How long can police detain me for a traffic stop?

Consider a hypothetical: a police officer stops you for a minor traffic violation or suspicion of an Oklahoma DUI charge. He goes through the usual routine of checking your driver’s license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance, and they all check out. He writes you a warning about the traffic infraction. You think that the encounter is over, and want to get on your way. But for some reason, the officer does not seem to want to let the matter rest. Next he asks you for permission to walk a drug sniffer dog around your vehicle. You refuse to give permission, and the officer refuses to let you leave. Backup arrives. The officer does the dog pass around your car anyway, and the dog alerts to the presence of an illegal drug. You are arrested on charges for drug possession.You ask yourself: was it reasonable for the officer to continue the traffic stop once he issued the warning? How long is too long to conduct a routine traffic stop?Interestingly, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court examined this very issue, and its conclusion may make a significant difference in how police perform traffic stops in Oklahoma and other states.The above hypothetical is not just a thought experiment. It really happened to a driver in another state. The driver argued that prolonging the traffic stop without any basis in reasonable suspicion violated his constitutional rights and that accordingly the drug evidence should be suppressed. The prosecution countered that the added time – seven to eight minutes – represented only a “de minimis” intrusion on the driver’s personal liberty and was therefore acceptable. The trial court sided with the prosecution, as did the Court of Appeals. For its part, however, the US Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion that found support from both its conservative and liberal Justices, it ruled that unless reasonable suspicion exists for the officer to do a drug search, including a dog sniff, he or she cannot extend a traffic stop to search for drugs in your car. The officer can stop you long enough to complete the “mission” of the traffic stop – for example, to issue you a ticket or warning for the original reason for stopping you – but then must let you go without prolonging the stop in the hope that a dog sniff of your vehicle might turn up something. The Court also disagreed with the prosecution’s argument that if the officer conducting the traffic stop does it “expeditiously” that should somehow grant additional time for a drug search.  In short, performing a dog sniff test is beyond the scope of the mission of a vehicle stop based on a traffic violation, meaning that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot countenance absent grounds for reasonable suspicion for a search. If you are held longer than you believe is reasonable for a traffic stop, and police use that extra time to do a drug search of your vehicle, you should inform your defense attorney of this – it might make the difference between being convicted of an offense or not.

Source: Oklahoma DUI

Car with ax in roof, no doors or windshield leads to driving while on drugs arrest

A car stopped in the Town of Wethersfield with no windshield, doors or a license plate and with an ax in the roof led to the arrest of the driver on charges of driving while impaired by drugs, the Wyoming County Sheriff’s Office said Tuesday.After receiving a report about a “suspicious vehicle” on Monday, deputies pulled over a car with many missing parts driven by Jared T. Price, 21, of Java, at the intersection of Younger and Wethersfield roads, the sheriff’s office said.”Price performed poorly on field sobriety testing and was taken into custody,” according to a sheriff’s office news release.Price was taken to the sheriff’s office for a drug influence evaluation and a certified Drug Recognition Expert found him to be “impaired by multiple different drug categories,” officials said.ADVERTISEMENTJared T. Price (Provided by Wyoming County Sheriff’s Office)He was charged with driving while ability impaired by drugs, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs and numerous traffic infractions, including operating a vehicle without insurance.Price was arraigned in the Town of Gainesville Court where bail was set in the amount of $10,000 cash bail or $20,000 bond. He is scheduled to appear Aug. 1 in the Town of Wethersfield Court.

Source: Car with ax in roof, no doors or windshield leads to driving while on drugs arrest – The Buffalo News

Should I Take the Breathalyzer if I am Pulled Over for DUI/DWI

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am frequently asked by friends and acquaintences whether they should take the breathalyzer if they are stopped for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence . This question is almost invariably followed by the statement, “because I have always heard that you should never take it”.

I am not completely sure where this idea that one should never take the breathalyzer came from, although I suspect it is simply dated advice that is still being recirculated because in my view, under most circumstances, a person who is stopped by the police should take the breathalyzer if asked to do so. Here’s why:

As most people are aware, significant changes have been made to the law regarding Driving Under the Influence over the past 20 years. For instance, 20 years ago the legal limit was a BAC of .12 as opposed to .08 today for Driving Under the Influence. In those days judges were also far more likely to give a well represented defendant the benefit of the doubt in cases where there was no breathalyzer. The administrative sanctions imposed by the MVA for refusing the breathalyzer were also far less severe than they are today. The bottom line was in those days not taking the breathalyzer gave you a better shot at being found not guilty in criminal court and did not subject you to extreme administrative penalties. It may very well have been sound legal advice to advise people to never take the breathalyzer before these changes.

Today, the police are trained much better than they were in the past and know how to observe and explain a suspects intoxicated behavior in language that is persuasive to judges and juries in most cases. Laws have also been changed to aid prosecutions in which the breathalyzer was not taken. For instance, it used to be the case that the State was not even allowed to mention the fact that a test was not taken to the judge or the jury. Today, they are allowed to argue to the judge or jury that they should draw a negative inference from the defendant’s refusal to submit to the breathalyzer.

In recent years judges have also been trained, and some my say also cajoled by groups such as MADD, into being much more likely to convict without the benefit of the test. Finally the administrative penalties are much harsher today than in the past. Today for a first refusal there is a mandatory suspension of 120 days. A second or subsequent refusal requires a suspension of a year. There is no provision for a work restricted license such as there is when the test is taken. The only way around the suspension is to participate in the interlock program for a year.

Unfortunately, the decision as to whether to take the test was further complicated a few years ago when the legislature changed the law to increase the adminstrative sactions for readings of .15 or greater. These higher readings now require a 90 days suspension that, like the refusal, may not be modified unless the person participates in the interlock program.

So what is my advice? Today, I tell people that if you are not completely intoxicated and it is your first offense, in most situations you are better off to cooperate fully to include taking the breathalyzer. For the reasons explained herein, there is really little to gain in criminal court by not taking the test and refusing to do so will ensure the much more onerous administrative sanctions I described. On the other hand, if the test is taken and the result is below .15, the person will only face a 45 day suspension that may be modified so that the person can drive to and from work. This is obviously far easier to deal with than a mandatory 120 day suspension or a year with the “blow and go”

Source: Should I Take the Breathalyzer if I am Pulled Over for DUI/DWI — Maryland Criminal Attorney Blog — February 28, 2012

Walks Into a Bar… Mermaid Sex

An old man walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender notices the guy’s head is the size of a cue ball.”I got to ask, sir,” says the bartender. “What happened?”The old guy sighs and tells him, “My ship was torpedoed by the Germans in WWII. A mermaid rescued me and promised to grant me three wishes. For my first wish, I asked to return to the States. My second wish was to have all the money I would ever need. Finally, my third wish was to have sex with the mermaid.””That doesn’t sound too bad,” says the bartender. “Then what happened?””Well,” sighs the man, “mermaids can’t have sex, so I asked her if I could just have a little head… .”

Source: Funny Jokes | Walks Into a Bar… Mermaid Sex Joke | Comedy Central

John Bowlen, son of Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, arrested on suspicion of DUI in California

John Bowlen, son of Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, arrested on suspicion of DUI in CaliforniaMark Belcher10:40 AM, Jul 31, 20176:50 PM, Jul 31, 2017nfl arrests | broncos news | john bowlen arrested | son of broncos owner arrested | pat bowlen son john bowlen Autoplay:PauseMuteLoaded: 0%Progress: 0%Remaining Time -1:29CaptionsFullscreenSHOW CAPTIONPASO ROBLES, Calif. — The son of Pat Bowlen, the owner of the Denver Broncos, is facing charges in California over driving under the influence. Police in California arrested John Bowlen Sunday afternoon and booked him into the San Luis Obispo County Jail.According to police records, Bowlen faces two charges related to driving after drinking alcohol, including Driving with BAC .08 or Higher and Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Those charges are booked as 23152(A) VC and 23152(B) VC. Police in California say they do not release arrest reports, but Denver7 is working to obtain the records. It’s not the first time Bowlen has been in trouble with the law.He was found guilty in April 2016 of harassing a girlfriend the year before, and was sentenced to 24 months of probation with drug and alcohol evaluation. He was also ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation and treatment.He’d originally been charged with two domestic violence counts in that case after his girlfriend called 911 on him because he was inebriated, and he followed by shoving her against a wall, according to police reports.He also pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired in August 2005, according to Colorado court records.A spokesperson for the Broncos could not provide a comment concerning the arrest, citing “a personal matter for John, who is not employed by the team.

Source: John Bowlen, son of Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, arrested on suspicion of DUI in California – Denver7 TheDenverChannel.com

Going to Prison For Misdemeanor DWI

Minnesota-Felony-DWI-Prison.jpgThe heart of this case — State v. Boecker if you want to read it yourself — involves the type of issue that only lawyers can really get behind . . . complex statutory interpretation. But even the most convoluted cases can be simplified for non-lawyers, and State v. Boecker is no exception. Basically, this case came about because the Minnesota Legislature has done a terrible job writing our DWI laws, creating loopholes and contradictions across various statutes. Because we get a new Legislature every two years, the situation gets progressively worse, as future law makers then make even dumber decisions, like inserting language describing the “intent” of previous lawmakers from decades past.

This isn’t uncommon — very few of our legislators are actual attorneys, or even have legal training— but it seems to get especially ugly with our DWI laws. And our Courts, who are responsible for interpreting the letter of the law (not the “spirit,” and especially not when the statute imposes a criminal penalty) sometimes make a deliberate effort to “look the other way” when a DWI law is being scrutinized for lousy drafting.

And that’s what happened here. Minnesota’s DWI laws make any DWI a felony-level offense (meaning you can go to prison) if you have a prior felony offense at any point in your lifetime. In fact, the statute lists all of the possible ways of enhancing a misdemeanor DWI to a felony.

But in Boecker’s case, the statute didn’t list his specific offense, that happened in 1998. The Minnesota Supreme Court relied largely on some “statement of intent” language that was inserted by the 2012 Legislature, purporting to describe the intent of the 2007 Legislature . . . and things just got more confusing from there. Long story short, the Court concluded that even though Mr. Boecker’s prior 1998 DWI wasn’t listed as an option for enhancing his current offense to the level of a felony, they were just going to “read it into the statute” (that’s me paraphrasing).

That’s typically a huge no-no — if a criminal statute doesn’t say something explicitly, it’s not the role of the the Courts to invent language to cover any gaps. But that’s what happened in Boecker . . . and now he’s going to spend several years in prison for driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.14. That may or may not have been the intent of the Legislature, but if it was their intent, they should have done a much, much better job of saying it.

Source: Ramsay Law Firm

Marijuana DUIs Are Still Too Subjective Say Cops. Why No BreathTest?

Although consuming cannabis is legal in Colorado and several other states, driving while under the influence of the drug is not.

Nick Pedersen/Getty Images

This spring, 16 state patrol officers from Colorado and Wyoming took a couple days off their usual work schedule to do something special. They assembled in a hotel conference room in Denver. As instructed, they wore street clothes for their first assignment: going shopping at nearby marijuana dispensaries.

“It’s a brave new world,” said instructor Chris Halsor, referring to the years since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana.

There are now more marijuana dispensaries in Colorado than there are Starbucks shops, said Halsor, a Denver lawyer and former prosecutor. And though consuming cannabis is legal across the state, driving under its influence is not.

The cops in that conference room, with their buzz cuts and Mountain Dew, are all part of the force charged with keeping the roads safe. But first, they needed a formal pot education — to learn how to identify various marijuana products and paraphernalia when they pull over a driver they suspect is under the influence.

Here’s the rub: Despite the increasingly legal use of cannabis in many states, cops still don’t have the equivalent of a reliable alcohol breathalyzer or blood test — a chemically based way of estimating what the drug is doing in the brain. Though a blood test exists that can detect some of marijuana’s components, there is no widely accepted, standardized amount in the breath or blood that gives police or courts or anyone else a good sense of who is impaired.

Yessenia Hinojos, a budtender at a Denver cannabis dispensary called The Green Solution, describes marijuana strains to A.J. Tarantino (left) and Philip Gurley. Both men are officers with Colorado State Patrol.

Rae Ellen Bichell/NPR

A number of scientists nationally are working hard to create just such a chemical test and standard — something to replace the behavioral indicators that cops have to base their judgments on now.

Article continues after sponsorship

“We like to know the human error and the limitations of the human opinion,” said Tara Lovestead, a chemical engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., who is working on setting standards for what a marijuana detection test might require.

It’s actually really hard for Lovestead to do this kind of research because she works in a federal lab; federally, cannabis is considered a Schedule 1 substance, “a drug with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” So even though Lovestead is in Colorado, getting hold of a sample for research purposes is just as hard as getting hold of heroin.

“We cannot use the stuff down the street,” she said.

Aside from being a bureaucratic mess, coming up with a standardized blood or breath test is also a really tricky chemistry problem because of the properties of the main psychoactive chemical in cannabis: delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

In states like Colorado, there is a THC blood test that law enforcement can use to show “presumed” impairment. If a person has more than 5 nanograms of delta-9-THC per milliliter of blood, it can be “presumed” that they are impaired, according to Colorado law.

But Lovestead and others maintain that, scientifically speaking, that cutoff doesn’t actually mean anything.

“We just don’t know whether or not that means they’re still intoxicated, or impaired or not,” she said. “There’s no quantitative measure that could stand up in a court of law.”

Turns out it can be a lot harder to chemically determine from a blood or breath test that someone is high than to determine from such a test that they’re drunk.

Ethanol, the chemical in alcoholic drinks that dulls thinking and reflexes is small and dissolves in water. Because humans are mostly water, it gets distributed fairly quickly and easily throughout the body and is usually cleared within a matter of hours. But THC, the main chemical in cannabis that produces some of the same symptoms, dissolves in fat. That means the length of time it lingers in the body can differ from person to person even more than alcohol — influenced by things like gender, amount of body fat, frequency of use, and the method and type of cannabis product consumed.

In one study, researchers had 30 frequent marijuana users stay at a research facility for a month without any access to drugs of any sort and repeatedly tested their bloodfor evidence of cannabis.

“And it shocked everyone, including ourselves, that we could measure, in some of these individuals, THC in the blood for 30 days,” says Marilyn Huestis, a toxicologist with the University of Maryland School of Medicine who recently retired from leading a lab at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The participants’ bodies had built up stores of THC that were continuing to slowly leech out, even though they had abstained from using marijuana for a full month. In some of those who regularly smoked large amounts of pot, researchers could measure blood THC above the 5-nanogram level for several days after they had stopped smoking.

Conversely, another study showed that people who weren’t regular consumers could smoke a joint right in front of researchers and yet show no evidence of cannabis in their blood.

So, in addition to being invasive and cumbersome, the blood test can be misleading and a poor indicator of whatever is happening in the brain.

Recently, some scientists have turned their attention to breath, in hopes of creating something useful.

A number of companies, like Cannabix Technologies and Hound Labs, are in the process of developing breath detection devices. Tara Lovestead is providing the data that will help relate the concentration of THC detected in the breath to what’s in the blood. Even though blood provides an incomplete and indirect inkling of what’s happening in the brain, it’s the measure law enforcement turns to as a benchmark.

That, too, is a chemist’s nightmare. THC and other cannabinoids — the chemicals that cause a high — are really squirrelly. They degrade quickly and appear only in very tiny amounts in the breath.

Luckily, Lovestead’s specialty is detecting tiny amounts of chemicals in the air. She and her colleagues have worked on methods to use tiny air samples to detect evidence of arsonburied bodies and hidden explosives. Marijuana is the next challenge.

In the future, she said, an accurate breath test would likely involve looking at a lot more than just THC — probably a whole combination of chemicals.

“One thing to look for would be metabolites — something that comes out of the breath that shows it actually went through your system,” she said. Such a test would greatly reduce the possibility that someone might test positive from inhaling secondhand smoke, she said.

In the meantime, it’s up to law enforcement officers like the ones in Chris Halsor’s class to make the call, based on circumstantial evidence and their best guess.

“The whole point of this class is to get the officers to make correct decisions,” said Halsor.

Many officers in his courses have never used marijuana — or haven’t since some exploratory puffs in high school. These officers need training, he said, to boost their confidence — “confidence that they’re making the right arrest decision and confidence that they’re letting people go who really aren’t impaired.”

The cops attending his seminar in the spring paged through Dope Magazine, chuckled at a photo of an edible called “reef jerky” and watched a video together on how to dab — heating concentrated marijuana and inhaling the vapors. In their visit to a local marijuana dispensary, they examined gold-plated blunts — hollowed-out cigars filled with marijuana.

But the real test of these officers’ ability to identify the signs of cannabis impairment faced them outside the hotel, in a parked RV that was plastered with bumper stickers.

A chemical test that reliably detects cannabis use — let alone intoxication — has been elusive.

Rae Ellen Bichell/NPR

Four volunteers for the project were inside the RV, legally getting as high as they wanted to, from a big plastic tub full of pot products.

“Good music, good company, good weed. It all goes together,” said Eugene Butler, one of the four volunteers.

Butler and the three others had never met before. They had volunteered to get high and then interact with cops to help the officers learn the signs of cannabis impairment.

“We’re going to willfully smell like pot around a bunch of cops,” said Sharica Clark, laughing.

Inside the hotel, the officers practiced roadside sobriety tests on the four volunteers — determining each time if, in real life, they would have arrested these people for a DUI.

All the volunteers had smoked a lot of pot inside the RV. But in the sobriety tests, they performed differently.

A volunteer named Christine, for example, did well on math, quickly calculating how many quarters are in $1.75. But she didn’t do well on other things, like balancing, remembering instructions and estimating time. (She was concerned about recrimination at work, and NPR agreed to use only her first name).

Christine, the officers all decided, would be a danger behind the wheel. In real life, they would have arrested her.

“Yeah, she’d be going to jail,” said Rich Armstrong, an officer with Colorado State Patrol.

But things weren’t so clear with the other volunteers. A lot of the officers had decided they wouldn’t arrest Eugene Butler or a volunteer named John (who also asked that we not use his last name); both men aced the same roadside tests Christine flunked, even though they, too, had just smoked a lot in the RV.

And when it came to Sharica Clark, the officers decided it was essentially a toss-up as to whether they would have arrested her, based on her performance on the roadside tests. Yes, her pupils were huge, and she had a tough time touching her finger to the tip of her nose while her eyes were closed. But her balance, counting and recitation of the alphabet were, as Colorado State Patrol Officer Philip Gurley put it, “spot on.”

“It was a tough one,” said Tom Davis, another officer with Colorado State Patrol.

Volunteer Sharica Clark counts 30 seconds with her eyes closed, as officers with Colorado State Patrol check her balance and counting skills after using cannabis. It was part of a simulated roadside sobriety test in the officers’ training seminar.

Rae Ellen Bichell/NPR

Right now, these officer’s opinions loom large. If they decide you’re driving high, you’re going to jail. But at the end of the day, they’re just making educated guesses. Two different officers could watch the same person doing the same sobriety test and make different decisions on whether to arrest. In previous courses, officers had decided that a volunteer was impaired when in fact the volunteer hadn’t smoked at all.

So, just like the THC blood test, the judgments officers make can also yield false positives and negatives.

“This is one of those subjective areas,” said Armstrong.

“It’s too subjective,” said Lovestead.

She recently published a paper in the journal Forensic Chemistry where she found the vapor pressure of THC — one of its fundamental physical properties. Lovestead believes finding and standardizing that measurement is a small but significant steptoward a more objective route for evaluating intoxicated drivers.

In the meantime, courses like Halsor’s are the best resource for officers. And at least now the class participants know what pot strains like Skunk Dawg, Hippie Chicken and Chunky Diesel actually smell like.

“Yeah,” said Gurley. “It smells like the bottom side of a rock.”

Source: Marijuana DUIs Are Still Too Subjective Say Cops. Why No BreathTest? : Shots – Health News : NPR

Walks Into a Bar… Not Ready to Go Home Joke

A guy walks into a bar and asks for a beer. He chugs it, looks into his pocket and asks for another beer. He chugs that beer, looks into his pocket and asks for another.The man does this a few more times until the bartender asks, “How come you ask for a beer, chug it, then look in your pocket?”The man says, “Because there is a picture of my wife in my pocket and I’m gonna keep drinking till she looks good enough for me to go home.”

Source: Funny Jokes | Walks Into a Bar… Not Ready to Go Home Joke | Comedy Central