Marijuana DUI – No blood test done by Police?
Friend's kid sister was stopped by police for speeding, freaked out and admitted to smoking marijuana. The officer gave her a DUI, but did not take a blood test. Does this even make sense since there's no evidence other than his word? She was not drinking, did not have anything on her, has n...
Friend's kid sister was stopped by police for speeding, freaked out and admitted to smoking marijuana. The officer gave her a DUI, but did not take a blood test. Does this even make sense since there's no evidence other than his word? She was not drinking, did not have anything on her, has no prior offenses. Is there a good chance of getting this dismissed in court? Thank you!
Fan Freakin' Tastic, shut up and reserve you judgment for yourself. And what "YOU PEOPLE" do you refer to? IDIOT, you know nothing about this kid.
FRIEND'S KID SISTER ADMITTED IT. End of story. She f*cked up, not the cop. Hopefully she's learned her lesson. But somehow I doubt it. She'll just go on, blaming her actions on everyone else. People like you guys always do.
You take urine for drugs – not blood.
There is an open admission also..
Well, she admitted smoking pot. . ., so she gets a ticket. When she asks that the charge is dismissed the court will probably have her take a pee test. Since pot stays in the body for awhile, it will come back positive. She might beat the DUI but get charged with possession and use.
No win situation for her. . .
The Police can take either blood or urine to test for marijuana. However, with out actual scientific evidence for the marijuana you can't get a DWI, unless she refused to take all tests, then she could have been given a DWI Refusal.
There is always a chance but not likely because she would have to take a test and she might still turn up positive.
As has already been noted, the kid admitted smoking marijuana. Evidence item #1.
Her driving was potentially impaired (she was speeding and we don't have any details about that). Potential evidence item #2.
Her breath likely smelled of marijuana. Potential evidence item #3.
She may have shown signs of marijuana influence that the properly trained officer can testify to. Potential evidence item #4.
There may be even more potential evidence in this case so it's probably not fair to say there's no evidence other than the officer's word. You yourself confirmed the kid admitted to smoking marijuana so it's not just the officer's word.
Having said all that, it would be better if we knew what state this took place in, and how old the kid is. Laws vary from state to state and are sometimes different between adults and juveniles. Could be the standard of proof where you are is pretty low for this possible offense. Could also be the cop didn't do a very good job of handling things, or you might not even have all the facts at your disposal.
Is there a good chance of it being dismissed? Not possible to say without at least seeing the officer's report. Too many unknowns here for anyone to tell you one way or the other for certain.
Some of you so-called 'cops' on here really give a bad reputation to the real cops. So someone 'admitted' to something. And that's it? I could 'admit' to murder, but if there's no body and no evidence that somebody died, there ain't much of a case. I sure won't go to prison just because I said I did it. Admission is just ONE part of a conviction.
For your friend's sister, consult with a lawyer. Not hire one, necessarily, just consult. That's usually cheap and worth the money. The prosecutor has to PROVE the case. For speeding, it's such a common infraction that they have that down really well and not much chance of fighting it. But a DUI without any supporting PHYSICAL evidence is just whistling into the wind.
This seems very odd to me.
I have made MANY DUI arrests and the only times that I did not have blood test results:
1) The person refused the test
2) The person fled the scene (such as at a crash) before i arrived – still made arrest based on witness testimony (he was convicted)
I can not see why the officer would not take her for a blood test (unless she refused…).
However, he can still make an arrest and possibly get a conviction without the blood results (look at my example above). It just doesn't make sense since he could have easily had the best evidence available and he just didn't bother….
I would definitely fight that.