# How Is Marijuana DUI Proveable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 12, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787 "2009-07-12T21:41:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/41 "2009-07-13T21:40:19Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > The fuck all is that they read the officer’s arrest report in court and the officer stated that she failed all her field sobriety tests, had extremely bloodshot eyes and that “she couldn’t even stand up straight”!!! > > This is a HUGE pile of bullshit and we are really upset about it. Even if she had been smoking, which she hadn’t, “not being able to stand up straight” just isn’t on the menu. . > . > . > . > I want to strangle that unethical state trooper. What a pack of lies. Is there a dashcam video? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/42 "2009-07-13T21:51:12Z")
Just to verify - you were not actually present when your wife was arrested, and are basing all this on her description of the events? Have you heard the results of the urinalysis? I assume that if she smokes it daily, it would have come back positive. If so, it seems that your wife is in rather a tough spot. By your own description, she is a daily user and was in possession of a **half-smoked** joint while driving a car and speeding. And we have (if you will excuse me) only her word for it that she passed the field sobriety tests and was not visibly impaired. > [@](#): > > So, she was given field sobriety tests, which she passed. She had, remembering the incriminating dope in her cig pack upon being pulled over, put the pack into her pocket. They searched the car with a drug dog and didn’t find anything. When they asked her if she had anything, she told them no. Upon searching her person, they discovered the joint. Why did she have the pack out, so that she had to put it back into her pocket/purse/whatever? Did she consent to the search? What exactly triggered this, since the drug dog did not find anything in the car? Was the search subsequent to her arrest? If so, what was the cause for the arrest? How did the cop smell marijuana in the car, if your wife had not smoked any that day? His sense of smell must be phenomenal, if he could accurately detect half a joint in your wife’s possession to the point that he actually summoned the drug-sniffing dog. I am guessing she smelled rather strongly of weed, given her daily use of it. So, as far as I can tell. your wife smokes every day, but not that day. She was not impaired, although she was speeding. She did not smoke in the car, although she smelled so strongly of weed that the police officer detected it immediately. She had the pack of cigarettes out, and the joint was half-consumed, but she hadn’t smoked it. Good luck to you. I have a feeling you are going to need it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/43 "2009-07-13T22:23:34Z")
As much as I hate admit it, I agree with **Shodan**. The circumstantial evidence has got your wife behind the eightball. If the officer fabricates additional inculpatory testimony, the only thing that will get her off is a very sharp attorney. It sounds like you can’t afford not to get one. Also consider the likelihood that if she is convicted, there is probably a [mandatory diversion](http://courts.ky.gov/stateprograms/drugcourt/) into some kind of out-patient drug treatment program in lieu of jail time, which can cost thousands of dollars to complete. Failure to complete the program revokes the probation, and she gets jerked back into jail to complete her sentence. These programs often require regualr piss tests, so she is probably going to have to give up pot until she completes the program. ---
**Author:** ![MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MPB_in_Salt_Lake)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/44 "2009-07-13T22:24:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Just to verify - you were not actually present when your wife was arrested, and are basing all this on her description of the events? > > Have you heard the results of the urinalysis? I assume that if she smokes it daily, it would have come back positive. If so, it seems that your wife is in rather a tough spot. > > By your own description, she is a daily user and was in possession of a **half-smoked** joint while driving a car and speeding. And we have (if you will excuse me) only her word for it that she passed the field sobriety tests and was not visibly impaired.Why did she have the pack out, so that she had to put it back into her pocket/purse/whatever? > > Did she consent to the search? What exactly triggered this, since the drug dog did not find anything in the car? Was the search subsequent to her arrest? If so, what was the cause for the arrest? > > How did the cop smell marijuana in the car, if your wife had not smoked any that day? His sense of smell must be phenomenal, if he could accurately detect half a joint in your wife’s possession to the point that he actually summoned the drug-sniffing dog. I am guessing she smelled rather strongly of weed, given her daily use of it. > > So, as far as I can tell. your wife smokes every day, but not that day. > > She was not impaired, although she was speeding. > > She did not smoke in the car, although she smelled so strongly of weed that the police officer detected it immediately. > > She had the pack of cigarettes out, and the joint was half-consumed, but she hadn’t smoked it. > > Good luck to you. I have a feeling you are going to need it. > > Regards, > Shodan Someone told me once that a half-smoked reefer cigarette (I think the street name the kids are using is a “roach”) REALLY stinks—I could see it smelling up a closed car, even it was enclosed in a pack of smokes… That said, I am afraid Shodan is right—your wife will need all the luck we Dopers (heh) can send—I am sending my best to you now!!! ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/45 "2009-07-13T23:58:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is there a dashcam video? Probably, but I have no idea and I have not seen it. > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Were you present at the arrest, **FoieGrasIsEvil**? If not, you really don’t know what happened. Your story in the OP (presumably narrated to you by your wife, though some aspects may have been from your own observation prior to her leaving) is that she hadn’t smoked at all that day. Evidence would appear to indicate otherwise. You may be wise to be, hmm, open-minded about what your wife’s actual condition was until you see the toxicology report. I know that is difficult, since it is someone you love. > > And “not able to stand up straight” is not the same as unable to stand at all. Someone who is at all wobbly will be able to have that phrase apply. At trial, her attorney can find out exactly what the officer meant by that phrase, and if it is as over-the-top as it sounds, then the attorney can attack the whole thing that way. > > Now, I only have one further piece of advice. Do not solicit further opinion from this message board on the issue. At this point, in the absence of the real facts, or even the evidence claimed to exist to date, any opinion offered to you by anyone here, regardless of how knowledgeable an attorney, will be worthless. No attorney who is worth listening to will attempt to advise you on the case itself; at best, we/they can provide you with suggestions for how to obtain competent legal assistance. Further, you do realize that your posting here has the potential to rebouond against your wife at the trial, I hope? So it might be a good idea to simply end discussion of the “facts” of the case. :eek: > > Get a good attorney. DUIs are nasty things to have on your record. I agree, but my wife is someone I know very well, and I don’t know why she would lie to me about the sobriety tests. The fact that the cop offered her amnesty after administering the tests is telling to me. I think they just wanted to get her for _something_ more than a speeding ticket. > [@Shodan](#): > > Just to verify - you were not actually present when your wife was arrested, and are basing all this on her description of the events? > > Have you heard the results of the urinalysis? I assume that if she smokes it daily, it would have come back positive. If so, it seems that your wife is in rather a tough spot. > > By your own description, she is a daily user and was in possession of a **half-smoked** joint while driving a car and speeding. And we have (if you will excuse me) only her word for it that she passed the field sobriety tests and was not visibly impaired.Why did she have the pack out, so that she had to put it back into her pocket/purse/whatever? > > Did she consent to the search? What exactly triggered this, since the drug dog did not find anything in the car? Was the search subsequent to her arrest? If so, what was the cause for the arrest? > > How did the cop smell marijuana in the car, if your wife had not smoked any that day? His sense of smell must be phenomenal, if he could accurately detect half a joint in your wife’s possession to the point that he actually summoned the drug-sniffing dog. I am guessing she smelled rather strongly of weed, given her daily use of it. > > So, as far as I can tell. your wife smokes every day, but not that day. > > She was not impaired, although she was speeding. > > She did not smoke in the car, although she smelled so strongly of weed that the police officer detected it immediately. > > She had the pack of cigarettes out, and the joint was half-consumed, but she hadn’t smoked it. > > Good luck to you. I have a feeling you are going to need it. > > Regards, > Shodan I was not there, all I have is the secondhand account of the matter. I don’t like my wife smoking, but it really does help her brain. It has literally very little to do with the act of getting high but moreso as a coping mechanism. Of course, that’s not going to fly in a court in the state of Kentucky, which oddly is in the top three or four marijuana growing states. The smell is REALLY obvious, at least to me. Anytime my wife stashes a partially consumed joint anywhere in the house, I can generally sniff it out. She was not smoking that day, she had puffed on that joint the night before and put it in her cigarette pack. It reeks like holy hell even then, and that is what the cop smelled, even though oddly enough the drug dog didn’t react to it. Which top me says that there was no smoking on that trip. Surely the damn dog would have smelled it, right? > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > As much as I hate admit it, I agree with **Shodan**. The circumstantial evidence has got your wife behind the eightball. If the officer fabricates additional inculpatory testimony, the only thing that will get her off is a very sharp attorney. > > It sounds like you can’t afford not to get one. > > Also consider the likelihood that if she is convicted, there is probably a [mandatory diversion](http://courts.ky.gov/stateprograms/drugcourt/) into some kind of out-patient drug treatment program in lieu of jail time, which can cost thousands of dollars to complete. Failure to complete the program revokes the probation, and she gets jerked back into jail to complete her sentence. These programs often require regualr piss tests, so she is probably going to have to give up pot until she completes the program. We’ll see. I have emails out to all the KY NORML attorneys, as well as the ACLU. I think she was railroaded into a DUI. Possession? Yes, guilty! Speeding? Also YES! DUI…I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/46 "2009-07-14T00:05:08Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I think she was railroaded into a DUI. Possession? Yes, guilty! Speeding? Also YES! DUI…I don’t think so. Oh, I agree with you. I don’t doubt anything you have said. I just think the likelihood of being acquitted without good representation is low. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/47 "2009-07-14T00:08:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Oh, I agree with you. I don’t doubt anything you have said. I just think the likelihood of being acquitted without good representation is low. I agree, which is why I am working on the “good representation” angle. I am praying that a NORML attorney will take our case. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/48 "2009-07-14T00:39:22Z")
The judgement on impairment usually falls in the favor of the officer. Say it was alcohol and the limit it .08, but you blow a .04, you are fine right? Nope. If the arresting officer, who is trained in impairment, thinks you are impared, you will lose even though you blow under the legal limit. With pot they will use the experience of the officer combined with the level of THC components in her test and she will loose. Go for a diversion. I do not know if Kentucky has a medical pot law like Oregon does. But if it does, have her get a medical marijuana card in the future. Won’t help with this case or if you are driving under the influence, but it gives the officer an ‘out’ to let you go for simple possession. Her back ‘hurts’, even if it doesn’t. You know what I mean. I have a friend who works in law enforcement and he told me at our last family gathering that he wishes he could just refer a pot perp to the local doctor who gives out the cards freely. Because if you don’t have a card he has to process you for possession. He calls it a ‘get out of stupid’ card. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/49 "2009-07-14T01:07:23Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Thanks. This is a first offense. I am pissed about the cops playing that “Well, if you wouldn’t have lied to us, we would have let you go with a possession ticket” card. What do you think they should have done differently? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/50 "2009-07-14T02:04:00Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > What do you think they should have done differently? Given her a possession ticket in light of their lack of evidence for DUI that they created after the fact? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/51 "2009-07-14T11:32:36Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > . I just think the likelihood of being acquitted without good representation is low. But the likelihood of getting a good plea bargain (dropping the DUI charge) is high. And a good local lawyer may not cost as much as you expect, especially if you don’t go to trial. ---
**Author:** ![JFLuvly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@JFLuvly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JFLuvly)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/52 "2009-07-14T16:01:05Z")
Was the joint processed and verified to be MJ?, or are they just doing the walks like a duck looks like a duck? I know it’s a long shot but mistakes happen. Also I remember reading a story about a guy who lost his job because he tested positive in a urine test, he fought it on the basis of the high amount of poppy seed he ate ( in bagels and such ) and apparently won. Not sure if any of this helps but I just thought I would throw it out there. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787/53 "2009-07-15T06:19:00Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Given her a possession ticket in light of their lack of evidence for DUI that they created after the fact? You’re assuming that they did create this DUI charge after the fact. That’s currently unproven, and as others have pointed out, the DUI charge appears to be at least defensible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-marijuana-dui-proveable/502787.md?page=2)