Pubdate: Fri, 08 Nov 2013
Source: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
Copyright: 2013 The Arizona Republic
Contact: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: Ej Montini

DUI LAW THAT HURTS INNOCENT DEFENDED

State officials were at the Arizona Supreme Court this week to defend 
a law that punishes innocent people. Welcome to Arizona! Or, if 
you've lived here a long time, like me: So what else is new?

Under Arizona's DUI law, a person is guilty of impaired driving if he 
has any metabolite of marijuana in his system.

However, the compounds left in a person's system after smoking 
marijuana are not all the same.

One of them makes a person high and lasts for a few hours. Another is 
not "psychoactive," meaning it does not cause impairment. But it can 
linger in a person's system for up to a month.

What this means, essentially, is that a person could be guilty of 
impaired driving for having smoked marijuana three or four weeks ago.

Imagine the impact such a statute could have on the thousands of 
individuals in the state who are legal holders of medical-marijuana 
cards. They risk getting busted each time they get behind a wheel 
even if they haven't used their legally obtained drug for weeks.

The case heard by the court goes back to 2010, when a man named Hrach 
Shilgevorkyan was pulled over by police for speeding and making an 
unsafe lane change. A blood test showed marijuana's inactive 
metabolite in his system, but he was charged with DUI.

His case is being handled by attorney Michael Alarid III.

Alarid made the argument this week before the state Supreme Court.

"It felt like it went well," he told me. "There were difficult 
questions for both sides, but I believe the judges are seriously 
considering our case. That's a good thing."

Even if the justices believe the law is wrong, they could rule 
against Alarid's client.

"They (the justices) understand the problem, but they're a court, and 
courts are always concerned about overstepping their bounds. So, 
we'll see," he said.

Alarid won the case in a lower court. The charges against his client 
were dismissed after it was shown that the marijuana chemicals found 
in his blood were inactive.

The Arizona Appeals Court overturned that decision.

In its ruling on the case the Appeals Court said, "We determined that 
the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of 
causing impairment or not."

Impaired logic trumps non-impaired drivers.

Some states have acted to correct similar problems with their DUI laws.

They now test only for marijuana's active ingredient. It's a 
common-sense approach.

Unfortunately, common sense sped past Arizona's legislators a long 
time ago. We can't even see its dust from here.

When I first wrote about this back in March, Alarid told me, "A 
person from Arizona could go on a snowboarding trip to Colorado or 
Washington state, where marijuana is legal for recreational use. And 
then a month later, he could be driving in Arizona, get stopped and 
be convicted of DUI."

The same danger faces visitors to Arizona from those states.

Not exactly something officials want on a tourist brochure is it?

At the Supreme Court hearing this week, the lawyer arguing for the 
state (Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's office is handling 
the case), told the justices, "I understand the people's position 
when they say, 'Gee, it's not fair that someone driving 30 days later 
has carboxy (the inactive ingredient) in their system.' But that's up 
to the Legislature to decide (to change the law)."

Awhile back, I asked Montgomery if he believed, out of fairness, that 
state law should differentiate between metabolites that cause 
impairment and those that don't.

He told me, "No. We do not want to create an incentive to game how 
long it takes for any given metabolite to leave a driver's system. 
Nice try, Ed."

At one point during the oral arguments before the court, Chief 
Justice Rebecca White Berch asked the state's attorney, "Does there 
come a point where the statute lacks a rational basis?"

I'm no lawyer, but near as I can tell, we passed that point way, way back.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom