Posted on 12/18/2012 7:27:17 AM PST by TigerClaws
That is the line the officer tells the defendant just put under arrest.
It is enough to arrest the person.
The fact it is in your system and can be shown to be regularly in your system will be considered by the jury.
In the meantime the pothead will be offered a plea bargan vs a chance at a probable conviction from a jury of people who are on jury duty. (retired older people and people who do not want to get out of jury duty)
Just because they are not caught driving while impaired does not mean they are not driving while impaired.
the law is regading driving “impaired”. If is not limited.
Stays stored in fatty tissue for as long as a month - stays attached to neuroreceptors for only a few hours.
tell it to the judge...
I have truth; you claim to have force. The drug debate in a nutshell.
That is the line the officer tells the defendant just put under arrest.
The law has no proper interest in what is stored in fatty tissue inaccessible to neuroreceptors.
it is admissible in court as evidence of usage.
so the accused has a history of consistent usage for the last 30 days. That history can be used against them.
Again, it is enough to support the arrest.
Again, it will be admitted into evidence for the jury to decide. The accused will have to have their lawyer defend the case and, if their state has a presumption of imairment clause in the law, rebut the presumption.
regardless, there is jail, bail, court expenses, attorney fees, etc...
the answer is really easy, use pot in ANY amount then don’t drive for thirty days after the last use. period.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Same goes for drunks and prescription drug users. What of it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.