require evidence of “bad driving”

• Marihuana is a Schedule 1 Drug

• Cocaine is added by reference 

 

People v Koon, No. 145259 (Mich. Sup. Ct., May 21, 2013)

 

• The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that “The immunity from prosecution provided under the MMMA to a registered patient who drives with indications of marihuana in his or her system but is not otherwise under the influence of marihuana inescapably conflicts with MCL 257.625(8), which prohibits a person from driving with any amount of marihuana in her or system.”

• “Under the MMMA, all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the MMMA do not apply to the medical use of marihuana. Consequently, MCL 257.625(8) does not apply to the medical use of marihuana.”

 

THC Drug Analysis

 

• When the submitting officer requests only THC, they screen and confirm THC only.

• When all drugs are screened for, and the THC confirms at a level of 3 ng/ml or higher, they do not perform additional analysis of the sample. The laboratory report will have a comment that indicates that further testing was halted due to the high THC result.

• They do this in order to get you your results as quickly as possible!

• If you have a case like one of those described above and you still need the full drug analysis completed, call one of the supervisors and they will send that case on for the full drug analysis for you.

 

The Importance of THC Hour 1

 

 Scientific studies show that a person smoking marihuana often has 50-80 nanograms of THC in their blood after their last puff

 30 minutes later, that level can drop to 15-16 nanograms-an 80% drop in THC.

 1 hour later after the last puff, the level likely drops to 5-6 nanograms.

 THC levels can then drop to 2-3 nanograms after 90 minutes, trickiling off over a few hours

 

Protection from Arrest, April 1, 2013

 

• Require a qualifying patient or primary caregiver to present both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued photo ID card, in order to be protected from arrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

#1 New Rule -- Get a Dash Cam and plenty of 32/64GB micro SD Cards

(hard wire it to vehicle's power so only changing the SD card when you enter is required). My Car uploads to the cloud via cellular and/or open mapped WiFi ==

 

Make sure you can twist the DashCam camera lens  to the drivers door almost pointing to the rear of the car (as you know LEOs stand by the pillar in case some nut shoots), AND RECORD. If it goes to cloud is the best as even if they take the card (which hey might, and think they defeated you), you have a copy when you get home on the cloud, or your buddies do to give to Atty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened with CL?

 

He got fed-up because, as an atty who took-on a few pro bono cases (with positive results) and offered free help to defendants, he encountered numerous defendants who conducted themselves in a fashion according to how they wanted the law to be interpreted vs. how the law was actually written.  I think the Earl Carruthers matter was the straw that broke this camel's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By trix
      Washington, D.C. -- If you're going to wage war on drugs, you need to be outfitted like a warrior.
       
      That seems to be the rationale behind hundreds of police department requests for armored trucks submitted to the Pentagon between 2012 and 2014. The requests, unearthed in a FOIA request by Mother Jones magazine, shed light on how the war on drugs has directly contributed to the militarization of local police forces in recent years.

      Read More...
    • By trix
      New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® said on Monday that the war on drugs has been a "failure" -- even though he has vowed to enact a federal crackdown on marijuana, a substance that has been a primary target of the drug war for decades.
       
      "This is a disease and the war on drugs has been a failure -- well-intentioned, but a failure," Christie said at a presidential forum in New Hampshire on Monday. He went on to say that the country should "embrace" people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, offering them a chance at rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

      Read More...
    • By trix
      USA -- The war on drugs is over, and weed won. D.A.R.E., the organization designed to plant a deep-seated fear of drugs in the minds of every late-20th-century middle schooler, published an op-ed calling for marijuana legalization.
       
      Written by former deputy sheriff Carlis McDerment in response to a letter in the Columbus Dispatch, the op-ed explains that it's impossible for law enforcement to control the sale of marijuana to minors. "People like me, and other advocates of marijuana legalization, are not totally blind to the harms that drugs pose to children," McDerment writes. "We just happen to know that legalizing and regulating marijuana will actually make everyone safer."

      Read More...
    • By trix
      Colorado -- Oklahoma and Nebraska have filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to deem Colorado's marijuana laws unconstitutional, The Denver Post reports. The states, which border Colorado, claim in the suit that their neighbor's recreational pot policy is "draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice system." Because recreational weed is not legal in Nebraska and Oklahoma – and those states must abide by federal law, which also prohibits it – the they want Colorado's policy overturned. They are not seeking financial damages.
       
      "The State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system," the lawsuit – which Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed Thursday – alleges. "Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining [our states'] own marijuana bans."

      Read More...
    • By trix
      In an announcement today, the White House has pledged $263 million in new federal funding for police training and body cameras, set aside by executive order. The money includes $75 million allocated specifically for the purchase 50,000 cameras for law enforcement officers across the country. The training portion of the funds would go toward instructing police in the responsible use of paramilitary equipment like assault rifles and armored personnel carriers, much of which has flooded local departments as a result of a Homeland Security preparedness program.
       
      Additional funds will go to fund police outreach programs designed to build trust between local departments and the communities they serve.
       
      $263 million in new federal funding
       
      The cameras are designed to provide a definitive record of police activities, and have become a frequent demand in the wake of the Ferguson protests. The protests began with the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager killed by the police in Ferguson. Community leaders pointed to video taken in the aftermath of Brown's death as evidence of police misconduct, and the subsequent outcry has triggered a Justice Department investigation. More recently, a widely shared video of Cleveland police shooting a 12-year-old named Tamir Rice has intensified the demand for video documentation of police activities. Last week, the parents of Michael Brown announced a campaign "to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera."
       
      The new funding push is substantial, but 50,000 cameras will cover only a fraction of the more than 750,000 police officers currently employed in America. Camera proposals have also run into trouble with public records laws in states like Washington, which require the release of all police records not actively tied up in an investigation. With hundreds of hours of video generated by police cameras every day, that would present serious problems for both privacy and simple logistics.
       
      Still, many police departments have already looked into body-mounted cameras. On October 1st, the Washington D.C. police began a six-month pilot program that put cameras on the shoulders of many local police, and officials expect the program to reduce the number of complaints filed against officers by as much as 80 percent. The program wasn't cheap: it cost $1 million to buy and store the necessary volume of cameras. But after today, other departments that decide to take the same leap will have federal matching funds to soften the blow.
×
×
  • Create New...