AZ Court Rules Traces of Marijuana Get You a DUIPhillip Smith The ruling in Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan overturned a decision by a superior court judge who said that it didnt make sense to prosecute people for driving under the influence if theyre not actually under the influence. The ruling turned on a close reading of legislative intent in writing the states DUID law. The legislation specified the presence of the metabolite of THC, and Shilgevorkyan had argued that lawmakers meant hydroxy-THC, the metabolite which would indicate current impairment, not carboxy-THC, an inactive metabolite that indicates only usage some time in the past. The appeals court disagreed, citing its decisions on earlier challenges to the DUID. The legislature intended to create a per se prohibition and a flat ban on driving with any proscribed drug in ones system, the court noted. We determined that the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of causing impairment or not. But Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harris, who had ruled on Shilgevorkyans behalf, warned in her earlier opinion that the appeals courts interpretation of the law would result in people, including out of state medical marijuana patients, being charged with DUI when they are not impaired. Residents of these states, particularly those geographically near Arizona, are likely to travel to Arizona, Harris said in her 2012 ruling upholding the dismissal. It would be irrational for Arizona to prosecute a defendant for an act that might have occurred outside of Arizona several weeks earlier. Shilgevorkyans attorney said he plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Please visit and support StopTheDrugWar.org to help end prohibition. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 