Comments

1
Do we have a city alcohol DUI law?
2
I think you already answered your own question about why the city is pursuing these laws back in the first paragraph -- "so the city can capture the revenue from potential pot law violations."

It's always about the money.
3
Screw whether or not it makes the roads safer, the city needs the money!
4
They're just making this shit up as they go along. But as this experiment (pointed out by Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his CNN special "weed"), seasoned pot smokers are very safe/good drivers. IT'S THE NEWBY AMATEUR smokers that MAY have driving problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1HavgoK… I CALL BULLSHIT!!!!
5
The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to decide on the constitutionality of the police demanding to search and seize (or should I say seize and search) someone's blood without a signed warrant from a judge.
6
Per se DUI?

If not, this isn't all bad news. I'll take a misdemeanor DUI I can argue in municipal court over facing felony DUI charges.
7
@5: Yes they did, in their last term. Right now the police need a warrant to get blood. But if you don't know this, you could be convinced to submit it. For example, they might say that it is like a normal DUI where refusal to test is considered evidence of guilt.
8
@6 First time marijuana DUI is a gross misdemeanor under state law. Unless your under 21, then it's a Class C felony.
9
@8: That doesn't make any sense at all. If you are 19 years old you get a felony record that will haunt you for the rest of your life, but if you are 30 you get a gross misdemeanor? Who were the idiots that wrote up this law?

I can see it now. Some 18 year old man smokes a joint a day ago and then gets rear ended while driving unimpaired. Due to the THC buildup and decay rates, the man isn't impaired. But the cops find a bag of weed in the car and order a blood test. And then: boom! Felony, no financial aid, no voting rights, etc. Awesome.
10
Every minute Sally Clark spends giving a shit about Russian gays is a another minute that boater stoners are taking weed (a.k.a. "pot") and killing our kids! The bloodshed has to stop.
11
What a bunch of worthless ...
12
Nice job, delirian @7.
13
@7 - thx!
14
You shouldn't be driving anyway. Cars are evil, remember?
15
The city attorney's spokespersons explanation makes no sense. Seattle's municipal courts are created under authority of RCW 35.20 which gives the Seattle municipal courts concurrent jurisdiction with the district and superior courts in all civil and criminal matters, so regardless of if it is in the code they can prosecute it. On the other hand Auburn's municipal court is organized under RCW 3.50 which establishes it's Municipal Court as a court of Limited Jurisdiction and as such they can only prosecute crimes found within their municipal code. In short Auburn v Gauntt had absolutely no effect on Seattle and absolutely never will.
16
This is that scumball Pete Holmes' way to raise more revenue on the backs of cannabis users after supporting the bullshit I-502 initiative. Remember how Holmes, Holcomb & Company promised to "fix" the per se DUID in the legislature?

Liars...every last one of them. I like Schochet's response....on auto DUID's we can't increase the penalties from the state but we get to on boaters....so why wouldn't we screw them even more than the state does? P.O.S.

I hope all of you that voted for 502 enjoy your boating experience in Seattle now....or your King County Jail experience...whichever comes first.

Steve Sarich
Cannabis Action Coalition
17
@7 To clarify, you don't have to consent to a blood or breath test. If you are pulled over in a car and refuse to sign the "Implied Consent", they can do an administrative suspension of your drivers' license for a year. OR, they can actually get a warrant, but this is less likely. If, however, you are arrested for a boating DUID and refuse the blood test, it's a $1,000 fine instead of a license suspension.

Either way, you're screwed. You should be aware that you DO NOT have to take the Field Sobriety Test. There is no penalty for not taking it...and it will only result in YOU giving them "probable cause" to take your blood or your breath. Without this as probable cause, a decent attorney will get the blood or breath throw out in pre-trial and the case is over at that point.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.