https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...482945681.html

Check out the videos in the above link.

"...argued that Ruben had only gone about a quarter of a mile and was sitting on a railing when authorities arrived."

Yes, it was only a quarter of a mile. You know, as opposed to staying, um, WITH HIS CAR after plowing into another vehicle. Since when does distance mitigate a hit-and-run?

I expect to see Ruben on that "Florida Man" Twitter feed sometime soon.

why would he admit to eating an edible? if he just stayed at the scene and kept quiet, he would prob be home and not charged

Because he had just eaten an edible.....

It's like asking "Why did the drunk just say that"......

I'm not sure what the law is in California, but in some states they can draw your blood without consent. This happened to my uncle in Texas, and somehow this evidence was deemed admissible.

The article says this guy's blood was drawn after crash, perhaps also under coercion. Obviously you should never say anything to police, but maybe he felt there was no point in hiding it since they had his blood.

Not that it matters, but I believe this happened in Florida, not California.
And back in 2006, police forcibly drew blood from me in Nevada without my consent after a traffic stop, and it was admissible. However, I'm pretty sure the law has since been overturned and they can no longer forcibly draw blood in Nevada.

Oops, I mistook Oakland Park for Oakland.

Always gotta watch out for traffic when you're stopped on the highway. Stand off and to the side.

For what it's worth, watching out for traffic is probably a good course of action regardless of what you're doing on a highway. Well, except maybe if you're a passenger on a bus.

And since this is a poker forum, I often think of my oft-quoted line from Rounders: "This is one time I don't need you to tell me that I f*d up. I KNOW I f*d up."

There should be an NVG corollary to Godwin's law: in any discussion about how someone was wronged/injured/harmed, the probability of an explanation on how that person should have avoided his/her fate is one. (Yeah, not approaches one, IS one.)

Getting a warrant for the blood draw is ridiculously easy. The only real change since the Missouri v McNeely case in that regard is that a warrant IS required in order to draw the blood. Previously, States were asserting that the right to draw without a warrant was allowed due to exigent circumstances (basically, metabolism).

I feel so bad for the wife. Of course it's not her fault but her accident caused her husband to be there.

She is going to be blaming herself (undeservedly).

In my home state of MN if you are involved in a crash with injuries the police will draft a warrant to draw your blood. I'm assuming this is what happened to your uncle.

Nope, he just lives in a town where they'll pull you over for going 1mph over the limit. Or sometimes for no reason at all. The claim was that forced blood tests are authorized during high-risk holidays like July 4 and New Year's.

I didn't know that testing positive for marijuana can land you a DUI. That seems rather extreme, especially from what I just read about the legal limit (5 nanoparticles THC per mL) being arbitrary and unreliable measure of how high someone is.

.08% is an arbitrary and unreliable measure of drunkenness

Is it though? My understanding is that regular smokers can have a rather high THC count in the blood after days of not smoking and not even being high. This is something to do with its fat soluble property. Whereas with BAC, it almost certainly indicates that you've been drinking recently and is very hard to have a high % and not be drunk.

Having taken several drug tests and passed and failed some and used fake piss one time(passed) I can tell you that drug tests don't test for THC. They test for THC metabolites. And I believe to pass my drug test the threshhold was 50.

SKip to 18:27 for driving while high. Dr. Sanjay Gupta gets in a car with a 19 year old driver who has been smoking weed all day.



Basically if you smoke weed everyday, its ok to drive stoned. But if you dont smoke regularly, you shouldn't drive.

So when you get pulled over by police and he asks if you've been smoking weed, the correct answer is,

"All day every day Occifer!"

"candy bars!"

I def drive better when I'm high but not sure if I would try to explain that to the cops

in PA, if you do not consent to a sobriety test, they auto suspend your license for 6 months, then take one and charge you accordingly anyway. if they "dont have" a breathalyzer, they can take you to a hospital for a blood draw, as it is one of the maybe 3 court approved methods. at that point any drug you arent prescribed can and usually will result in a dui, including bac and thc, along with pills or whatever else you couldn't tell someone took days earlier during a normal sobriety check.

its a huge problem in my town, although i will say not every cop in the state was made fun of enough in high school to need to do this.

I thought weed was harmless?

LOL so basically you can walk thru a room where people just smoked and fail a drug test 30 days later. That's cute.


In alcohol terms, the amount they are testing for weed would be like if you have had a pin drop of beer 3 days ago you'd get a dui.


My weed dealer got a dui and had to pass piss tests where he had to have lower then 50 nanoparticles, it took him more then 3 months to get to the legal limit.

It may be arbitrary to you, but it IS the threshold etched into law and the law is known...thus one drinks beyond that level and drives with the assumption of risk of legal problems.

I'm not sure what your point is. I think you may have missed some context:
"[...] the legal limit (5 nanoparticles THC per mL) being arbitrary and unreliable measure of how high someone is."

Ignorance is no excuse for the law. thus one tokes beyond that level and drives with the assumption of risk of legal problems.

If there was no arbitrary measure of impairment then ti would be a question of fact for a judge/jury on a case-by-case basis in court. BAC or THC nanoparticals per mL are measurable facts for the court, but impairment is subjective. Somebody who drinks and operates on a daily basis with alcohol or THC in their system will show less impairment than a first-timer. That's what tolerance is. My wife can barely walk at .05

In Pennsylvania you can be charged with DUI for having any amount of the metabolite of marijuana in your blood. A metabolite is what is created when your body processes a substance and in the case of marijuana it can stay in your system for 30 days or more.

And yes, this means you can be convicted of DUI in PA when you were clearly NOT under the influence at the time you were driving. This is also true if you have a medical marijuana card and are using legally. Technically, a legal medical marijuana user in PA can never drive as he/she will always have the metabolite in his/her system.

I have represented people in this position and have been trying to convince District Attorney's Offices to adopt a "marijuana impairment" standard even though the current law doesn't require it.

PA's DUI laws are awful, but a good lawyer will get you out of or plea you down almost always. Blood is the only test which is actually reliable, and the police often do not follow chain of evidence protocols when interacting with the hospital.