The four main types of evidence

California’s driving under the influence of marijuana cases are basically investigated and prosecuted like any other driving under the influence cases in this state. Once an officer detains a suspect, he or she focuses on several types of circumstantial evidence that he or she uses to arrest or release the driver. Although there are some differences between a “drunk driving” investigation and a DUI investigation that involves drugs, the similarities are substantial and include an observation about the driver’s driving pattern, his or her physical signs and symptoms and his or her performance on the field sobriety tests. Because of the ways in which these types of cases are routinely prosecuted, an individual accused of driving under the influence of marijuana needs an attorney who knows what to expect so that he or she can anticipate the appropriate defenses that will most likely result in a favorable outcome for the accused.

Testimony about the accused individual’s driving pattern is often one of the first types of evidence that the judge and jury will hear. The prosecutor typically has the arresting officer testify about all of the ways that he or she believed that the driver drove improperly or unsafely due to his or her drug impairment. With respect to impairment, it should be noted that one will be declared “under the influence” of marijuana if, as a result of the drug, the driver’s nervous system, brain or muscles were impaired (to an appreciable degree) in that he or she no longer had the ability to drive a car in the manner that an ordinarily prudent and cautious person, in full possession of his or her faculties and using reasonable care, would have under similar circumstances.

Physical signs and symptoms of impairment are also heavily relied on by the arresting officer and prosecutor. The officer will testify that the driver displayed “the signs and symptoms that are characteristic of an impaired person”. An example of these, as they pertain to marijuana use, may include red eyes, a foul odor emanating from the driver’s breath, limited attention span and poor physical coordination.

Field sobriety test or “FST” performance is usually what the arresting officer ultimately bases his or her opinion on when he or she determines that the driver is guilty of driving under the influence. It is also the point during the trial where the prosecutor has the arresting officer spend the most time trying to convince the judge and jury that the defendant is guilty of the charged offense. An experienced D.U.I. criminal attorney expects that the arresting officer will go into detail about each and every thing that the accused did wrong while performing these tests and will commonly rebut the evidence by asking the officer to also detail everything that the driver did correctly.

Chemical tests are one of the main differences between an alcohol-related DUI and a marijuana-related DUI. When arrested for “drunk driving” in California, the accused has a choice between taking a blood or breath test. When arrested for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs), the accused has a choice between a blood or urine test. If the test comes back positive for marijuana use, the prosecutor will be sure to tell the judge and jury that the presence of marijuana confirmed the officer’s opinion that the driver was impaired at the time of driving. A skilled defense lawyer knows that this is an incorrect statement and will ensure that the judge and jury understand that a test indicating use is not the same as a test indicating impairment.

The outstanding attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm know the most convincing arguments to challenge this type of evidence and have successfully defended countless clients against this charge. To learn more, contact one of their exceptionally qualified attorneys today for a free case evaluation.