OLYMPIA – Washington drivers can obtain a DUI for driving whereas excessive, the state Supreme Court docket dominated on Thursday.
All 9 justices voted to uphold Washington’s legislation that regulates hashish use whereas driving. Douglas Fraser, who obtained a DUI in 2017, argued the usual for THC ranges in blood was obscure and an illegitimate train of police energy.
In her opinion, Justice Helen Whitener stated the statute was constitutional as a result of the THC blood restrict in legislation – a focus of at the least 5 nanograms per milliliter – is “rationally and considerably associated to freeway security.”
“There’s a affordable assumption that having the restrict will deter individuals who have just lately consumed hashish from driving, thus moderately and considerably furthering a reputable state curiosity,” Whitener wrote in her opinion.
A Washington State Patrol trooper pulled Fraser over on July 11, 2017, close to Everett for rushing, driving within the excessive occupancy car lane whereas alone, erratically altering lanes, reducing off different drivers and driving aggressively, based on court docket paperwork.
When trooper Victor Pendt approached the automobile, he seen an worker badge for a neighborhood hashish dispensary, which Fraser then eliminated. Pendt stated Fraser seemed to be sweating barely, shaking and had very darkish grey undereye circles, based on the court docket’s opinion.
Pendt stated Fraser informed him he had smoked half a day earlier than the cease and didn’t really feel impaired on the time of the cease. Pendt carried out varied subject assessments on Fraser, finally arresting him for driving below the affect.
A blood take a look at taken later confirmed he had a THC blood focus of 9.5 nanograms per milliliter, almost double the authorized restrict of 5.
In a quick to the court docket, Fraser argues the THC content material stage is “a purely arbitrary customary as proof that a person has engaged in conduct that’s dangerous to society.”
Fraser argued in court docket the THC stage was obscure with no scientific assist that every one drivers’ potential to function a car is impaired if they’ve an lively THC blood content material of 5 nanograms per milliliter. Throughout the case’s first trial court docket listening to, Fraser offered skilled testimony to again up his argument, together with a physician who stated it was tough to give you a selected quantity for THC focus much like blood alcohol content material limits as a result of the consequences of THC can range by particular person.
The court docket agreed it might be exhausting to generalize a quantity, however that doesn’t imply the THC restrict is obscure. In her opinion, Whitener stated the statute will not be obscure as a result of it doesn’t result in arbitrary enforcement.
“However fairly it avoids arbitrary, erratic, and discriminatory enforcement,” she wrote.
Whitener additionally wrote that there doesn’t should be a hyperlink between impairment and the THC blood stage, much like blood alcohol ranges, so long as there may be “an affordable and substantial relationship” between the THC restrict and the state’s public security pursuits.
THC ranges above 5 seem to point current consumption, which is linked to impairment, Whitener wrote. Impaired driving “is the precise evil that this legislation goals to stop and the precise public security the legislation seeks to advertise,” she wrote.
Of their opinion, the court docket stated each driving and hashish consumption are authorized, however neither is a proper. Whereas individuals are legally allowed to eat hashish and drive, they can’t achieve this if it exceeds the authorized restrict.
