How Much Of A Specific Drug In Your System Is Considered A Controlled Substance?

(The content below was transcribed from an interview done with Acacia Law. We think you'll find it much easier
and more enjoyable to read this way.)

Interviewer: Is there a certain level of metabolite for each type of drug?

Acacia Law: There is none. This is out of my area. However, I can advise you based on forensic toxicologists or criminalists I have used as experts on the defense's behalf; or cross-examined for the state's behalf.

Basically, the statute requires that metabolites, certain compounds at the molecular level, are identified. They are called scheduled drugs. They are based on a federal schedule of what particular molecules fall into the parameters of a controlled substance.

Look at bath salts and spice you can get at head shops. The two are like a drug urinalysis test, based on molecular compounds that make metabolites. The ones extracted from urine are actually metabolites that have been eliminated from the body.

They are not proactive; and they do not actually affect the individual. However, they are treated as such. Interestingly, when it comes to marijuana, the normal time frame for complete elimination is approximately 30 days.

The bottom line is: It is very technical in terms of the chemical compounds and complexities. It is the job of a criminalist to persuade a jury whether this was in the person's system; and to what degree it could impair them.

Ordinarily, they do not have much to say. In fact, there is almost no way for them to ascertain, even from the metabolites: how much the person had; when they had it, except if it was within the past 30 days; and if it was a sufficient amount to impair them.

They wrote the statute to make it basically impossible to defend yourself. All they have to show is at the time you were driving, you had these eliminated metabolites in your urine.

For example, you smoked less than a month ago and were stopped for weaving outside your lane. The officer asked if you smoked recently; and you said you smoked four weeks ago. He can write in his report he did not believe you. He believes you smoked earlier that day or the evening before.

He could apply integrity and assume, based on the circumstances, you have not smoked in three or four weeks. Clearly, you are not impaired by marijuana. No jury is going to buy that.

They do not have to relate it back at all. As long as it is present, that is good enough for the A3 charge. Again, my experience has been when you get in front of a jury, they use their common sense.

I’ve had people acquitted even with pipes in their pocket. This is because they told the jury, "No, I was not impaired. I smoked with some friends the night before. Obviously, at 3 p.m. the next day, I was not feeling the effects to the extent it would impair my ability to drive." I have many juries agree this is silly; and acquit them, accordingly.

Interviewer: Arizona is aggressive with these charges; and prosecutors are not reasonable. Are these cases defensible because juries are reasonable?

Acacia Law: That is correct. It is a touchy social and political issue. There is this intense policy because most people agree DUIs, or drunk driving, can result in tragedy. Demonstrating that a prosecutor's office is extremely vigilant and tough on that type of offense is extremely popular for political purposes.

There is little expectation leeway will be given to the people charged. The only way to prevail in these cases is to take it to the jury. Otherwise, establish there was some legal problem or physical chain of custody problem with the evidence they are trying to use and the allegations they are trying to make.