Category Archives: Duiblog
After having a few drinks with friends following work, a driver heads home. While on their way, they don’t make a full stop at a stop sign and are pulled over law enforcement. After telling the driver why they were pulled over, the officer begins asking questions. “Where are you going? Where are you coming from? Have you had anything to drink?” Without thinking about it, the driver says, “I had a couple of drinks with co-workers and I’m on my way home.” The next thing that driver knows is that they are in the back of the squad car and heading to the station on suspicion of driving under the influence.
The driver is released the following day having been charged with a DUI. They contact a DUI attorney and ask, “Can my case be dismissed because I was never given my Miranda Rights and I told the officer too much?”
The question is a common one since very few drivers actually invoke their right to remain silent during a DUI stop. This is true for a number or reasons; a driver might think that cooperation will help their cause, a driver might not know they had a right to remain silent, or a driver might just get too nervous to think about whether they should talk to the officer or not.
Unfortunately, in the scenario above, the case will not be dismissed and the officer legally did not need to give Miranda Warnings.
The United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona held that, since only voluntary confessions are admissible as evidence, a confession cannot be voluntary (thus admissible as evidence) unless a person knows that they have the right not to say anything. In other words, a person who does not know they have a right to remain silent and is not advised of such might mistakenly believe that they must talk to officers, thus making their confession involuntary. A confession is only voluntary if a person knows they have a right not to say anything and proceed to choose to speak to law enforcement. As such, the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement cannot engage in a “custodial interrogation” until a person has been advised of their rights, including the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment.
This means that officers must give the Miranda Warnings after a person has been arrested, but before an interrogation. Unfortunately, questioning by officers during a DUI stop in most instances, is not a custodial interrogation.
When the driver in the above scenario was stopped because they made a “California stop,” they were not “arrested” or “in custody.” When a person is stopped on suspicion of a DUI, or even a traffic violation that leads to a DUI investigation, the person is not arrested even though they may be temporarily detained. During the stop, the officer can ask questions without giving the Miranda Warnings because the driver was not yet arrested.
During that time, the driver still has the right to remain silent, but officer need not inform the driver of that right. These pre-arrest questions are only considered preliminary in nature, and any answers by the driver in response are fair game for prosecutors in a DUI case against the driver.
If, on the other hand, the driver engages in a “California stop” and is arrested (not merely stopped) after the officer suspects that the driver is under the influence, the officer cannot ask questions without first giving the Miranda Warnings. Any answers to post-arrest questions about the DUI are inadmissible if the officer did not provide the Miranda Warnings.
Having said all of this, the 5th Amendment right to remain silent exists whether Miranda Warnings are given or not! A person always has a right to remain silent. During a DUI stop, drivers should unequivocally, but respectfully invoke their right to remain silent, then do so.
In recent years, cannabis and its derivatives having been gaining traction in the United States. Cannabis has become a serious competitor to alcohol’s long-lived reign as Americans’ recreational drug of choice. This competition primarily stems from several progressive cities and states’ decisions to relax the legal restrictions on the long-outlawed drug. Although the relaxation of laws surrounding cannabis and its byproducts results in plenty of benefits, there are drawbacks as well.
A Highway Loss Data Institute study in April of 2018 found that car crashes were up in states that had recently relaxed their laws concerning cannabis. For instance, car collisions were up as much as six percent in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington when compared with neighboring states that had not legalized the recreational use of cannabis. In an attempt to grapple with the issue, state legislators are looking into drafting laws targeting marijuana users who drive while intoxicated.
However, laws targeting stoned drivers are not as clear cut as those targeting drunk drivers. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of marijuana that causes intoxication, can stay in an individual’s bloodstream for days—sometimes even weeks. Alcohol, on the other hand, only stays in a person’s system for a couple of hours. Additionally, legislators have been able to create “per se” laws, or laws that punish a person for merely having a certain amount of alcohol in their system (0.08 percent BAC in all states except Utah where it is 0.05 percent BAC) regardless of intoxication level because science has proven that the per se levels correspond to the point at which a person cannot operate a vehicle as a sober person would. Since THC can stay in a person’s system well after they have sobered up, most states do not have per se laws for THC. Doing so creates the possibility that marijuana users be arrested for a DUI weeks after they have ingested the drug and well after they have sobered up from it. In other words, such laws would allow officers to arrest completely sober drivers for a DUI simply because they had THC in their system from smoking days, possibly weeks ago.
So how can law enforcement officers get an accurate measure of which drivers are THC-impaired and thus reduce collisions in the states that have legalized recreational use of the drug?
Researchers at the University of Texas, Dallas believe they have a solution. They have engineered THC sensor strips and accompanying electronic readers. The THC sensor strips contain two electrodes that are coated with an antibody that binds THC and isolates it from other compounds found in an individual’s saliva. When an individual’s saliva is put on the test strip, the strip is put into the electronic reader. A strip with THC on it rather than just normal saliva will result in a different electrical current that increases with the amount of THC in that individual’s saliva. The test takes about five minutes from start to finish, making it appealing to law enforcement for use during traffic stops. As of now, it is not clear whether the method of ingestion of THC makes a difference and how long exactly THC will remain on an individual’s tongue.
The saliva THC test is still in its early stages, but researchers say it is accurate for THC levels ranging from 100 picograms per milliliter to 100 nanograms per milliliter. One of the study’s lead researchers, Dr. Shalini Prasad, stated that preliminary clinical reports seem to suggest that one to fifteen nanograms of THC per milliliters of blood would make a driver impaired. Again, although the suggestion that a person can be impaired merely by having THC in their system may be true, the fact that a person can also still be sober while having the same levels of THC suggested by Dr. Prasad means that laws still cannot be based on THC alone without some indication of impairment as well. The hope is that this saliva test closes the gap between the mere presence of THC in a person and their intoxication from it.
While drivers have no need to worry about the saliva THC test in development at the moment, it is certainly something to keep an eye on. If the history of the breathalyzer and its rise to prominence tells us anything, the saliva THC test will soon be an important component in a law enforcement officer’s toolkits. Perhaps it will be used as frequently as breathalyzers are.
If you have read this blog in the past, you might be familiar with what are known as “dram shop” laws. For those who are not familiar, dram shop laws allow the victims of drunk drivers to civilly sue the establishment that served the drunk driver with alcohol prior to the victim’s injury. Although dram shop laws specifically refer to the suing of restaurants and bars, the question of whether liability, be it civil or criminal, can be placed on any third parties who contribute to a driver’s driving drunk leading to injury has been the center of much debate.
There may, however, not be much of a debate, at least in Georgia. The Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that allows a victim to sue a third party, non-drunk driver, in a DUI collision as an “active tortfeasor.”
In September of 2016, Lakenin Morris was asked by his cousin, Keith Stroud, to drive his car. Morris agreed, Stroud handed him the keys, and they were off. Both had been drinking. Morris later collided with 18-year-old Alonzo Reid, who was hospitalized. Reid sued both Morris, the driver, and Stroud, who provided the keys to Morris. Reid was awarded $23,000 in compensatory damages, to be split equally between Morris and Stroud, and $50,000 from Morris in punitive damages. The trial court, however, decline to award the $100,000 in punitive damages that Reid was asking from Stroud. The trial court concluded that punitive damages were limited to “active tortfeasors,” or, in this case, the actual drunk driver, Morris.
The Georgia Supreme Court, however, reversed the trial court’s decision by adopting a broad interpretation of the word “active tortfeasor.”
“[Georgia law] does not define the term ‘active tortfeasor,’ but from the beginning…has made a distinction between tort defendants who ‘acted’ and those who ‘failed to act.’ The text thus suggests that an ‘active tortfeasor’ is a defendant who engaged in an affirmative act of negligence or other tortious conduct, as opposed to a defendant whose negligence consist of an omission to act when he is under a legal duty to act,” wrote Justice Michael Boggs in discussing the history of Georgia’s punitive damages laws. Justice Boggs went on to say that it does not matter whether the defendant was the drunk driver, but rather whether Morris’s conduct, at least in part, caused the injury.
In other words, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that by drinking and giving his keys to Morris, whom he knew was drunk, Stroud was an active tortfeasor who could be subject to punitive damages just as Morris, the actual drunk driver, was.
While some states, like Georgia, continue to expand the reach of their dram shop laws, some states like California remain in their determination that only the person who drove drunk can be held liable for injuries resulting from a DUI.
The California Civil Code specifically states, “It is the intent of the Legislature to…reinstate the prior judicial interpretation…that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person…[N]o social host who furnishes alcohol beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.”
Although this code section does not specifically address the situation that led to Reid’s injury, you can see California’s view on the matter. This is not to say that California affords full protection to third parties. California still holds establishments civilly liable for injuries resulting from a DUI when the establishment knowingly served alcohol to an underage drinker who drives and causes injury. Additionally, although rarely enforced, establishments can face misdemeanor charges for serving alcohol to “any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person.”
Pennsylvania, which has legalized medical marijuana, has introduced a bill that would exempt medical marijuana users from the state’s arbitrary per se marijuana DUI law.
Although Pennsylvania legalized medical marijuana in 2016, with dispensaries opening up in the state in 2018, laws still remain on the books that would arbitrarily punish medical marijuana users merely for having THC in their system, even though they are no longer “high.” The new bill aims to close that loophole.
Prior to Pennsylvania’s legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, it was illegal to have any THC in a driver’s system while driving. At the time, the law did not conflict with itself because it was illegal to have any THC in the system because marijuana use, as a whole, was illegal. Thus, it did not matter whether a driver was still high or not; if they had THC in their system, it was illegal because all marijuana use was illegal.
Since the state has now legalized medical marijuana, at a minimum, those laws cannot remain on the books. Otherwise, it is possible for a legal medical marijuana to be arrested, charged, and convicted of a DUI in the state even though they haven’t smoked in days, possibly even weeks, and are perfectly sober when pulled over for that DUI.
Unlike alcohol, the intoxicating chemical of marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol or “THC,” can possibly stay in a person’s system for weeks. Also, unlike alcohol, THC levels do not necessarily correspond to how intoxicated or high a person is. Science suggests that when a person has a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent, they typically are at a level of intoxication that would make it unsafe to drive. This is why it is illegal to drive while under the influence and with a 0.08 percent (0.05 in Utah). It is dangerous to society when people drive when they are under the influence, or when their blood alcohol content suggests that they are “under the influence.” No such scientific correlation exists between THC and degree of intoxication from marijuana use.
Therefore, when Pennsylvania legalized medical marijuana, it put every single user of medical marijuana at risk of an arbitrary DUI by not also updating its DUI laws. It was possible for a cancer patient to smoke marijuana on Monday, become sober by Tuesday, remain sober for the rest of the week, and then get arrested for a DUI on Sunday simply because they still had THC in their system (as a result of taking prescribed medicine for cancer!).
Pennsylvania’s new law would require police and prosecutors to prove that a medical marijuana user was actually impaired while driving rather than merely proving that the person had used marijuana sometime in the past.
“We need to ensure that the legal use of this medicine does not give rise to a criminal conviction,” state Sen. Camera Bartolotta (R), who introduced the legislation, said in a statement about her bill. “Patients fought tooth and nail for years to see the use of medical cannabis legalized to treat a variety of terrible health conditions. They should have the peace of mind to know that they will not be punished later for using their prescriptions responsibly.”
Although some states still have per se limit laws for THC, like they do with alcohol (0.08% BAC in all states except Utah where it is 0.05%), a 2019 study, published in the journal Addiction by a team of Canadian researchers, found that drivers who had 2-5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood (the level of some states’ per se laws) were no more likely to cause a crash than people who had not consumed marijuana.
“Given the very serious consequences of a DUI conviction, my legislation will provide critical protections for medical cannabis patients by ensuring responsible use of their legal medicine does not give rise to a criminal conviction,” said Bartolotta.
My response: It’s about time. Until states can figure out a way link THC levels (or any other quantifiable measure) with intoxication, per se laws DUI laws for marijuana usage in states that have legalized it are unconstitutional.
It is no secret that some states prioritize enforcing certain laws over other laws. Similarly, some states have much harsher penalties for certain crimes than other states do. For instance, some states, like California, are known for strict gun laws. Other states, like Virginia and New Jersey, are known for imposing strict penalties on thieves. Each state’s decision on how strictly it will enforce a law and how severe the penalties are for violating it, in part, comes down to what each state prioritizes. These decisions are related to public policy and what each state’s populous values. On that note, there are certain states that are known for their strict enforcement of DUI laws and others that are known for imposing strict penalties on DUI law violators. Keep this in mind if you find yourself in the following states as the ramifications of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol can be severe.
Arizona: The Grand Canyon State is known for deserts, sunshine, hiking, and . . . being the worst state to get a DUI in. Arizona’s DUI laws, like most states, prevent all motorists from driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of 0.08 percent or more. Additionally, Arizona DUI laws prohibit motorists from driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol if the driver is even impaired “to the slightest degree.” Arizona’s impaired “to the slightest degree” distinction is stricter than other states. For instance, California law enforcement officers can arrest motorists with DUI for having a BAC greater than or equal to 0.08 percent or being “under the influence,” which has been held to mean that a driver is not able to drive as a reasonable and sober driver would because of an intoxicant. Finally, Arizona has a “not-a-drop” DUI law for all motorists under the age of 21 years old. This “not-a-drop” law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 years old from driving with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system. Although the “not a drop” law seems harsh, many other states enforce the same or a similar law. Additionally, it is possible to get a DUI in Arizona without actually driving. If an individual is “in physical control” of a car while impaired, they can be cited for DUI. Other states, like California, require actual movement of the vehicle. Arizona’s justification for this particular law is that it helps to stop impaired driving before it starts.
Arizona is also known for being the toughest state on first-time DUI offenders. It was the first state to implement a mandatory interlock device installation policy for first time offenders. Other states have since followed suit and implemented similar policies. Also, Arizona has some of the highest fees for first-time offenders and mandatory jail time as well.
Massachusetts: Like Arizona, Massachusetts DUI laws prevent all motorists from driving a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more. Unlike Arizona’s “slightest degree” standard, a driver in Massachusetts can also arrested on suspicion of a DUI if they are “under the influence.” However, the Bay State dishes out the most jail time for a DUI conviction. A first-time DUI offender in Massachusetts can face up to two and a half years in jail. The state also has a strict penalty for driving under the influence with child passengers under 14 years old in the vehicle. If a driver is caught with a child in their vehicle while under the influence, the driver can be convicted of child endangerment—which is separate offense to DUI. The child endangerment offense carries with it up to $5,000 in fines, a one-year license suspension, and 90 days to two and a half years in jail. However, Massachusetts is not alone in imposing additional penalties for DUI with minors in the vehicle. For instance, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia have similar penalties for this aggravating factor.
Ohio: The Buckeye State is known for lengthy driver’s license suspensions for DUI offenders. If an individual is convicted of DUI in Ohio, it is possible that they could lose their driver’s license for up to three years. This is a stark contrast to some other states. For instance, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee do not mandate that a DUI offender’s driver’s license be suspended. Also, California generally limits a first-time DUI offense to a six-month license suspension. Therefore, Ohio is undoubtedly tougher on DUI offenders when it comes to license suspensions than many other states. Individuals should keep this in mind before operating a motor vehicle while under the influence in Ohio as it might be difficult to get around for several years if convicted of DUI.
Utah: The Beehive State has the lowest BAC limit of any state. In Utah, any motorist in physical control of a vehicle while having a BAC of 0.05% or higher has per se committed a DUI offense. This is currently the lowest BAC limit in the country, and the only state with such a limit. Also, in Utah, a first or second DUI offense is generally categorized a Class B misdemeanor. However, the DUI offense increases to a Class A misdemeanor if the impaired driver inflicted bodily injury upon another as a proximate result of driving under the influence or the impaired driver has a passenger under the age of sixteen years old in the vehicle at the time of the offense. While Utah’s misdemeanor class distinctions are somewhat comparable to other states, the state’s low BAC limit is entirely unique. Although Utah’s DUI arrest rates have been relatively consistent since the lowering of the BAC limit, other states could follow suit in their own efforts to curb drunk driving. For more info on Utah’s 0.05 percent limit see Utah Now has the Lowest BAC Limit in the Country and How Effective is Utah’s New BAC Limit?
Clearly, some states adopt more stringent measures to prevent individuals from driving under the influence than others. Arizona, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Utah are known for either strictly enforcing their DUI laws or imposing harsh penalties on violators of their DUI laws. Although nobody should get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol, motorists should be aware of the rather harsh DUI laws and penalties they face when driving in other states.