Drug DUI in Los Angeles because officers believed i was high
Question: I am a medicinal marijuana card holder as recommended by a doctor for anxiety. I have not smoked in a month but the officers who arrested me for Drug DUI because they believed I was high because my eyes were ‘red’ and pupils were dialated. I have bad knees that affect my balance (i told them this before performing the field sobriety test). Before these tests began I had told the officer I had had an alcoholic beverage hours ago.
I blew a .00 on the alcohol breath test. I was arrested and submitted a urine test, and notified them of prescription meds i was on for my anxiety (an anti depressant) and klonopin is one of them but i hadn’t taken it for a couple days. I did an at home drug test and tested negative for marijuana. What are my chances of fighting this Drug DUI charge?
Answer: If you blew a .00, then even though you had an alcoholic beverage hours ago, it should not be a factor in your case. Charges can still be brought though based on prescription medication and/or marijuana in your system under VC 23152(a) – driving* under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.
If you did not smoke or have any intake of marijuana in the past 30 days, and you did your own test, then perhaps it will show up negative in the urine test as well. If any of the prescription drugs show up in the test, particularly if the officers allege fairly bad driving and/or fairly bad FST’s /DRE’s, then charges will likely be filed in my opinion. This can also vary depending on which court the matter would be heard.
You mentioned the DUI was in Los Angeles. Is the DUI court date in Metropolitan Court on Hill street? Drug DUI’s can be defended, particularly prescription drug cases, and when the driving and fst’s etc are not that bad. Call me if you would like to discuss further.
DUI & Criminal Defense Lawyer Phil Hache
*NOTE: Since this post the DUI charge for a drug DUI has changed to VC 23152(e). Or if the officer suspects both drug and alcohol DUI the case would likely be charged with a VC 23152(f)