Medical Marijuana DUI: Court Rules Prosecutors Must Prove Drivers "Under the Influence"
Criminal DUI-DWI Criminal Motor Vehicle Traffic
Summary: Discussing the Michigan Supreme Court's recent decision in Peo v Koon which states that medical marijuana users must be "under the influence" before being convicted of OWI.
The
conflict between Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA)[1]
and the OWI statute has now been settled. On Tuesday the Michigan Supreme Court
announced that the MMMA trumps the OWI statute[2]
thus allowing medical marijuana patients to legally operate a motor vehicle
unless the prosecution can prove they are “under the influence” of marijuana.
This is similar to the standard for when a driver is taking prescription
medication in which he cannot be guilty of drunk driving unless the medication
“substantially interferes with his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the state legislatures should more
specifically define “under the influence” in the MMMA.
The
case is People v Rodney Koon and has been a hotly discussed and debated
topic in DUI circles ever since it began. Mr. Koon was stopped for speeding
around Traverse City when police seized a marijuana pipe. Koon stated he was a
medical marijuana patient and thus believed he was entitled to drive his car
with marijuana in his system. A blood test revealed he had 10 nanograms per
milliliter (10 ng/ml) of THC in his system.
Under
the OWI statute, driving with any amount of marijuana in your system is against
the law. However, the MMMA states a medical marijuana patient can operate a
motor vehicle unless “under the influence of marijuana.” Unfortunately, the
drafters of the act didn't elaborate any further on what they meant by “under
the influence.” The prosecution's argument was that the two statutes, when read
together, clearly reveal what the legislators meant; they intended any amount
of marijuana in someone's system to be considered “under the influence.” The
defense's argument was that the legislators clearly did not intend that as that
would effectively make it legally impossible for a medical marijuana patient to
ever drive a car, especially since it stays in the system for up to a month.
They argued that the prosecution should have to show that the marijuana
“substantially effected the driver's ability to safely operate the motor
vehicle.” After all, why would the legislators allow people to use medical
marijuana only to prohibit them from ever driving? Both the district and
circuit courts agreed with the defense's argument. The Court of Appeals,
however, did not.
That
is when the charge began from medical marijuana patients that they would never
be allowed to legally drive since at least some amount of marijuana will be
present in their system, even if only used semi-regularly. While the argument
sounds compelling at the onset, I found it to be rather theoretical and less
realistic when examined more closely. Marijuana or THC will not register on a
breath test which is the most frequently used chemical test to determine
intoxication. It would show up in a blood test, but unless the officer has some
reason to suspect the driver of using drugs, they don't have someone qualified
to use the DataMaster, or it hasn't been calibrated, then it's not likely the
officer would do a blood draw. From my experience, officers generally only
insist on a blood draw if they believe drugs are involved or when the driver
has been in an accident and they perform a blood draw out of convenience.
Nonetheless their point couldn't completely be ignored. The real question was
what was the legislative intent and if there is an apparent conflict between
the two statutes, who fills the gaps-- the Court or the legislators?
I
don't believe that the legislature intended for medical marijuana users to
never drive again. However, they created their own dilemma by not being more
precise and more clearly articulating their intentions in the MMMA. This entire
problem could have been avoided by merely adding one sentence (“by 'under the
influence' we mean...”). Surely it's not as if they couldn't see this becoming
an issue? Or maybe it was a matter of them foreseeing that the courts would
eventually bail them out, thus alleviating the need to be more specific. It's
happened before after all.
Just
a couple of years ago the issue arose of whether a homeless person had to
comply with the Sex Offender Registry's requirement of “updating his
residence.” The issue was how do you comply with such a directive when you're
literally homeless and don't have a traditional residence or address?
Michigan's SORA had no apparent provisions to deal with this issue although
many other states did. Once again the Supreme Court stepped in and instead of
leaving the issue to the legislators to fix, they held that a homeless person
can register a residence-- he can put down his address as 123 Homeless.[3]
Essentially,
the court has done the same thing here. Without any quantifiers to fill the
gap, I think the more specific language of the OWI statute trumps the vagueness
of the MMMA. The legislators can (and should) easily fix the problem by
attaching a measuring unit (arbitrary number?) for the amount of THC that can
be allowed in a medical marijuana user's system while driving just like they've
done with the .08 blood alcohol threshold. Washington has recently resolved a
similar conflict by allowing up to 5 ng/ml of THC in a driver's system to
lawfully operate a car.[4]
Unfortunately for Mr. Koon, even if Michigan had adopted this standard, he
would have still been twice the legal limit. If anything, this ruling gives a
much wider degree of latitude to medical marijuana patients because prosecutors
don't have to show that alcohol impaired or substantially effected a driver's
ability to safely operate a car. They
just have to show his BAC at the magic number of .08.
In
any event, the conflict between the two acts is now resolved. The bottom line:
if you are a medical marijuana user and you're charged with OWI, now the
prosecutor has to prove you were “under the influence.” Whatever that means. Is
a “legal limit” forthcoming for marijuana like the BAC for alcohol? Let's see
if the legislators clean up their mess.