I'm not sure what you are trying to say but I don't think a DUI is something that is just tacked on as an extra charge. In most cases the person would probably be demonstrating behaviors that lead the officer to believe they are intoxicated which would be the main reason for any extended time this person is detained. Paraphernalia would likely be found after the officer has already determined the person is under the influence.

 

As for police detecting someone being high...it ain't hard. If you have seen anyone while they're high it's not hard to detect. Add in the fact that police are trained to detect whether or not someone is intoxicated and many are trained well enough that they can pinpoint what kind of drugs a person is using.

 

Lastly I will say there is a difference between having weed in your system while driving and driving under the influence of weed.

 

I'm going to call BS on this one in bold. Sure, they can tell if someone is displaying certain behaviors — like acting paranoid, nervous, etc. But anybody who's halfways observant can do that; it doesn't take any special training. If they don't smell like it, and they don't act like it, there's no way anybody can tell.

 

I'm going to call BS on this one in bold. Sure, they can tell if someone is displaying certain behaviors — like acting paranoid, nervous, etc. But anybody who's halfways observant can do that; it doesn't take any special training. If they don't smell like it, and they don't act like it, there's no way anybody can tell.

 

I'm not sure what you mean Jim but there are things police can look at that help them determine if someone has smoked weed recently.

 

I'm not going to get into specifics but if you don't believe me, ask rocket. He's a real life police man.

A person is allowed to request a blood test of their own paid for by them. However they can refuse any of the three tests they are asked to take (breath/blood/urine). However according to the KRS they're license will be suspended if they refuse and a refusal can be used as evidence against them.

You are thinking the BAC, not blood test.

 

I thought that way too until two years ago. Someone I knew ended up in jail and that morning pre-trial called me as the person needed help (why do they always call me? lol). I asked the guy how they could refuse the test, and he told me I was thinking of the BAC, if you refuse you lose your license right away. He also told me about the once every 4 years thing, which was the first I heard of it.

 

BUT, I just wished we would have one law and way of doing things, no exceptions. Some of the countries I work at in Eastern Europe, if you even blow anything, you are done! You lose your license and if it's your car, you lose it too. No such exceuse as "I need to drive to work". TOUGH! You gambled, you lost, so carpool, take a bus or walk to work now.

I'm going to call BS on this one in bold. Sure, they can tell if someone is displaying certain behaviors — like acting paranoid, nervous, etc. But anybody who's halfways observant can do that; it doesn't take any special training. If they don't smell like it, and they don't act like it, there's no way anybody can tell.

To this day, the person I described above won't tell me, but I think he refused the blood test as he was high, he did pass the BAC though.

You are thinking the BAC, not blood test.

 

I thought that way too until two years ago. Someone I knew ended up in jail and that morning pre-trial called me as the person needed help (why do they always call me? lol). I asked the guy how they could refuse the test, and he told me I was thinking of the BAC, if you refuse you lose your license right away. He also told me about the once every 4 years thing, which was the first I heard of it.

 

BUT, I just wished we would have one law and way of doing things, no exceptions. Some of the countries I work at in Eastern Europe, if you even blow anything, you are done! You lose your license and if it's your car, you lose it too. No such exceuse as "I need to drive to work". TOUGH! You gambled, you lost, so carpool, take a bus or walk to work now.

 

No. Any test (blood/urine/Breath) that is refused equals a license suspension.

 

The following is what I'm talking about. Ill provide a link.

 

"Should a person refuse to give their consent to a test of their blood, breath, or urine as requested by an officer, then Kentucky law (KRS 189A.105) states that the refusal shall result in the revocation of their driving privileges as set forth in Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 189A."

 

http://www.kyduiblog.com/2007/01/consent_to_brea.html

^ I am just telling you what I was told by someone in pre-trial two years ago. Hmmm.....

^ I am just telling you what I was told by someone in pre-trial two years ago. Hmmm.....

 

And I'm telling you that if you are arrested for a DUI and you refuse a breath/blood/urine test then your license will be revoked and that refusal can be used as evidence against you.

I'm not sure what you mean Jim but there are things police can look at that help them determine if someone has smoked weed recently.

 

I'm not going to get into specifics but if you don't believe me, ask rocket. He's a real life police man.

 

I'm saying cops ain't got no special "pot-dar" abilities where they can look at a random group of people and pick out the person who's high. The only way they can do that is if the person who is high gives clues as to their state by how they act — i.e., by acting paranoid, nervous, etc., or if they just straight-up reek of weed. It's no different than drunk drivers. If the person driving doesn't swerve or drive recklessly, giving officers a clue into their state, they won't get caught.

Edited November 7, 201213 yr by Jim Schue

And I'm telling you that if you are arrested for a DUI and you refuse a breath/blood/urine test then your license will be revoked and that refusal can be used as evidence against you.

Why are you attempting to start an arguement? I just stated "Well I'm just telling you what I was told by pre-trial", and yes I see your link. The "Hmmm" was a "Well I don't know why I was told this then".

Why are you attempting to start an arguement? I just stated "Well I'm just telling you what I was told by pre-trial", and yes I see your link. The "Hmmm" was a "Well I don't know why I was told this then".

 

I'm not starting anything. I'm telling you that is wrong.

I'm not starting anything. I'm telling you that is wrong.

 

About 15 mins ago I decided, if I remember, in a week or so I'll call that guy back and ask him to email me the law on what the heck he was talking about. As what you posted doesn't even give a hint of what he told me.

 

Actually, I'll just go upstairs and ask. My family has a few judges from the subdivison over to watch the election. Was trying to avoid going up as they are R's, lol.

About 15 mins ago I decided, if I remember, in a week or so I'll call that guy back and ask him to email me the law on what the heck he was talking about. As what you posted doesn't even give a hint of what he told me.

 

Here's another link if you want to read more about it.

 

Kentucky DUI: Refusal to Take a Blood, Breath or Urine Test | drivinglaws.org

I'm saying cops ain't got no special "pot-dar" abilities where they can look at a random group of people and pick out the person who's high. The only way they can do that is if the person who is high gives clues as to their state by how they act — i.e., by acting paranoid, nervous, etc., or if they just straight-up reek of weed. It's no different than drunk drivers. If the person driving doesn't swerve or drive recklessly, giving officers a clue into their state, they won't get caught.

First of all I never implied that they have super powers Jim. But I think someone with a little DUI training might be able to determine whether or not someone is high a little better than the average person. I'm not saying just by standing 20 feet away and looking at them. I'm saying they can do certain tests that will reveal whether or not someone has smoked weed recently.

 

For example, if you put 5 people in front of rocket (one high, one drunk, 3 sober) I bet rocket could tell you which one was high, which one was drunk and which 3 were sober. Furthermore, I bet he could do it without smelling anything.

Ok, I was told that we are both kind of right, sort of. The link was correct (I didn't dispute that, just what I was told was different), but if you refuse you do lose the license for 30 days. But, if it's your second or more DUI within 5 years (again pre-trial told me 4) then you could lose it for much longer.

First of all I never implied that they have super powers Jim. But I think someone with a little DUI training might be able to determine whether or not someone is high a little better than the average person. I'm not saying just by standing 20 feet away and looking at them. I'm saying they can do certain tests that will reveal whether or not someone has smoked weed recently.

 

Unless they've got a field urinalysis test or a field hair-test kit, along with a mobile lab, then there are no tests they can do to know for sure if someone smoked pot.

 

For example, if you put 5 people in front of rocket (one high, one drunk, 3 sober) I bet rocket could tell you which one was high, which one was drunk and which 3 were sober. Furthermore, I bet he could do it without smelling anything.

 

Perhaps, but I would argue that has more to do with those people's actions — that is, they will likely display behaviors that cops are trained to look out for. By the same token, I would argue that I'd probably know as well. If each one of them were standing there like a stone, not speaking, not moving, etc., there's no way anyone could know. It's all about observing behaviors, and if the person being observed doesn't "act high" or "act drunk," there's no way to know.