The Jail Report for Sept. 11 to 16

Advertisement

Saturday, Sept. 11

— Daniel Candler Marcus, 34, Steamboat Springs — Violating a protective order, disorderly conduct (Steamboat Springs Police Department)

Luis A. Conejo Arias, 49, Steamboat Springs — Driving under the influence, DUI per se (SSPD)

Lori Reeves King, 47, Steamboat Springs — Harassment (Oak Creek Police Department)

Andrew James George, 34, Steamboat Springs — Failure to appear (SSPD)

Britton Kjar Wiley, 35, Parker — Fugitive of justice (failure to appear), DUI, driving under suspension (Colorado State Patrol)

Katie Lynn Keenan, 21, Steamboat Springs — Unlawful possession of a controlled substance, unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, authorized possession of a controlled substance (SSPD)

Chad David Hettinger, 27, transient — Fugitive of justice (cruelty to animals) (SSPD)

Benjamin Robert Frizzell, 21, Conifer — Driving under the influence of drugs, failure to signal (CSP)

Sunday, Sept. 12

Daniel Jon Woycio, 50, Steamboat Springs — Failure to appear (traffic) (SSPD)

Monday, Sept. 13

Seth Earl Smith, 21, Waterford, Conn.— DUID, speeding, no valid drivers license, open container (CSP)

Christopher Cantu Allen, 49, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii — DUID, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, failure to signal, weaving, no proof of insurance (SSPD)

Tuesday, Sept. 14

Leif Valdemar Sigstedt, 19, Steamboat Springs — Minor in possession, violating a restraining order, violating probation (SSPD and the Routt County Sheriff’s Office)

Lora Mary Wyman, 49, Steamboat Springs — Harassment (SSPD)

Wednesday, Sept. 15

Jeffrey Burt Boh, 45, Granby — DUI, open container, speeding (RCSO)

Janessa Elizabeth Lomas, 22, Steamboat Springs — DUI, open container (SSPD)

Patrick Owen, 69, Hayden — Fugitive of justice (RCSO)

Thursday, Sept. 16

Vincent Aloysius Hartigan, 43, Steamboat Springs — DUI, riding

bike carelessly, obstructing a peace officer, bike not equipped with front light, possession of drug paraphernalia (SSPD)

Lucas James Masterson, 22, Hamilton — DUI, DUI per se, careless driving (CSP)

Paul Allen Berry, 48, Pueblo — Fugitive of justice (Oak Creek Police Department)

Matthew Ryan Laman, 34, Craig — DUI, driving under restraint, open container, prohibited use of a weapon (RCSO)

Friday, Sept. 17

Stephan Douglas Harrington, 42, Steamboat Springs — Second-degree assault (SSPD)

Wayne Michael Bush, 27, Oak Creek — Failure to appear (dog off leash) (OCPD)

Comments

exduffer 4 years, 3 months ago

I see the DUIDs are starting to catch up with the DUIs.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

I was noticing the same thing lately. It is worth noting that the pro dope lobby made all kinds of claims that DUI was the problem and now we see that it is being surpassed by DUID. It "PAINS" me.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

see-

DUID's are surpassing DUI's?

I'm only a bowl and a half deep into my morning so far and I can still do better fact checking than that. If you'll notice in the report above, the count of DUI's vs the total number of drug incidents puts DUI's in the lead by 2.

Not to worry though. After the 2012 elections, when Colorado voters will cast their ballots for recreational legalization of cannabis, tax-payers in this state will get a nice break on not having to waste millions annually to prosecute cannabis users. It's just too bad we couldn't get it on our ballots this year, like California has done.

0

1999 4 years, 3 months ago

the fact is the police have no measure of when someone is duid.

if they smell pot or see evidence you are duid.

regardless of your level of "intoxication"

with DUIs there is a measure.

from what I know...most DUIDs are eventually dismissed for that very reason.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

I count 7 DUIs. I count 3 DUIDs. I count 1 drug dealer and one of the DUI case had drug paraphernalia.

Well, the curious part of the DUIDs is that 2 of the 3 were for people identified as out of state residents. So it is not at all clear that any of them would even be able to get their drugs from a dispensary.

Just as it is possible to get DUI convictions against people that refuse BAC tests and instead officer's observation of intoxication is used, it is quite possible to get impaired driving convictions for any number of drugs, including presciption for which testing does not show a level of intoxication.

It would appear that since most states have DUID laws that state that any trace of the drug or metabolized drug and the remnants of pot stay in one's system for days to weeks, that anyone pulled over for DUID for pot that considers themselves to not be under the influence should insist upon an immediate blood test. The blood test can show whether or not there is any active drug and thus whether there is any intoxication.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

1999, Seriously? Non high folks can't tell when someone is tuned up? The bong next to the driver and the 10 MPH below the speed limit or stopping 1/2 block before the intersection may be some clues. Please spare me the nonsense I was as hard charigin a partier as any in my younger wasted days. I remember the bong shops all over the place in the 70's, I saw the books that claimed that if one tunes up and studies for exams and then tunes up before the exams that they will ace them. I tried it dude, it's all a lie. Pot and other drugs just dumbs the senses. I am watching the crime and negative effects of new drug laws around the Country, it is as I expected.

It is very telling that after all the arguments for MMJ for pain was thrown at the Country we get the real truth now from mmjPatient22: "Not to worry though. After the 2012 elections, when Colorado voters will cast their ballots for recreational legalization of cannabis"

RECREATIONAL INTENT, we were lied to all along about the pain crap.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

I count,

In possession-4 DUI-8 DUID-3

In possession plus DUID = 7 DUI =8.

I think my earlier post shows merit.

0

jk 4 years, 3 months ago

seeu, I think you need to go back to school and check your math and reading comprehension skills.

0

1999 4 years, 3 months ago

see..I am simply stating the law.

the fact is they have no measurable(unit) limit to charge a duid.

with alchohol ...the police have a measurable limit thru a measurable unit.

Thanks for the walk through history though.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

see (or fumble around blindly, in this case)-

LIES?!?!?! You want to talk about lies??? How about we get to the very core of the issue then? Why don't you regale us with the mountains of "facts" that you have that support the case for cannabis being made illegal in the first place? Are you honestly convinced that the cannabis prohibition was conceived to actually protect people from the "evils" of this plant? I gotta hear this one.... And so what, you actually doubt the medicinal content of cannabis? Or is it just too hard for you to believe that our generation is going to be the one that re-legalizes cannabis?

Even by your bad math, DUID still didn't surpass DUI....merit worthy indeed.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

1999, I do know Colorado's law, but according to NORML, the law in many states defines impaired driving as having either the active drug or it's metabolized components in your system. So a person can be convicted of DUID even if they had recently used drugs, but were not intoxicated while driving.

It would be truly foolish to drive while drug impaired on the hope that the difficulty of proving actual impairment while driving means that you will not be convicted of DUID.

During the campaign for mmj in Colorado, the opponents pointed out that there was no specific list of diseases or independent criteria of qualifying diseases for getting a mmj prescription. Thus, the opponents argued that anyone could get a mmj recommendation for just about anything. And yet it was passed. Someone would have to be very naive and isolated to think that the only users of mmj in Colorado were going to be those with otherwise untreatable pain issues.

I think it passed because enough of the voters were not scared by the idea of adults having to go through the steps of getting a recommendation and then growing 6 plants for personal use. It was pretty clear that high school kids and such would not have legal access to mmj.

The whole idea of dispensaries was not anticipated during the mmj ballot campaign. I think no one expected dispensaries back in 2000, probably because the idea of legalizing mmj was enough of a new idea that nobody thought far enough to contemplate dispensaries being allowed to operate.

0

1999 4 years, 3 months ago

scott...I am certainly not advocating driving around drug impaired. though I am far more concerned about the use legal precription drugs than I am about pot

I am just saying that the police have no MEASURE to measure your intoxication with.

with alchohol they have a distinct measure of blood percentage.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Please explain mr. math wiz jk. Maybe put down the pipe and read the report again tomorrow, that might help you.

mmj, I have my own personal experiences with pot and don't need your high minded facts or figures. I've had the experience of several close, and a best friend, dying because of drugs in which pot was involved. I don't care what other people do with their bodies and minds but I do care that we are fed a plate of stink about the lack of danger of drug use. I quit toking 23 years ago and wish I never did it in the first place. That is my position like it or not. If the majority want to vote for it great, we shall see.

0

jk 4 years, 3 months ago

seeu The only way I can come up with 4 people in possesion is to include the people with DUIDs, so does that mean we get to count the DUIs that had an open container twice also?? In that case there was 6 DUIs + 1 DUI biking + 4 open containers (if you include the one from the DUID), and I'll even throw the MIP in there for free.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

see-

You have made it painfully obvious that you have paid minimal attention to the details in this jail report and subsequent comments. Numerous people have counted out the number of incidents(with varying results) but none of them have reached your same conclusions. Maybe you need to load that ol' pipe back up and get your brain straight again.

Secondly, I kind of already assumed that you weren't much for facts and figures. You must not be much of a fan of history, or at least not the history that plays against your ideals. I guarantee that none of your friends have died from an overdose on cannabis and if you claim otherwise you're a out liar. It is, medically speaking at least, IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on cannabis. And take your "gateway" theory and stick it where all the rest of your assumptions belong...your trash. If cannabis is a gateway drug, then milk is the gateway to whiskey.

Well, if you're so concerned about the amount of fecal stench that you're being dished up, then you might want to do some independent research into cannabis for yourself. If you knew anything at all about the prohibition of cannabis, then you'd know that it's inception was nothing more than the product of racism and big business looking out for their best interests. The illegality of cannabis has absolutely nothing to do with protecting you, me or anyone else's children. But like I said, most of this conversation, and the illegitimate prohibition of cannabis, will be mostly irrelevant to Coloradans by 2012/2013. The only scars left by the atrocities of the war against cannabis will be the fading memories of those that were once personally afflicted by those idiotic laws.

Pot laws are insulting and ignorant. That is a fact, like it or not. There is no room in our society for wasteful tax spending, the likes of which goes towards prosecuting non-violent cannabis users. The majority of Americans out there can't afford to vote against cannabis in any coming election/vote. Or are you one of those crazy Americans that gets off on paying your taxes, simply because you know it goes towards busting/prosecuting cannabis users? Or maybe you're just ultra-gung-ho about how much better it is for someone to have a few drinks, rather than consume some cannabis? Well, once again, history/medicine/the criminal justice system completely disagree with that statement and so do I.

0

exduffer 4 years, 3 months ago

I started this by saying it looks like DUIDs are catching up with the DUIs. I believe they will soon pass them. Why? because according to RMRs ad in The Local they have 'Helped over 2000 patients.'

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

duff-

Oh, that's why? Is that because you think that RMR just materialized all of those patients into existence, out of thin air(no pun intended), when they opened business? Because that would be one wild assumption to be making. I mean, I thought all of you were the ones that were supposed to be all clear headed and straight-thinking?
The more likely reality is that you are incorrectly identifying RMR as the cause for the number of cannabis consumers(and alleged ensuing DUID's) in this area. Not to rag on their quality as a dispensary( because they're actually not that bad at all), but RMR is simply another dispensary. They're not out there forcing anyone to use cannabis. The kind of logic you're using to formulate your retorts is the very same logic that says bars are responsible for all of the DUI's out there that people get charged with. It just doesn't work that way people.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Pot is everything you say it isn't and your attack attitude is proof of that mmj. I expected an angry response and it came in spades, that is what one sees from people who need another hit or toke, whether it be of sigs, pot, booze or other mind altering drugs. I do know that smoking some strands of pot is dangerous because I've experienced it myself, I was incapacitated for several hours while hyperventilating on pot. I was sure I was about to die at the time. I don't make half the claims you attribute to my position, like pot is a gateway drug etc., but I do say that the claim that pot is being legalized for medical reasons is a joke, and you as much as admitted it earlier. I also say that your claim that legalizing pot will end drug crimes involving weed is another fallacy, there are new types of crime occurring in areas where pot is legal and anyone paying attention has read about them in recent weeks. I say again, whatever the people vote for is fine by me as there are bigger fish to fry, but stop hating people who don't care for mmj like you do. Chill out dude.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

mmj, If I were you I would spend more of your energy fighting the Teamsters off than arguing the benefits of pot here.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/20/3042051/medical-marijuana-growers-join.html

Let them in and watch your industry go the way of GM and Chrysler and every other industry that Unions have ruined over the decades. Protect your freedoms from the Unions brother.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

So how many mmj patients did not previously self medicate with pot, but suddenly decided to use it since they could register as a mmj patient to get it legally?

My guess is less than 100.

Andf RMR's patients have stopped supporting Mexican drug cartels and are paying sales tax.

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

I had no idea the police record gets so much internet activity. How did all of you miss Larry Gluecks arrest July 28, 2010. He is an attorney and he forgot to turn his lights on in his vehicle when he was driving after dark! He was charged with driving under the influence of drugs,possession and had paraphernalia, etc.. Now there was a story!

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

Sees, Does your hatred of the hourly worker trying to get ahead know any bounds?

The mmj grower had no problems with their workers becoming Teamsters. In fact, the union is beneficial to both sides because now the mmj grower can pay employee benefits such as a pension and because the pension is held by the Teamsters then even a Federal drug bust of the mmj grower won't jeopardize the worker's pensions.

And US unionized car companies losing out to overseas unionized car companies proves that unions are bad? In reality, there might be a lot more to blame for US car companies difficulties than unions.

I suppose this just goes to show the important of the feds legalizing mmj so that growers and their employees won't see any benefits of joining an union. Conservatives, don't let the teamsters organize workers - legalize pot!

0

exduffer 4 years, 3 months ago

mmj My point is not about the legality of the drug but the attitude toward it. It seems that more people feel that it is OK to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs. Is the holder of a MMJ card more likely to commit DUID because he feels that he is leglly entitled to use and possess? Oh and the ad in today's paper for a $160 'license' seems like a great idea. I would love to have a CAT scan, MRI and full blood work done done for that price.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

see- Angry? Why don't we bring "aichempty" into this and see if he thinks that was an angry response? After all, he ought to know better than anyone on here. It's not my fault that you confuse well thought-out, passionate opposition in an argument, with anger. But that's usually not the problem for people on your side of the fence. It's all too common(and frankly, it's getting kinda old) for folks on your side of the fence, either claiming experience or not, to bait their debate/conversation/question(s) with ample opportunity for the angered responses from their opposition. I've never been much of one for shying away from confrontation or adversity, and I sure(as $#!+) don't have any plans for backing down to the likes of any ill-informed provocateur on these comment boards. If you can't deal with the evidence of history, I can't help ya. I digress... The point is, I'm not arguing the case for pot. I'm arguing against a law that was based SOLELY on lies. I'm arguing against wasting tax-payer money on prosecuting and imprisoning people that choose to use cannabis. I'm arguing that there's a better way. I'm arguing against people that assume they have the authority to tell me(or anyone else) what I can or can't do with my own body, while not hurting anybody else. If you take any of that attitude as anger...well, maybe you just have a different version of reality.

By the way, do you have any concept of how some of the founding forefathers viewed cannabis? Did you have any idea that there used to be laws in this country that mandated that people HAD to grow cannabis? How about the timing of the prohibition of cannabis, generally speaking? In 1937, when the Marijuana Tax Act was enacted, did we somehow catch up on centuries of failed morality? After centuries of use as medicine, us Americans finally figured out just how evil cannabis really is? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Really?

0

chickadee 4 years, 3 months ago

ftp...you just don't get it. You are actually making Aich's point and at the same time missing his point.

Wiggens did not bust the person to which you refer. If a person is driving without his lights on at night, that is a pretty easy stop for an officer to make. There was no special skill or investigation involved in that one.

If I dare speak for Aich, here is what he might say: We have a few instances this past year in which white lawyers have been charged with a drug offense. In each case (driving in the dark without lights on/ minor urinating in public outside of a home in which a party was taking place) even the dimmest bulb of an officer would have made the stop that led to the arrest.

Does any law enforcement officer really deserve a medal of heroic honor for either of those cases?

Do you really believe that there are not bigger white fish to fry? Again, if I might guess what Aich would say, one could start with drug sniffing dogs at the muni airport. Or how about the cases in which the purchaser of a business has in the past (prior to Wall's tenure) handed evidence on a silver platter to RCSO of obvious money laundering and white collar crime only to be dismissed with the catch phrase cop out "that is a civil matter".

I could be wrong, but I doubt that Mr. Glueck really deserves to be singled out and stoned in public. What if he has glaucoma and a license to use? What if the charges wind up being dismissed against him for lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute? If that happens I expect you to do something to make up for the bad press you are giving the guy who is, like the rest of the criminal defendants, presumed innocent.

Oh yeah, I forgot. This newspaper always gets things right. He must be guilty. And the realtors who spout economic forecasts are going to win Nobel prizes.

Aich, did I get this right?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

duff- You're absolutely right. That's an amazing deal, although there are better. And furthermore, you're right about the health care costs. My choice of cannabis is far more cost effective than if I were to submit myself to the relative equivalent in the pharmaceutical world. But that's accounting for health costs too. You've seen the commercials about every other new pharmaceutical out there that has some new and exciting side-effect that you can look forward to. No thanks.

If you want the real facts on cannabis: http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

...'but don't take my word for it.'

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

chickadee-

Unfortunately, and much to my chagrin, I believe that Aich has been absent from this entire discussion.

0

sledneck 4 years, 3 months ago

6 dui's 5 duid's 4 calling birds 3 french hens 2 bowls of hash and a 6-pack under the seat.

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

Chick, I didn't arrest Mr Glueck. He doesn't have glaucoma or a license to use. If he did, he would have shown his license to the arresting officer and that would have been that. I didn't give him bad press-he was arrested and in the "record". I never said Wiggins busted him. The bust came thru a traffic stop by a city cop. Your remark about Mr. Glueck being singled out and stoned in public - did you mean to say "stoned by the public". The newspaper didn't say he was guilty. They just published the "record". I never stated Mr. Glueck was quilty. If the charges against him are dropped - that's fine with me. I just thought it was an interesting story! It would be nice if the newspaper did a follow-up on this story and let us know how it turned out.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

I think Mr. Glueck is very quilty. I guess you could say he's quilty as charged or even quilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I mean, the "Q" is nowhere near the "G." Are you sure you're not at least partially intoxicated? I sure would like to see a follow up story on Ms. Barr's spelling mistakes.

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

If I'm partially intoxicated - it must be from last night! Those q's and g's are like the b's and p's for me. " and a six-pack under the seat "

0

chickadee 4 years, 3 months ago

I thought that the phrase "stoned in public" was a clever double entendre.

FTP, you state "Mr. Glueck doesn't..have a license to use". You can say with certainty that he does not have an MMJ license? How the heck would you know that.

You missed the point- WHAT is so interesting about a stop that is made on the basis of driver failing to use headlamps at night? That is a gimme!

If you are asserting that the story is interesting because the man is an attorney and you are suprised to learn that local professionals might use controlled substances and alcohol, all I can say is where have you been? That is not breaking news.

Leave the guy alone. If you want to know what happens in his case, take your own advice and go to the "clerk and recorder" and ask as you previously suggested to Aich. I am sure they will greet you with a smile and drop whatever they are doing to satisfy your curiosity or at least give you directions to the Justice Center where you might have a better chance of finding the answer.

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

chick, If he had a license he wouldn't have been arrested. He would have possibely just received a warning. My interest lies in what sort of sentence he will be given. Will he receive the same punishment that similar cases were given? Will the judge decline from hearing this case because of their working relationship? Is another judge, from out of town, going to hear this case? I think this is an interesting story. Apparently you don't. This case could prove Aich to be correct, about his statements of preferential treatment towards some people.

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

I need to correct the spelling of "possibly" quickly before MMJ sees it! The spelling error wasn't my fault. There is a conspiracy against me. The State Patrol and my computer.

0

chickadee 4 years, 3 months ago

ftp, please do not take this as busting on you. I am not. But I have to agree with Aich in that you present as naive.

What indication is there that the defendant in question is someone who holds a lot of political clout? Not all lawyers have the degree of political clout to which Aich refers. If L.G. is on the judicial review committe or if he is in a personal relationship or business partnership with a local judge then you might have a story IF he gets some special treatment. I doubt that any of those elements are present here.

The local court dockets are on line. You could search them on your own time to find out just how much (or how little) this particular attorney appears in local state Courts. My guess would be not very often.

And since when does an MMJ license give someone a free pass to drive under the influence? A local cop is going to give someone who appears to them to be driving under the influence a free pass out of jail because he flashes an MMJ card? Really? A license does not even give the holder assurance that he will not be arrested on a possession charge. Ever heard of cases in which the issue is not whether the person can legally possess mj, the issue is HOW MUCH mj does the person have.

My dear. I suggest that you dry off behind the ears. A good start would be to think more carefully about the FACTS that aich has published, not be so dismissive about FACTS indicative of corruption that he has put right out in the open (because they are FACTS....TRUE things for which he cannot be sued for defamation) and don't try to concoct corruption where there isn't any. I think that it is pretty darn clear that your dep DA Rusty Prindle works hard to keep the public trust by striving to treat similarly situated defendants the same. I would change my mind as to my opinion if I found out that the DA's office "misplaced" whatever evidence was legally siezed from this defendant's vehicle...not gonna happen.

It is like you have your head under a rock looking for the boogy man so you fail to see the big boogy man that aich brought right in front of you practically in handcuffs.

0

dave reynolds 4 years, 3 months ago

heres one paris hilton busted for possision and use of cociane...ok so lets see well fine you 2,000 dollars(chump change for her) and one year probation...its no wonder people get po'd ..she should have been fined 250,000 and one year in jail with drug and alcohol level two classes and freeze her assets until the sentence is completed..but the rich and famous get off with a slap of the wrist smile and bat thier eyes while the middle class gets the book thrown at them anyone else see whats wrong with this picture..look at lohan and speers they violate the orders laid down by the court and then just skip away oh well im sorry it wont happen again..smile bat their eyes and its all ok..they should be held more accountable than others because of their status in society i guess they are supposed to be role models but seems they are just the opposite..by making them do the time FULL TIME AND SENTENCE then and only then maybe they will understand..i doubt it..they dont care cause they have enough money to get a good enough lawyer to get them out of it with a slap on the wist..shes lucky im not the judge..i know this is coming..i have raised my child to respect the law,elders and other people...but as successful as they are they should set an example for those to follow

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 3 months ago

chick-

Where do you keep coming up with this "Aich" stuff? Unless I've gone completely mad, I don't think that he's joined this discussion yet. Why do you keep bringing him up?

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

Chick, If Mr Glueck was that noticeably under the influence as well as not having his headlights on,the mmj card wouldn't have saved him. If he wasn't severely imparied and just had marijuana, paraphernalia and his headlights off the mmj card could have saved him. Your correct - he broke the law. He doesn't need to have alot of political clout to receive a lesser sentence then a similar case. Maybe he has known the judge for years. They could be friends. We will find out ,when his case is over, how his punishment compares to similar cases. I'm not dismissive of Aich's facts. I hope the outcome of this case doesn't infuriate him. My Dear-I know dep DA Rusty Prindle and DA Elizabeth A. Oldham would never do anything to destroy the public's trust. Your statement about you changing your mind if the evidence that was legally siezed from the defendents vehicle was misplaced - where did this idea come from? I really appreciate that someone of your caliber took the time to talk with me. Now I've got to go stick my head back under the rock.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 3 months ago

The real problem for Law Enforcement and the MMJ issue has to do with the way your body processes drugs like alchohol and cocaine. With a simple blow test or a blood draw, they can tell you basically how much substance you injested and when. Using this information they can determine if your ability to drive was impaired.

With Marajuana, the "stoned" effect will last for a limited amount of time (2-4 hours) but the thc is absorbed by the fatty tissues in your body and will only be metabalized out of your system over a long period of time (30 days). This means that no matter what kind of test is administered to the accused it is impossible to tell whether the MMJ was used 20 minutes ago, last night or sometime last week. The test just shows that there is evidence of marajuana use.

This leaves the Police in a sticky situtation when it comes to enforcing duid for a licensed mmj patient. Unless there is direct observation of use while driving like being seen or having the officer smell burning MJ, the properly licensed patient will always be aquitted in court because "It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Until and unless a test becomes available to determine when the MJ was used I cannot see this particular problem going away. Clearly if the suspect has no license and is in possession on MJ in the vehicle a crime has been committed. The question is what crime, possession or duid?

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

mmj, You haven't gone mad. Chick speaks for Aich.

0

bandmama 4 years, 3 months ago

ftp-you haven't enough time under your rock. Go back and think seriously about being wet behind the ears... trump- you are very correct, you can be in the same room with someone and not 'inhale" (cough cough) and still have it in your system. Very different from booze, and hard to prove that the driver is in fact, "currently" under the influence. I really dont care what one does, in his/her own time. But when you get in a car and drive on a road I may be driving on and you knowingly operate it and hurt someone, then it does become an issue of public safety. Now, that said. I know of many who have driven under the influence of prescribed painkillers and shouldn't have been. Just as dangerous for everybody, but what are the legal rights of those busted? Nothing. Those little pill bottles come with warnings, and if you choose to ignore them nobody seems to be concerned. You drive with THC in your system (from the night before) and everyone should be scared??? Yeah, maybe. The problem with this is that many prescribed meds also come with that pesky little warning, "dont drive...etc...operate heavy machinery (sp) etc till you know how that drug effects "you". Many long term smokers are aware and do the same thing as those who drive while taking...oh..say vicodin. They assume they are just fine. mmj- maybe chicky has a secret crush on aich... he hasn't responded because he is waiting for more. Although I am surprised of the lack of comments from him. OH MY, could he maybe have something better to do than respond to this. Apparently we dont. HA! Paddle- it goes without saying that most would get just a little bit of a kick from seeing certain celebs wearing orange. Again...HA!

0

bandmama 4 years, 3 months ago

AND, just have to say..because mama is in a mood.... one of these DUI's, the poor bloke had been at home all night. yes, in his home. Someone parked in his designated spot. When that person moved on, he went out and tried to do the right thing by moving his previously parked car a few spaces down to "his spot" that is when he was nabbed. yes, he still operated the car, yes he knew that he was a bit buzzed, but he wans't "driving" he was moving a few parking spots over and had tried to be polite and he waited till the other person moved. The other car was parked in his spot before he ever had a drink. Should he have wasted the time and taxpayers money by calling the PO-lice instead? Hmmmm......not gonna say anymore about that. I feel for the guy. Sled- you are invited to my next "seasonal holiday" party for entertainment. Love it!

0

aichempty 4 years, 3 months ago

Notes to self:

Set headlight switch to "on" and super-glue it into position.

Set dimmer switch to "dim" and super-glue it into position.

Call 911 upon entering the car and report a suspected DUI by the driver of a Ford pickup truck, with a dog in the cargo bed, with Colorado plates, on the other side of town, before driving anywhere.

Trump,

Giggling and the inability to find the glove box to get out the registration and proof of insurance card are proof of MMJ intoxication.

Everybody else,

I don't care if someone with a law license gets off light on a DUI.

A lot of recreational drugs flow into this town, and nobody seems to be looking very hard for the source. If trading and trafficking is going on among the white-collar crowd, then it's foolish to think that it does not have an effect on the way things are run. A black market in drugs would explain a lot of things that don't make sense. A person using cocaine in his own home may not be a danger to anyone else, and maybe it's his business what he does in his own home, but when that conduct spills into the workplace and affects the rights and property of innocent people, the idea of drug abuse and trafficking takes on a whole new meaning.

So, if ACET could make a few arrests of white-collar folks who control the matters that affect us all, maybe things would be done more fairly by their successors.

The cops never catch a white-collar person with drugs until they take them on the road and do something stupid to attract attention.

Maybe the law enforcement officers around here think that drug use by white-collar people is not dangerous to the public, and that's why they don't look for it, but when a substance like cocaine takes over a person's life and they act in ways that harm innocent people financially, or deprive them of their rights, then yeah, it's harmful. That's why the people who run the justice system and support it need to be under the most scrutiny for signs of drug abuse. The same attention is given to people who know military secrets, and they are subject to random drug screening because drug abuse opens the door to selling secrets for money to buy drugs, or exposing a person to blackmail due to drug use. Judges, DAs, attorneys and police officers ought to be regularly tested to ensure that our system remains free from such influence. Since that's not done, somebody ought to be looking for problems among these people. It has actually happened around here before and caused all kinds of unnecessary problems.

So, my point is that we don't need people in charge of our lives, liberty and property who are being affected by drug use. Since we don't test them, looking for problems among them is necessary to protect everybody else. That's what ACET should be doing in return for their federal grant money instead of busting a few Mexicans and meth heads stupid enough to sell drugs to undercover jar heads.

0

bandmama 4 years, 3 months ago

Welcome back Aich! LOL! Exactly. Those in charge of our "well being" should perhaps be held accountable by the same standards as the "rest of us". According to most employment guidelines in this profession (and others), they are tested. Yet time and time again, "they" aren't. "We" are. That super glue thing? No, silly...they will also pull you over for improper use. Ummm.. I have been pulled over a time or two, and had trouble finding my registration. Call it an authority ("respect my AUTHORITY") issue but I have always had my walkin' papers. Doesn't mean because I am nervous I am under the influence. I honestly have to say that even with the "giggling" I have been treated with respect by any officer in Co that has pulled me over. They may have thought me to be a silly gal, but once I manage to pull my papers out and prove I am nothing more than a citizen with a crooked front plate or whatever, I am let go on my merry way. Why do we need ACET? How about an honest cop doing his duty, and what he is paid for? AND, don't knock those in Ford pick ups, most of them are not under the influence of anything besides allergies to the hay. Maybe the dog in back, but we are not to be profiled either. so what's up with you and chicky???? LOL!!!!

0

Kevin Nerney 4 years, 3 months ago

Why can't the registration for the vehicle be the same size as the license and insurance card? This way it fits in your wallet just like the rest of your credit cards and such and then there is no fumbling around in the glove box.

0

ftpheide 4 years, 3 months ago

Mama, I've learned that if you disagree with someones comment you must attack! Overwhelm them with insults.Use the phrases: 1. You just don't get it! 2. You missed the point! 3. My Dear. ( In the Deep South this is the same as saying "you poor thing") 4. Last but not least- babble them with B.S..

0

aichempty 4 years, 3 months ago

Bandmama,

Nothing against Ford pickups, dogs, etc. It's just that there is always going to be one of them out there to attract the attention of the cops while the rest of us slink away quietly in our SUVs.

0

exduffer 4 years, 3 months ago

Don't forget the bait. You don't need fancy word play to get the big fish all riled up. See post #1

0

bandmama 4 years, 3 months ago

Kevin, good question! ftp-My Dear, I guess you spent enough time drying off behind the ears while under your rock.... aich-it's ok, I really dont drive a truck. shhhh! ex- sometimes it is fun to use big words, spell them wrong and use them in the wrong context.... then wait for the fish to bite. HA!

0

trump_suit 4 years, 3 months ago

"Giggling and the inability to find the glove box to get out the registration and proof of insurance card are proof of MMJ intoxication."

Not exactly Aich. Like your complaints about other local drug crimes it requires a higher standard of proof than you seem able to supply.

You can be pulled over for suspicion of DUI based on your lack of driving skills Weaving, inconsistent speeds etc. Once the BAC test is applied you will be released free and clear. There is no doubt that these behaviors are common to DUI offenders but the behavior is not necessarily proof of the DUI.

The problem remains that there is no reliable test to determine the level of impairment caused by MJ. The only test available will confirm that the substance was used in the last 20-30 days but unlike the BAC tests, it does not measure the current level of impairment. This is a problem that must be addressed.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

Trump, A blood test can determine if there are active drugs in the person at the time of the blood test and thus show whether or not there is drugs causing the impairment. It appears to me that anyone pulled over for impaired driving due to drugs that believes they are not currently under the influence should insist upon an immediate blood test to establish their innocence.

Urine tests only show if there was drug use sometime in the last few days.

Determining MMJ impairment faces the same challenges of determining how much impairment for a level of drug used as all other drug induced impairments. If someone is driving poorly because of pain pills there is also no clear way to determine the level of drugs vs impairment. Thus, the law is not concerned with the level of the drug, but the fact that the driver used drugs and was driving poorly (and/or did poorly in a roadside coordination test).

Alcohol is given a special exception because it is easy to test blood alcohol levels and there is an alcohol level below which the impairment is considered minimal.

Thus, it is possible to drink some alcohol and drive legally. It would appear to be potentially illegal to take any drugs, prescription or illegal, and drive.

0

aichempty 4 years, 2 months ago

Scott,

Again, the proof of DWAI is to have a police officer observe impaired performance. They can get for that one if you are driving while sleepy. A blood test to confirm the presence of intoxicating substances would be required to get a conviction, and where there are no clear thresholds, impairment would have to be proven in a court of law. The place where you're going to get nailed is to have an accident and hurt someone else while DWAI, and the resulting civil liability.

Of course, if you are a penniless pot head, bankruptcy is a get out of debt free card even if you are found liable in court.

Another "gotcha" is to be found with a legally prescribed substance in your blood past the expiration date on the prescription.

Trump,

Obviously I was kidding about the "giggling" thing.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.