Colorado Juries Keep Letting People Go for Driving on Weed, Pros/Cops Furious

[Origanalist]

Colorado Juries Keep Letting People Go for Driving on Weed, Prosecutors and Cops are Furious

By
Justin Gardner -
November 22, 2015

Adams County, CO — Colorado prosecutors are getting frustrated at jurors for daring to exercise rationality instead of blindly following the will of the State. A growing number of juries are acquitting people of driving under the influence of cannabis, even when tests show they are over the state’s legal blood-THC limit.

Since the recreational use of cannabis became legal, Colorado authorities are scrambling to apply rules and regulations to this new reality. They have established a 5 ng/ml blood-THC limit for operation of a motor vehicle, which seems to be arbitrary as there is no preponderance of data to support a specific number.

Indeed, the assumption that driving on weed poses the same risks as driving on alcohol would be a fallacy. In September, we reported on a novel study that found virtually no driving impairment under the influence of cannabis, while alcohol caused complete impairment.

People in Colorado seem to realize that applying a number to a person’s blood-THC level is not an ultimate determination of their motor abilities.

Take the case of Melanie Brinegar, who was stopped in June for an expired license plate. The cop, not content with collecting that revenue, decided to ruin her day on the suspicion that she was high, even though she had not displayed any erratic driving.

Instead of invoking her 5th Amendment right to remain silent, Brinegar—a licensed medical cannabis patient—answered the cop’s inquiry by saying, “No, I was medicating.”

That gave cops the excuse to demand she perform roadside sobriety tests, at which she did poorly. This enabled them to commit a further intrusion by taking a blood sample, which showed that Brinegar was almost four times over the state’s legal limit.

However, in court Brinegar said that she “drives better” and “is able to focus” after using cannabis. She went on to testify, “When I smoke I don’t get high.”

The jurors believed her. What’s more, the sober jurors tried doing roadside sobriety maneuvers on their own, and some of them failed. They concluded that Brinegar, although “legally” high, was not impaired.

Brad Wood, the foreman on Brinegar’s jury, described the process that allowed them to come to this conclusion:

“The law allows you to infer that the person was impaired if they have over 5 ng/ml. But you may also feel free not to infer that and in any case use all the evidence to make your judgment.”

This application of logic and defiance of an arbitrary number is driving prosecutors into a hissy fit.

continued..https://thefreethoughtproject.com/co...utors-furious/

[PAF]

Power to the people.

I'm good with that. If nothing happens en route, no crime occurred. If something does happen, personal responsibility and private insurance will have to work it out.

I never understood why it is required to have insurance, but one gets a speeding ticket anyway, even when an accident has not occurred.

[phill4paul]

Good article and I'm glad juries are seeing it this way. However, I would like them to apply the same standards for drinking and driving. B.A.C. is just as subjective depending on the driver.

[Dr.3D]

This is tyoical of the state. They run on a 'what might happen', system, rather on a 'what damage has occured.'

I suspect they are upset about not being able to steal some money from people who haven't caused damage.

[Origanalist]

This is tyoical of the state. They run on a 'what might happen', system, rather on a 'what damage has occured.'

I suspect they are upset about not being able to steal some money from people who haven't caused damage.

I have a strong suspicion you're right.

[kcchiefs6465]

5ng/ml is absurd.

[CaptUSA]

This is tyoical of the state. They run on a 'what might happen', system, rather on a 'what damage has occured.'

I suspect they are upset about not being able to steal some money from people who haven't caused damage.

Sheesh, with juries like this, cell phones and body cams, it's getting to where cops can't violate anyone's rights anymore. What is this world coming to??


(just kidding - they can still violate your rights. Juries still have their backs on those issues.)

[CaptUSA]

Power to the people.

I'm good with that. If nothing happens en route, no crime occurred. If something does happen, personal responsibility and private insurance will have to work it out.

I never understood why it is required to have insurance, but one gets a speeding ticket anyway, even when an accident has not occurred.

Hmmm.... could it be because insurance companies write the cronyist laws to reduce their liabilities???

[Dr.3D]

Sheesh, with juries like this, cell phones and body cams, it's getting to where cops can't violate anyone's rights anymore. What is this world coming to??


(just kidding - they can still violate your rights. Juries still have their backs on those issues.)

Well, it's good to see Jury Nullification happening, even if it's not happening as often as it should.

[PAF]

Hmmm.... could it be because insurance companies write the cronyist laws to reduce their liabilities???

Don't tell me we are run by "lobbyists"!

[Origanalist]

Hmmm.... could it be because insurance companies write the cronyist laws to reduce their liabilities???

No way.

[Dr.3D]

No way.

Well, in those sh!t hole countries, it's called bribery, but in the civilized countries, it's called lobbying.

[Brian4Liberty]

Good article and I'm glad juries are seeing it this way. However, I would like them to apply the same standards for drinking and driving. B.A.C. is just as subjective depending on the driver.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a case of political correctness and popular culture dictating what is accepted and what is demonized. Marijuana is in, is hip and is politically correct. Alcohol has been demonized by the prohibitionists forever, and poltical correctness dictates that you must defer to their campaign.

In fairness to marijuana, it doesn’t have the obvious effect on driving that too much alcohol can have. As marijuana use while driving increases, we might see an increase in accidents, which would cause a backlash against marijuana.

Complex issue in both cases. Every individual case raises the question of correlation or cause and effect. Did the accident occur because the person had used some drug, or was the accident unavoidable and just coincided with the drug use? Then there is the dosage question, which varies from individual to individual. A fixed dosage being over a legal line is pretty arbitrary.