Thoughts on Michigan's new roadside drug testing?

After two years of secretive pilots, Gov Whitmer signed this new Roadside Drug Testing into law on June 11.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gov-whitmer-signs-bill-to-allow-more-roadside-drug-testing-in-michigan/ar-BB15meeD

Back in January during the second pilot I saw Michael Komorn state to Mlive while pimping himself (his law firm) as a "drugged- and drunk-driving attorney" recommend refusing the test and simply taking a civil infraction, but he makes no mention of the specifics about said civil infraction.

https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/01/defense-attorneys-say-drivers-should-refuse-michigans-new-roadside-drug-tests.html

Any thoughts?

It's awfully hard to find any real information and/or reporting on these Roadside Drug Testing pilots as they have been conducted over the years. Worse I haven't really found anything post June 11, 2020 when the Governor signed then Senate Bill 718 into law as Public Act 718.

I did find an interesting interview with attorney Clarence Dass from October 18, 2019 addressing the then second pilot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28Uu6VswlR8

[YOUTUBEIF]28Uu6VswlR8[/YOUTUBEIF]

"So if you exercise your rights, they penalize you."
Good luck in Michigan man, shit sounds fucked.

My thought is that this new saliva drug device is simply a law enforcement investigatory tool analogous to the preliminary breath test (PBT) used for alcohol. If you refuse a PBT here you can also receive a civil infraction.

What is important to know/consider is that refusing either of these roadside investigatory tests does NOT mean a "certified Drug Recognition Expert" will lack probable cause to arrest you and get a warrant for a blood draw that will be used to prosecute you. Furthermore voluntarily taking and failing the saliva test will guarantee you that blood draw and likely prosecution.

That said, with alcohol we know the legal limits under the law: a blood alcohol content (BAC) of.08 or greater if over age 21 or .02 or greater if under 21. In addition, Michigan has a high-BAC law with enhanced penalties for anyone caught driving with a BAC of.17 or higher.

So what is the legal ng/mL limit(s) for Cannabis (THC) under this drugged driving scheme/"law"?!?

Because of my neuropathy, I would fail any roadside test. Even sober as a judge who has never toked or dranked.

I can not find the thread but AAA I think it was ....was unable to prove impairment.
Not what you asked about but all I got....LOL

"So what is the legal ng/mL limit(s) for Cannabis (THC) under this drugged driving scheme/"law"?!?"

Well I don't think there is a legal limit, or 0 is it. It would be like all the other drugs, it is in your system or not? For weed that makes it challenging because of the time it stays in your system. A good lawyer should get weed off this list, I think.

Although Michigan has not yet set a numerical impairment limit for THC as they arbitrarily push for these roadside saliva test and drugged driving charges/convictions, a half dozen other states have and they seem pretty scary IMHO

Six states have established per se limits for THC impairment. Colorado, Montana and Washington have set theirs at 5 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). Nevada and Ohio have limits of 2 ng/ML, and Pennsylvania has a legal limit of 1 ng/ML.

The last time I was tested for THC was during an extensive annual medical lab workup and I was found to be at 366 ng/mL. I had not ingested cannabis for at least 12 hours before hand, nor was I intoxicated as my doctor could attest to having spent the previous hour examining me.

I'd hope that being doctor certified and state licensed for the past decade as a medical marijuana patient would count for something in this regulatory capture scheme ...

Anyone else aware of their THC content?

My apologies TheMan13. I should have checked before I opened my stupid mouth.

santamartagold said:

My apologies TheMan13. I should have checked before I opened my stupid mouth.

Click to expand...

In a sense you were correct.
Like alcohol there is zero tolerance.

You can still go to jail if you are under the limit.

I am a medical patient.
I was pulled over, they found a 2 hit roach in the cab of my truck.
I showed them my card.
They took me to jail.
They impounded my truck.

I went to court thinking this was an easy win.
No lawyer like a dumbass.

Judge said my card was expired but did not want to discuss it.
I called the state as soon as I got home they said everything was fine, they sent proof in the mail.
She suspended my drivers licence for 6 months.
Gave 6 months probation with no cannabis at all.
I could take Vicodin, for my spine but I hate that shit.
I had a script at the time.
I could drink all I wanted to, I don't drink much if ever.

I had to go to marijuana camp, yea they called it that.
A sleep over intervention type thing, psychiatrists and everything there.

Funny story too.
This one time at marijuana camp........

I spent a lot of time talking with the shrinks about the problems with for profit prisons.
I found it strange but enlightening that they actually agreed with me.

Then I told my story over breakfast to a fellow inmate.
He said I know that judge, she lives in my town, she is a drunk, she is on a tether for it right now.
I told him how she suspended my licence.
He said she can not do that.

I said WTF you mean she is the judge she does WTF she wants to.
He said oh no, when you get home you go to the SOS/DMV and tell them you lost you DL and need a new one.

I said oh you mean a state ID?
He said nope, you will get your DL back.
I laughed and took it with a grain of salt.

We talked more throughout the weekend.
I started to trust him more by the end of it all.

I told a different, young kid about expungement.
He had no idea what that was.
I of course learned from experience....LOL
He was looking at a felony for just a bit of WAX.
He was going to change his major after 4 years invested.
It was going to ruin his life if only temporary.
This kids family had money but he was a wild child, but really smart and nice.

So anyway I got home and went to the SOS/DMV and told them I misplace my licence and they gave me a new one.

I was F##king amazed.
I had random piss tests for 6 months, that sucked.

For a roach no bigger than 3 hits.

Funny thing too.
Cops put me in the front seat.
The only time I was ever in the front seat.
I tried to get a good look at the new computers but he turned it away...LOL
I have been in the back a bunch of time never the front.
Anyone been in the front before?

My offence was attempted improper transportation.

santamartagold said:

My apologies TheMan13. I should have checked before I opened my stupid mouth.

Click to expand...

No need to apologize. I'm simply looking for others thoughts and an honest conversation about the matter and that you provided.

When I was on probation they tested me with saliva tests. I have smoked 12 hours before a test and didn't test positive for thc. This was about 10 years ago though, not sure how good saliva tests are now.

'Boogieman' said:

When I was on probation they tested me with saliva tests. I have smoked 12 hours before a test and didn't test positive for thc. This was about 10 years ago though, not sure how good saliva tests are now.

Click to expand...

Michigan is currently using the Alere DDS® 2 Mobile Test System by Abbott I do believe.



In reading through it's documentation I found that it has a "cutoff" for Cannabis (THC) at 25 ng/mL?

Drug Class Cutoff (ng/mL)

Amphetamine 50

Benzodiazepines 20

Cannabis (THC) 25

Cocaine 30

Methamphetamine 50

Opiates 40

I wonder how the accuracy of a saliva test differs for drugs not ingested through the mouth?

shaggyballs said:

This one time at marijuana camp........

Click to expand...

Too funny!

and NO, never in the front.

Per the Lansing State Journal:

"A Michigan Supreme Court decision in 2013 ruled that medical marijuana card holders could not be prosecuted simply for having THC in their system. Because their use of marijuana was legal with the card, and THC metabolites can remain in the body for almost a month, the court ruled that evidence of impaired driving was needed for a conviction."

BGS Blueberry said:

Per the Lansing State Journal:

"A Michigan Supreme Court decision in 2013 ruled that medical marijuana card holders could not be prosecuted simply for having THC in their system. Because their use of marijuana was legal with the card, and THC metabolites can remain in the body for almost a month, the court ruled that evidence of impaired driving was needed for a conviction."

Click to expand...

Yes the 2013 case of People v Koon addresses an MMMA patients internal possession of cannabis (zero tolerance) while driving, but it dose not address what being "under the influence" means.

I'd assume with recreational now legal this protection should cover all 21 and older?

TheMan13 said:

but it dose not address what being "under the influence" means.

I'd assume with recreational now legal this protection should cover all 21 and older?

Click to expand...

That would be a gamble. Each jurisdiction is treating things differently. SOME require actual proof of poor driving such as weaving, disobeying traffic control devices, Etc. Currently,, prosecutors and departments may pursue marijuana impairment zealously, or require proof of poor driving.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it is a free-for-all, as people are sometimes under that impression. With that being said, a little Common Sense is bound to go far.

Remember, smell is their number one way of detecting "impairment." If you smell like you just rolled out of the Cheech and Chong van, you're probably going to get some questions. LOL

At some point in the future, they are likely to require proof of poor driving to arrest and prosecute statewide. A sacrificial lamb is going to have to take it to court in order for that to come to pass, assuming they don't try to clear it up legislatively which is very unlikely.

BGS Blueberry said:

A sacrificial lamb is going to have to take it to court in order for that to come to pass, assuming they don't try to clear it up legislatively which is very unlikely.

Click to expand...

My thought exactly. Hopefully all the $$$ in the rec and med legislative facility licensing schemes today has drawn a higher quality gaggle of lawyers/lobbyists than the incompetents that left patients and caregivers hanging with awful legal precedents and costly plea deals during the voters MMMA era.