The official "Ask a cop/deputy anything!" thread

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

If the toxicological results don't corroborate the observed impairment (…which I've NEVER seen happen; medical rule out is part of the process), then the person simply wouldn't get the DUI charge…..but that doesn't mean they won't be charged with something else. If the use wasn't recent, there wouldn't be any impairment. Get it?!?? Every drug has a duration period.

.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

.... If the use wasn't recent, there wouldn't be any impairment. Get it?!?? Every drug has a duration period.

Cops make 'mistakes' too, for one reason or another.
If say, 50% of people have smoked within the last (fill in time period), like in CA, and will thus 'test' positive, where is the check on the police overuse of the charge, ie: harassment, if 'observed' behavior is the deciding factor?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Cops make 'mistakes' too, for one reason or another.
If say, 50% of people have smoked within the last (fill in time period), like in CA, and will thus 'test' positive, where is the check on the police overuse of the charge, ie: harassment, if 'observed' behavior is the deciding factor?

Testing positive isn't enough for a DUI. IMPAIRMENT must be proven. Just because you smoked marijuana Monday doesn't mean you are too impaired to drive Wednesday despite testing positive for the drug. You can't overuse a DUI charge. Either you are drunk and impaired or you're not. Either you're high and impaired or you're not. Toxicological evidence is always part & parcel to a DUI charge, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[shoei]

I mean, does this ever happen to you? Lol

"The look you get when you place your food order and recognize the cook from a stop."

[shoei]

So that meme above brings up a question.

Have you ever gone out to eat and realized the cook or chef or even waiter is someone you've detained before? If so, do you still eat the food? Do you run? What do you do in that scenario?

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Testing positive isn't enough for a DUI. IMPAIRMENT must be proven. Just because you smoked marijuana Monday doesn't mean you are too impaired to drive Wednesday despite testing positive for the drug. You can't overuse a DUI charge. Either you are drunk and impaired or you're not. Either you're high and impaired or you're not. Toxicological evidence is always part & parcel to a DUI charge, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Such as touching your nose or whatever? A physical test, rather than a judgement call by the cop?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by shoei

So that meme above brings up a question.

Have you ever gone out to eat and realized the cook or chef or even waiter is someone you've detained before? If so, do you still eat the food? Do you run? What do you do in that scenario?

There's this fine balance of caution and the understanding that I can't control everything. We/I eat at places frequently, and the workers know which food orders are ours/mine. It is possible that some workers mess with the food, but I try not to think about it.

I haven't come across somebody I've detained/arrested that was directly or indirectly involved with the handling of my food, but if I did I likely wouldn't eat the food or I would watch like a hawk as my food was being prepared.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Such as touching your nose or whatever? A physical test, rather than a judgement call by the cop?

The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and the incorporated NHTSA-3 are scientifically backed methods of determining impairment reliably. These relatively simple divided attention tests are extremely easy when sober, but are very difficult when impaired. That's part of the beauty of the tests. If you can't find the nose on your face, how on Earth are you in a condition to operate a motor vehicle with the same safety, care and concern of a sober person?!?!

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and the incorporated NHTSA-3 are scientifically backed methods of determining impairment reliably. These relatively simple divided attention tests are extremely easy when sober, but are very difficult when impaired. That's part of the beauty of the tests. If you can't find the nose on your face, how on Earth are you in a condition to operate a motor vehicle with the same safety, care and concern of a sober person?!?!

Yes, but people smoking reefer can't touch their noses? I did not know that!
For a cop to contend impairment, must he have a backup of some sort, like video, or is the call of the cop sufficient?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Yes, but people smoking reefer can't touch their noses? I did not know that!
For a cop to contend impairment, must he have a backup of some sort, like video, or is the call of the cop sufficient?

Most departments have some sort of recording device, be it dash cams or body worn cameras. Again, it's not ONLY the officer's word. Toxicological evidence is part of every DUI arrest. You can't argue with urine/blood/etc. results.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Most departments have some sort of recording device, be it dash cams or body worn cameras. Again, it's not ONLY the officer's word. Toxicological evidence is part of every DUI arrest. You can't argue with urine/blood/etc. results.

But a blood test for reefer will come back positive way after the effects have faded, maybe weeks later.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

But a blood test for reefer will come back positive way after the effects have faded, maybe weeks later.

That is true! It's the totality of the entire investigation/evaluation however. A person who isn't impaired by the marijuana won't exhibit certain signs and symptoms. Recency of use produces certain signs and symptoms in the body.

[cmyx6go]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

That is true! It's the totality of the entire investigation/evaluation however. A person who isn't impaired by the marijuana won't exhibit certain signs and symptoms. Recency of use produces certain signs and symptoms in the body.

I imagine that a blood test measures the levels in the blood like it does for alcohol, not just the presence.

If you smoked two weeks ago, your levels would be different than if you smoked an hour ago.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

I imagine that a blood test measures the levels in the blood like it does for alcohol, not just the presence.

If you smoked two weeks ago, your levels would be different than if you smoked an hour ago.

It all depends on what the department is willing to pay for. Some departments will pony up the money to do in-depth testing while others won't test every possible metric.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

I imagine that a blood test measures the levels in the blood like it does for alcohol, not just the presence.

If you smoked two weeks ago, your levels would be different than if you smoked an hour ago.

I would think so, but I personally metabolize coffee like... now.
But I might burn off reefer fast also...?
I wonder if there is a one-size-fits-all in this instance.

[jamesinaz]

I am enjoying this discussion of how MJ impairment is determined. Apparently the same sobriety tests of coordination and speech are determining factors and a blood tests is nothing more than confirmation.

Is this also how it is done for people who are high on opiates or other chemicals that might not show on a tox test?

If someone fails the field sobriety tests but comes back negative for all screening what happens then?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

I would think so, but I personally metabolize coffee like... now.
But I might burn off reefer fast also...?
I wonder if there is a one-size-fits-all in this instance.

No, there's no one-size-fits-all. A high dose for you will be different than a high dose for the next person.

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

I am enjoying this discussion of how MJ impairment is determined. Apparently the same sobriety tests of coordination and speech are determining factors and a blood tests is nothing more than confirmation.

Is this also how it is done for people who are high on opiates or other chemicals that might not show on a tox test?

If someone fails the field sobriety tests but comes back negative for all screening what happens then?

Yes! For example, most tests won't show fentanyl in the blood unless the department pays for it……and it's expensive. Most stimulants, narcotics, etc. show in the blood, but the test won't specify which drug as there are a wide range of drugs out there.

If someone is just uncoordinated (…e.g. ..overweight, etc.), they won't exhibit the other signs and symptoms of impairment, thus, a DUI is ruled out.

[Fly320s]

Sedan, I think what Littlebear was saying is, What is stopping a cop from saying someone is intoxicated on weed and then arresting him? The tox results will come back positive if the guy smoked in the last month or whatever, so the evidence will almost always back the police story.

Do the blood tests show how much marijuana is in the body or how recently it was put in the body? Anything like a BAC?

Other than the truth and honor of the individual officer, what protection does a pot user have against false accusations?

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

No, there's no one-size-fits-all. A high dose for you will be different than a high dose for the next person....

If someone is just uncoordinated (…e.g. ..overweight, etc.), they won't exhibit the other signs and symptoms of impairment, thus, a DUI is ruled out.

This, and what Fly320 says above are my concerns.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

Sedan, I think what Littlebear was saying is, What is stopping a cop from saying someone is intoxicated on weed and then arresting him? The tox results will come back positive if the guy smoked in the last month or whatever, so the evidence will almost always back the police story.

Do the blood tests show how much marijuana is in the body or how recently it was put in the body? Anything like a BAC?

Other than the truth and honor of the individual officer, what protection does a pot user have against false accusations?

Fortunately for me - I am coordinated.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

Sedan, I think what Littlebear was saying is, What is stopping a cop from saying someone is intoxicated on weed and then arresting him? The tox results will come back positive if the guy smoked in the last month or whatever, so the evidence will almost always back the police story.

Do the blood tests show how much marijuana is in the body or how recently it was put in the body? Anything like a BAC?

Other than the truth and honor of the individual officer, what protection does a pot user have against false accusations?

Well the officer would need to treat the DUI-cannabis stop the same way he/she would treat the DUI-alcohol stop. So, SFST's would be performed and the suspect would be subjected to a PAS test. At that point, a DRE (…e.g. Sedan_Clan) would be called in to perform a DRE evaluation to determine impairment. Again, it is the impairment that must be proven, not just the simple usage or presence of the drug in a person's system. It's the same approach with alcohol. Having alcohol in your system does not mean you are impaired. The officer would need to make the case for the impairment.

Some THC tests are more thorough than others, so the level of testing is determined by how much a department is willing to spend.

Also keep in mind that it is the behavior behind the wheel that will get the officer's attention in the first place. Erratic driving behavior will be articulated, and once the investigation proves the impairment, therein lies the core aspects of the arrest.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Well the officer would need to treat the DUI-cannabis stop the same way he/she would treat the DUI-alcohol stop. So, SFST's would be performed and the suspect would be subjected to a PAS test. At that point, a DRE (…e.g. Sedan_Clan) would be called in to perform a DRE evaluation to determine impairment. Again, it is the impairment that must be proven, not just the simple usage or presence of the drug in a person's system. It's the same approach with alcohol. Having alcohol in your system does not mean you are impaired. The officer would need to make the case for the impairment.

Some THC tests are more thorough than others, so the level of testing is determined by how much a department is willing to spend.

Also keep in mind that it is the behavior behind the wheel that will get the officer's attention in the first place. Erratic driving behavior will be articulated, and once the investigation proves the impairment, therein lies the core aspects of the arrest.

Sounds fair enough. Use the same tests for impairment for any substance. For that matter if someone is just too tired and can't stay focused - boom.

I know for myself I can drive fine on one drink. Any more than that is a no go. So pretty much I drink what I want - when I'm not driving. And don't drink at all if driving.

On those occasions when I am downwind of the stoners (legal here in AZ now) and I get a contact high () I also restrict my driving privileges. I'm way too old and good looking to go to jail.