Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:58:37+00:00

Document:
Recreational use of marijuana (cannabis) has been legal in California since January 1, 2018.
6 months jail; $390-$1,000 fine; 3 or 9 months DUI school; 6 - 10 months suspended license (convertible to restricted license).
96 hours - 1-year jail; $390-$1,000 fine; 18 or 30 months DUI school; 2 years suspended license (convertible to restricted license after 12 months).
120 days - 1 year jail; $390-$1,000 fine; 30 months DUI school; 3 years revoked license (restricted license possible after 18 months).
5 days - 1-year jail; $390-5,000 fine (plus restitution to injured parties); 3, 18 or 30 months DUI school; 1 – 3 years revoked license.
16 months, 2 years or 3 years state prison; $390-$1,000 fine; 18 or 30 months DUI school; 4 years revoked license.
16 mos.-16 yrs. state prison; $1,015-5,000 fine (plus restitution to injured parties); 18 or 30 mos. DUI school; 5 years revoked license.
2. How does the prosecutor prove that someone drove under the influence of cannabis?
3. Which chemical test will a driver have to take after an arrest for VC 23152(f)?
4. How reliable are chemical tests for marijuana?
5. Can a driver refuse to take a DUI chemical test for marijuana?
6. Must a driver be offered a chemical test?
7. Does marijuana impair driving ability?
Let's take a closer look at some of these elements.
Proving that the defendant drove is usually fairly easy for the prosecution. This is because a typical arrest for DUI of cannabis occurs during a traffic stop.
Example: A California Highway Patrol officer comes across a car parked at an angle on the shoulder of a highway. The rear part of the car is sticking out into one of the lanes. All the car's lights are on. The engine is running.
The car has one occupant, Darryl. Darryl is sitting behind the wheel, asleep. He smells of marijuana. There is also a baggie of weed and a bong on the front passenger seat.
Being in the driver's seat is not enough to prove that you drove for purposes of California's DUI of marijuana law.
Even though circumstantial evidence can be proof of driving, merely sitting behind the wheel of a car is not enough – even with the engine running.
Example: An LAPD officer sees Alfred smoke a joint outside of a bar. Afterwards, Alfred gets into the driver's side of his car and turns on the ignition. The officer immediately arrests him for DUI marijuana.
But since Alfred never actually drove the vehicle – and there was no reason to believe he had driven the vehicle while stoned -- there is no probable cause for a DUI arrest.9 He could have been sitting in the running vehicle simply to get warm or to listen to the radio.
If the defendant prefers, a judge (in a California “bench” trial).
The jury or judge will decide whether the prosecutor has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove under the influence of marijuana.
Some strains of weed are low in THC and high in a substance known as “cannabidiol” (“CBD”). CBD is a non-psychoactive substance found in marijuana.
Unlike alcohol, there is no “legal limit” for marijuana under California law.
We discuss these issues at length in Sections 4 and 5, below. But in short, a chemical test alone is usually not sufficient to convict someone of DUI of marijuana.
This means a prosecutor can charge someone with driving under the influence even if he or she is not offered, or he or she refuses to take, a chemical test.
What other evidence can be used to convict someone of DUI of cannabis?
Most of the evidence of impairment will be established through testimony from the arresting officer. But some California law enforcement agencies also employ a “Drug Recognition Expert” (DRE).
In these jurisdictions, the arresting officer will often call for a DRE when drug use is suspected in a DUI case.20 The DRE will examine the defendant and may testify at trial about the defendant's physical symptoms of impairment.
If drug use is suspected in a DUI, a driver may be required to take a blood test.
Most drivers choose a breath test, which is less invasive than a blood test.
The officer found drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in the driver's car.
Test results can also vary depending on which type of test is used.
Let's take a quick look at the problems associated with blood, urine and saliva tests for marijuana.
The most commonly used chemical test in a DUI of marijuana case is a blood test. Blood tests look directly for the presence of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”).
The bigger problem with a blood test for THC is that unlike alcohol, which is water soluble, THC is fat soluble. This means that once ingested, it is stored in the body's fatty tissues.
So a positive blood test doesn't mean much in the context of a possible VC 23152 violation.
Example: Alice smokes marijuana three or four times a week. One day she runs a stop sign and is pulled over. The officer smells pot on Alice's clothes and arrests her.
Ironically, this happens on a day when Alice has not used cannabis and is not high. But because she is a habitual user, her blood test turns up positive for THC.
Urine tests can show that someone recently used marijuana, but not how much.
High CBD/low THC marijuana is particularly susceptible to misleading urine test results.32 This is because even though this type of cannabis does not get people high, it still contains cannabis metabolites other than THC. These metabolites can trigger a “positive” result on a DUI urine test.
Example: Adam suffers from a blood-clotting disorder and frequent migraines. He sometimes smokes high-CBD marijuana in the evenings to help him manage his headache pain.
One morning on his way to work, Adam accidentally runs a red light. An officer pulls him over and smells marijuana on Adam's clothes. She arrests him for driving under the influence. After his breath test proves negative for alcohol, Adam is ordered to take a blood test to screen for drugs.
Because of his clotting disorder, Adam is allowed to take a urine test instead. So even though Adam isn't high, his urine shows the presence of marijuana metabolites. As a result he is charged with violating Vehicle Code 23152(f) VC.
Some California counties have begun using a roadside “oral fluid” (saliva) test for marijuana.33 The test is performed by swabbing the insides of the suspect's mouth with a cotton swab.
Saliva tests have also not yet been ruled admissible in driving under the influence cases.
So at present, law enforcement agencies that use saliva tests do so as a preliminary screening test only. If a driver's saliva tests positive for THC, the officer will most likely then arrest the driver and require a blood test.
But it is important to distinguish between a pre-arrest roadside test, such as a saliva swab or, and A post-arrest DUI chemical test of the driver's blood or urine.
Perform one or more field sobriety tests (such as the “one leg stand” test).
As long as the driver has not yet been placed under arrest, he/she may legally decline to take all these tests.37 No magic words are required.
What if the arrest was not lawful?
People who think their arrest is unlawful do not need to argue it with the officer in order to preserve their rights. They can take a chemical test and let their California DUI attorney fight the legality of the arrest later.
If the arrest turns out to be unlawful, the test results will be thrown out -- even if they show that the driver used marijuana.
And if it was a lawful arrest, there is still no need to panic. A positive chemical test does not, by itself, prove that a driver was under the influence of marijuana at the time he or she drove.
Police are not required to offer a driver a chemical test. This is important because, as we discussed above, THC and other marijuana metabolites remain in the blood and urine for a long time. So a negative chemical test is a strong indication that the driver did not use marijuana.
The effect of marijuana on driving ability is a subject for debate.
Part of the problem is that marijuana is still classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic under the federal Controlled Substances Act. This has resulted in a lack of research on the effects of THC on driving.
What is known for a fact is that THC can produce alterations in motor behavior, perception, cognition, and memory.41 But so far, studies have not shown a consistent correlation between THC use and driver impairment.
But whatever the reason, the upshot is that chemical tests do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone's driving was actually impaired by marijuana.
A 6-month driver's license suspension is a standard penalty for a first VC 23152(f) conviction.
Penalties for DUI of marijuana are the same as for driving under the influence of alcohol. Unless a serious accident is involved, it is usually charged as a misdemeanor.
But if someone is seriously injured, VC 23152(f) becomes a California “wobbler” offense. A “wobbler” can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, in the prosecutor's discretion.
These penalties increase slightly for a second or third conviction.
The police failed to conduct a chemical test in accordance with California Title 17 regulations.
Let's take a brief look at each of these defenses.
Marijuana's metabolites are fairly unique. As a result, it is unlikely that a driver will test positive for marijuana if he/she has not used it within the last month or so.
A negative chemical test result is, therefore, usually a good indication that the driver is not guilty of DUI of marijuana.
Drivers should tell their California DUI lawyer about ALL drugs and supplements they use -- whether prescription, over-the-counter, or illegal.
Needing medical marijuana is not a legal excuse for driving under its influence in California.
Chemical tests can show whether someone used marijuana, but not how long ago it was consumed.
This is why prosecutors in DUI marijuana cases can't rely on chemical tests as “smoking guns.” A good DUI defense lawyer will make this clear to the prosecutor and -- if the DUI of marijuana case goes to trial -- to the judge or jury.
Even if the prosecutor can prove the driver recently used marijuana, it does not mean the driver will be convicted.
It is important to note that it is a crime in California to drive while addicted to any drug (including marijuana).56 Addicted driving is considered a form of California DUI and carries the same penalties.
Prosecutors rarely charge people with driving while addicted to a drug. But a zealous prosecutor who can't prove a driver was impaired might try instead to prove the driver was addicted to marijuana.
If a drug impairs driving, it doesn't matter whether it was legally or even medically necessary. If someone's ability to drive safely is impaired, he or she may not lawfully drive.
It is also not a defense to VC 23152(f) charges that impairment was caused in part by something other than marijuana.
For example, perhaps someone was using marijuana to treat a migraine and the migraine was the main cause for the impairment.
But the prosecutor must still prove that the driver was actually impaired.
This law does not apply, however, to open containers of weed in the trunk of the vehicle.
Violation of VC 23222(b) is an infraction. It can be punished by a fine of up to $100.
If you have been arrested and charged with VC 23152(f), we invite you to contact our California DUI defense lawyers for a free consultation.
Call us at 855-LAWFIRM or fill out the form on this page to speak to a knowledgeable DUI defense lawyer in your area.
We have local offices throughout California, including Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose.
We also have offices in Las Vegas and Reno that can help people charged with DUI of marijuana in Nevada.
CALCRIM 2110: “[A drug is a substance or combination of substances, other than alcohol, that could so affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person that it would appreciably impair his or her ability to drive as an ordinarily cautious person, in full possession of his or her faculties and using reasonable care, would drive under similar circumstances.
See also Health and Safety Code 11054(d)(13). Health and Safety Code 11054 is part of California's “Uniform Controlled Substances Act.” Under HS 11054(d)(13), cannabis (marijuana) is classified as a Schedule 1 hallucinogen.
See People v. Wilson (1985) 176 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1 (“[W]e conclude that a reasonable person would construe the phrase ‘to drive a vehicle' in subdivision (a) of section 23152 of the Vehicle Code as encompassing any act or action which is necessary to operate the mechanism and controls and direct the course of a motor vehicle.”).
See People v. McGinnis (1953) 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945, 267 P.2d 458 (holding that the guilt of an accused in DUI cases may be established by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence, and that the right to draw proper inferences from the evidence is a function of the jury).
People v. Wilson, endnote 5.
CALCRIM 2110 (“A person is under the inﬂuence if, as a result of (drinking [or consuming] an alcoholic beverage/ [and/or] taking a drug), his or her mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.”).
DUI of alcohol can be charged under VC 23152(a) if the prosecutor proves that someone's driving was impaired by alcohol, regardless of blood alcohol content (“BAC). But DUI can also be charged under VC 23152(b) when a driver's BAC is .08 or greater, even if his/her driving is not actually impaired. This is known as a DUI “per se.” Another (less accurate) way to put this is that the “legal limit” for alcohol in California is .08 %. There is no equivalent “per se” limit for marijuana.
See, e.g., KQED News, “How Much Marijuana Is Too Much to Drive?”, December 21, 2017.
For instance, Washington state law specifies that adult drivers are considered DUI if they have five nanograms of more of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their blood. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 46.61.502(1)(b).
International Review of Psychiatry, Volume 21, 2009 - Issue 2.
See, e.g., WebMD, “As CBD Oil Flirts with Mainstream, Questions Mount,” June 5, 2018.
See National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Effects of marijuana – with and without alcohol – on driving performance,” June 23, 2015.
People v. Macknic (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 370, 64 Cal.Rptr. 833 (holding that detailed testimony by an expert as to the defendant's observable physical and mental reactive state was sufficient to prove that defendant was “under the influence” of a narcotic drug).
People v. McGinnis, endnote 6.
See, e.g., People v. Weathington (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 69, 282 Cal.Rptr. 170 (“If the issue is whether the ability of the driver to operate his vehicle is impaired, the manner in which the vehicle is driven is evidence which tends to prove or disprove that fact.”). The Weathington court also found there was substantial evidence of impaired driving due to the defendant's slurred speech, swaying, staggering walk, and statements regarding his consumption of alcohol.
Vehicle Code 23612(a)(2)(B): "If the person is lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of any drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, the person has the choice of whether the test shall be of his or her blood or breath, and the officer shall advise the person that he or she has that choice."
NPR, “Scientists Still Seek A Reliable DUI Test For Marijuana,” July 30, 2017.
“Marijuana-Impaired Driving: A Report to Congress,” National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, pp. 5-6.
An example of such metabolites is THC carboxylic acid (THC-COOH). See e.g., Jason C. Laberge and Nicholas J. War, “Research Note: Cannabis and Driving — Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy,” The Journal of Drug Issues (2004).
See Los Angeles Times, “Police are using new mouth-swab tests to nab drivers under the influence of marijuana and other drugs,” March 17, 2017.
Marilyn A. Huestis and Michael L. Smith, “Cannabinoid Markers in Biological Fluids and Tissues: Revealing Intake,” December 2017.
See “Scientists Still Seek A Reliable DUI Test For Marijuana,” endnote 24.
See Vehicle Code 23612(a)(1)(B): "A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood test is unavailable, the person shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her urine and shall submit to a urine test."
See Vehicle Code 13353 VC.
People v. Macknic, endnote 17.
“Marijuana-Impaired Driving, a Report to Congress,” endnote 26, p. 7.
Maggie Koerth-Baker, “Driving Under the Influence, of Marijuana,” NYTimes.com, Feb. 17, 2014.
See, e.g., Vehicle Code 23536 VC [penalties for a first violation of VC 23152].
Vehicle Code 23153: “…(e)It is unlawful for a person, while under the influence of any drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver. (f) It is unlawful for a person, while under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver…"
Vehicle Code 23152(g), endnote 2.
“Marijuana-Impaired Driving, a Report to Congress,” endnote 26.
See e.g., People v. Torres (2009)173 Cal.App.4th 977, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 303 (holding that the potential of methamphetamine to impair driving was insufficient to convict defendant of DUI drugs [and by extension DUI of marijuana] absent expert evidence showing that his drug use actually affected his driving ability).
Santa Ana criminal and DUI defense lawyer John Murray is one of Southern California's leading experts on DUI criminal defense. He has considerable expertise on the law governing driving and marijuana use as well as a proven track record of success at DMV hearing locations throughout southern California, including those in the City of Commerce, Covina, El Segundo, Oxnard, San Bernardino, and Van Nuys.
Health and Safety Code 11357(a).
Health and Safety Code 11357(b)(2).
Health and Safety Code 11357(b)(1).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.