normiss 892 #1 December 17, 2009 Florida DUI Given that weed is in your system for as long as 30 days although not actively impacting one's functions....curious how this will pan out. Have there been other similar cases? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #2 December 17, 2009 Although traces of THC remain, they do not remain at toxic levels. If the levels were high enough to indicate legal impairment he deserves to be charged thus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #3 December 17, 2009 Depends on the testing method also, correct? I don't disagree that an impaired driver should be responsible for the damages he causes, but I'm quite curious on how this can be proven with mj in your system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #4 December 17, 2009 QuoteDepends on the testing method also, correct? I don't disagree that an impaired driver should be responsible for the damages he causes, but I'm quite curious on how this can be proven with mj in your system. Usually with a blood test administered sufficiently timely after the arrest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #5 December 17, 2009 POLK COUNTY, Fla. -- A Polk County man has been charged with three counts of DUI manslaughter in a car crash that killed three people, including an 11-month-old infant and her pregnant mother. Authorities charged 21-year-old William Garrett Coe on Wednesday after toxicology test results were released. They showed he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the September crash. He was also charged with manslaughter and one count each of marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. No one in the car was wearing seatbelts. Coe suffered non-life threatening injuries. Killed in the crash were Coe's three passengers: 22-year-old Eduardo Lopez; 17-year-old Lucero Tijerno and her 11-month-old baby daughter. Tijerno was 5 months pregnant. Now get serious....He was IN position when arrested, He tested High...Fucker deserves to do time! many staets woudl have persued manslaughter for the simple fact no one wore seat belts, (especially a child) Even lack of a childs seat coudl lead to that in ca.! 3 people are dead, he was high...Fuck him! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #6 December 17, 2009 So if I'm in possession of beer, I'm drunk by association? I'm not sure I would follow this logic. I have a fridge FULL of lovely beers. I'm not even buzzed. Haven't even consumed anything. It is possible to carry drugs and not consume them. I'd be curious about the tox results on the deceased passengers as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tetra316 0 #7 December 17, 2009 Quote It is possible to carry drugs and not consume them. Sure it is. But he tested positive. He was under the influence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #8 December 17, 2009 so back to a substance being inactive while leaving trace amounts in your system..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #9 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo if I'm in possession of beer, I'm drunk by association? I'm not sure I would follow this logic. I have a fridge FULL of lovely beers. I'm not even buzzed. Haven't even consumed anything. It is possible to carry drugs and not consume them. I'd be curious about the tox results on the deceased passengers as ***well. WHY? what could that prove/disprove? As stated before, the "no seat belts" thing, alone, can lead to man slaughter charges in many states! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #10 December 17, 2009 QuoteGiven that weed is in your system for as long as 30 days although not actively impacting one's functions....curious how this will pan out. QuoteAuthorities charged 21-year-old William Garrett Coe on Wednesday after toxicology test results were released. They showed he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the September crash. If the test can't prove he was DUI... then he should be fine. But the above seems to indicate that they were able to prove it. While I don't care if people use pot... I do care f people use pot and drive. A person DUI due to pot should face the SAME punishment as a DUI with other substances."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 December 17, 2009 Quote so back to a substance being inactive while leaving trace amounts in your system..... No, it's not; I already answered this up-thread. If the blood tox test is done sufficiently soon after the arrest, it can establish level of blood toxicity at the time of the arrest. I've handled several shitloads of alc & drug DUI cases. On the bare face of it so far, this one looks like a justifiable arrest & prosecution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #12 December 18, 2009 While you may feel you answered it, I don't think so ... or I missed your explanation. Blood test and urine test are the key difference? The only experience I have with drug tests are hair and urine. Hair can go as far back as 7 years last I was told by a CEO of the leading hair testing company, urine testing typically only 30 days - but that's for a daily user. Urine testing tests for metabolites and not the active drug itself. Blood stream testing only shows metabolites AFTER being released from the fatty tissue, so again it's not active. I still think the science in the testing will be key in the legal case...if this guy can afford it anyway. For them to think they found enough trace in his system from a blood test, he'd have to had a doobie when the cops showed up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #13 December 18, 2009 I think you are confusing testing for presence verses testing for concentration. If trace amounts are detected they will not be able to establish impairment in court any more than they can for 0.001 ppm alcohol. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #14 December 18, 2009 the drug tests are able to read levels. It's not a yes or no reading._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #15 December 18, 2009 Quote... but I'm quite curious on how this can be proven with mj in your system. ... that what the court is for - he gets a trial and a jury of his peers if he chooses. The State/County have to make their case and prove it. I see a lot of loopholes that could be taken on the testing information and in particular what it means. hopefully (for him) his attorney understands all that and is capable of making those arguments. But if a standard of intoxication level exists out there for weed concentration in your blood, (and I expect it does), then he is probably fucked. most cases end in plea agreements, I expect that is what will happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #16 December 18, 2009 Actually, High, Drunk or otherwise .. He is responsible for the deaths of those people ... SO fuck him (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #17 December 18, 2009 QuoteActually, High, Drunk or otherwise .. He is responsible for the deaths of those people ... SO fuck him +1 They should have charged him with vehicular homocide so he could plea down to manslaughter and still get what he deserves...if he was under the influence.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #18 December 18, 2009 True. No disagreement. Just a curious time with that substance in this country. You're probably right about established levels and testing...not familiar with that since I behave anyway. I would disagree on the "peers" portion of a jury trial though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
