Opponents of marijuana legalization often cite safety concerns, especially regarding the effects it would have on drivers. Alcohol causes enough harm, why add marijuana to the mix? Two recent studies, both published last week, provide some insights into how legalization has–or has not–affected crash and fatality rates.

The first study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), analyzed insurance claims for car crashes between January 2012 and October 2016. The study compared claims filed in states that have legalized marijuana–Colorado, Washington, and Oregon–with states nearby that have not. In the states that had legalized pot, insurance claims were about three percent higher than what would be expected if they had not legalized pot, the study found.

“The combined-state analysis shows that the first three states to legalize recreational marijuana have experienced more crashes,” Matt Moore, the senior vice president of IIHS’s Highway Loss Data Institute, said in a statement. “The individual state analyses suggest that the size of the effect varies by state.”

David Zuby, executive vice president and chief research officer at IIHS, said: “Worry that legalized marijuana is increasing crash rates isn’t misplaced,” adding that the findings “should give other states eyeing legalization pause.”

But another study published in the American Journal of Public Health found no significant uptick in crashes due to legalization.

Using federal data on vehicle collisions between 2009 to 2015, the study found no increase in crashes between Washington and Colorado–both of which have legalized recreational marijuana–and other states.

“Three years after recreational marijuana legalization, changes in motor vehicle crash fatality rates for Washington and Colorado were not statistically different from those in similar states without recreational marijuana legalization,” the study concluded.

While previous studies have illustrated the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana, others have suggested that states with medical marijuana laws have seen a drop in traffic incidents. A study published last December, also in the American Journal of Public Health, found an 11 percent drop in crash fatalities in the 28 states (and D.C.) that have legalized medical marijuana.

Dr. Silvia Martins, the author of that study, theorized that the drop could be the result of drivers swapping alcohol, a substance that led to about 10,300 driving deaths in 2015, to marijuana.

“We found evidence that states with the marijuana laws in place compared with those which did not, reported, on average, lower rates of drivers endorsing driving after having too many drinks,” Martins said in a statement when the study was published last year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Has Marijuana Legalization Impacted Driving Safety? appeared first on Law Street.

Arizona medical marijuana cardholders now have a better ability to defend themselves if they are charged with a marijuana DUI. The Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors must present sufficient evidence that an individual was actually impaired at the time of the arrest.

The ruling overturned a man’s marijuana  conviction, after the defense argued he should have been able to present evidence that he wasn’t impaired. Nadir Ishak was pulled over by police in 2013 after he was seen drifting into another lane. According to the officer, Ishak admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier that morning and was exhibiting body and eye tremors during the test. Ishak was acquitted of the charge of driving under the influence but convicted for driving with marijuana in his body. However, the judge determined there wasn’t enough evidence to support that conviction.

“[A]ccording to evidence here, there is no scientific consensus about the concentration of THC that generally is sufficient to impair a human being,” appellate Judge Diane Johnsen wrote.

The appeals judge determined that defendants can defend a conviction “through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by providing their own testimony and evidence on whether they were impaired.”

According to the Associated Press, the ruling was made possible thanks to a 2015 Arizona Supreme Court decision that determined patients could use their medical marijuana cards as a defense, but not as immunity. Cardholders can try to prove that they didn’t have enough THC, marijuana’s major psychoactive component, in their system to impair their ability to operate the vehicle safety.

This decision is seen as a major setback for prosecutors since Arizona, unlike some other states, has no laws outlining the legal limit of THC that may be absorbed in the blood before an individual is determined to be impaired.

While this decision doesn’t mean medical marijuana cardholders cannot be convicted of DUIs, it does grant users more freedom in protecting their right to a prescription. Patients must decide for themselves if medicating with  cannabis before driving is worth the risk of a potential arrest.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona Medical Marijuana Patients Granted DUI Defense Options appeared first on Law Street.

In an America where marijuana laws are being liberalized and the drug itself de-stigmatized, drivers who are found with traces of a cannabinoid in their blood can incur similar punishments in some states to those who drive under the influence of alcohol, a much deadlier exercise.

Marijuana researchers have been publishing studies over the past few years that have found marijuana to be a less dangerous substance than alcohol, and a recent study by the AAA Foundation for Public Safety appears to substantiate those claims when it comes to criminalizing drivers: “Legal limits, also known as per se limits, for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science.”

At the moment, drivers in Montana, Washington, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado are convicted of a DUI if they are found with a certain amount of a cannabinoid–THC, hydroxy-THC or carboy-THC–in their bloodstream. And similar to a DUI involving alcohol, this can result in hefty fines or even a lengthy prison stay. The problem is that THC can linger in a user’s bloodstream for days after actively ingesting the drug, whether for recreation or medical purposes, so a driver can be perfectly safe and sober while driving yet convicted of a crime because of an action taken a day or more prior. 

Michael L. Becker of the Las Vegas Defense Group and one of Nevada’s top criminal defense lawyers called the law “hypocritical”; that in a state where medical marijuana is legal it is possible for someone who uses the drug as a medicine one day and then is found with it in his or her bloodstream days later can be found guilty of a DUI offense.

“I’ve had cases where prosecutors have said to me ‘I know your client wasn’t under the influence, but I can prove he has metabolized marijuana in his system’,” Becker said in a phone interview with Law Street, pointing to cases in which a client’s body is still processing marijuana from a dose taken a day or more prior to when an arrest is made. “People are literally being prosecuted where everybody knows they weren’t even high.”

The current threshold for what is considered above the legal limit in Nevada is two nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, lower than the five milliliter threshold in Colorado and Washington, both of which have legalized marijuana completely. The new study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety used psychophysical tests (walk-and-turn, finger-to-nose) and physical indicators (bloodshot eyes, pupil dilation) on drivers who had consumed marijuana and those who had not, and determined quantifiable thresholds for THC “cannot be scientifically supported.”

That’s not to say driving high poses no danger whatsoever. Being under the influence of marijuana while driving doubles the chances of a crash, a figure most researchers accept. But according to a study from 2014, 20-year-olds who drive with an illegal amount of alcohol in their system (above 0.08 percent) are twenty times as likely to crash. The researcher who conducted that study, Eduardo Romano, told The New York Times, “Despite our results, I still think that marijuana contributes to crash risk, only that its contribution is not as important as it was expected.”

So how can THC levels be accurately quantified in determining whether a driver is under the influence of cannabis, and above the legal threshold, if not by blood-THC content?

There is hardly a consensus among researchers, partially because they are limited in their research since cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug in the U.S., meaning any research into it requires a special permit. Experts see saliva sampling as a promising alternative to blood testing, but the jury is out until more research is conducted.

While scientists try to figure out more reasonable ways of measuring the dangers of driving stoned, Becker, the lawyer in Las Vegas, continues to help his clients navigate the ironic situation of being legally allowed to use a drug that could put them in jail days after using it, if it’s in their system while they’re later behind the wheel. Becker wasn’t able to give an exact number of clients he represents who find themselves in this quandary, but he said it does happen.

And as marijuana is decriminalized and used more frequently, “[the law] is going to impact more people,” he said. Nevada’s law–drafted at a time when “communities were fearful and anti-marijuana”–has been examined for a repeal, but according to Becker, real change has been resisted because it’s not a “politically expedient” issue.

Becker hopes change is on the horizon: “The Nevada legislature is finally deciding to have an honest look at things. That’s the bright side,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis DUI Laws Unsupported by Science, New Study Suggests appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us have experienced having to painfully roll out of bed to make an early work shift after a late night of drinking the night before. It’s always a struggle, but no matter how slow time passes, the shift comes to an end and you can return to bed and nurse your hangover. But this is not the case for every early morning shift. When it comes to arriving to work to co-pilot a commercial airline flight for hundreds of passengers, there are much graver consequences.

Saturday morning, a pilot for an American Airlines flight headed from Detroit to Philadelphia was arrested for failing a breathalyzer test.  A TSA agent was the first person to notice the pilot “acting suspiciously” and minutes before the flight was to take off at 7 AM, the airport police were notified. The Wayne County Airport Authority administered a breathalyzer test, which the pilot failed and resulted in the airport police taking him into custody. The pilot was then “turned over to Romulus police, where he failed another breathalyzer test.”

The Federal Aviation Administration recommends that pilots wait at least 24 hours from their last sip of alcohol before flying. However, the FAA requires that “no person may operate or attempt to operate an aircraft” within eight hours of having consumed alcohol or “with a blood alcohol content of 0.04 percent or greater.” Though this unnamed pilot’s blood alcohol content has not been released, Michael Conway, Director of Public Affairs at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, reported that the pilot’s BAC was over the 0.04 percent limit. Conway further commented that this is an “extremely unusual” situation and said the pilot has been released as authorities determine whether charges will be filed.

Due to this pilot’s irresponsible drinking, the American Airlines flight was cancelled. Despite this airline’s bad reputation with canceling flights without offering accommodations, under these unique circumstances, American Airlines offered other flights for its passengers. Many of the passengers, on their way to enjoy their spring break in Philly, had to postpone or cancel their spring break plans. Though I am sure they were all shocked and disappointed, especially the spring breakers who had to postpone their spring break dreams, this will probably be a story they will never forget.

Ashlyn Marquez

Ashlyn Marquez received her law degree from the American University, Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from The New School. She works in immigration law and has a passion for worker’s rights, tacos, and avocados. Contact Ashlyn at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spring Breakers’ Plans Ruined Due to Pilot’s Apparent Drunken State appeared first on Law Street.

It sounds almost like a headline from The Onion or another source of satirical news: But it’s a true, a woman in New York got out of a DWI because her body produces its own alcohol, due to something called “auto-brewery syndrome.”

Making your own alcohol isn’t nearly as fun as it sounds, however. In here case, the syndrome is likely due to “a severe yeast infection in her intestines.” According to Tech Insider:

The extremely rare condition is caused by the unlikely presence of a high concentration of yeast in someone’s stomach. That yeast consumes sugar and converts it into alcohol inside the gut itself. That alcohol can than be absorbed by the intestines and make its way into the bloodstream, where it can intoxicate the patient in question.

It can be triggered by eating carbohydrate-heavy foods, including french fries. It’s a very rare disorder; estimates of how many people there may be that suffer from it in the United States number in the hundreds. However, multiple cases have also been reported in Japan.

The woman (whose name has remained anonymous) is a 35-year-old teacher from western New York. In October of 2014, she was pulled over and blew a .33 BAC, well over four times the legal limit, after a 911 tipster reported that she was weaving on the road.

However, despite her high BAC levels, she claimed she had only consumed three drinks, and had stopped drinking well before getting on the road. According to her lawyer, after she was charged, she spent over $7000 working with a medical specialist to prove that she suffers from the disorder. However, the disorder is still poorly understood, and a hard explanation to swallow for why a driver may have had a BAC at over four times the legal rate.

There have been a few other confirmed cases, including a 61-year-old man in Texas in 2013 who started “getting drunk out of the blue.” The doctor who treated the DWI defendant from New York has stated that he’s treated about 10 people with the disorder over the last few years. But given that the disorder seems pretty rare, it’s doubtful that we’ll be seeing too many others successfully use auto-brewery disorder as a defense to get out of DWI charges–the woman in New York may be a rather isolated incident.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Gets Out of DWI Because of “Auto-Brewery Syndrome” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s the weekend, so time to check out Law Street’s weird arrests of the week. Give a look at the slideshow below:

Don’t Drink and Fly

Image courtesy of Bernal Saborio via Flickr

Jeff Rubin, 27, from Oregon, was arrested after he urinated on other passengers during a flight. He was, unsurprisingly, intoxicated and arrested upon arrival.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Sunday, which means it’s time for another round-up of the weird arrests last week. Read on to check out the oddest things that led to a trip downtown last week.

Food Coma

Image courtesy of John Keogh via Flickr

A family in Lake Worth, Florida came home to find a burglary gone wrong. The intruder, 22-year-old Jacob Miller, broke in, enjoyed some beer and chicken, and then passed out on the family’s couch. He was still asleep when the police arrived.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s weird arrests involve some misbehaving adults, and a few misbehaving young people as well. Check out the slideshow below:

[SlideDeck2 id=37708 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Bieber can’t seem to stop getting into legal trouble whether in the U.S. or abroad. Bieber now has to show his face in an Argentinean court to provide answers to some assault allegation, or face arrest. Now Interpol has gotten involved, and it seems like Bieber is caught in an interesting Catch-22.

The case started on November 9, 2013, when Bieber was partying in a nightclub in Buenos Aires called “Ink.” A paparazzo named Diego Pesoa was there and attempted to take pictures of the singer. Bieber’s bodyguards were not having that, and apparently chased and beat Pesoa, who is now claiming that his injuries were bad enough to require hospital attention. Bieber is being accused of sending the body guards to go beat Pesoa up.

Bieber has obviously since left Argentina, but the Argentinean courts are demanding that he provide information about what happened. Now, an investigative judge, Magistrate Facundo Cubas, has demanded that Bieber provide a statement about what happened, although no charges have been filed yet.

Bieber now has 60 days to return to Argentina and give his testimony. Interpol, the Argentinean branch of the international police force, is tasked with locating Bieber and notifying him of Cubas’s request.

This creates a weird choice for the singer though–if he does choose to go back and give his testimony, and it results in charges being filed against him,  and he is found guilty, he could spend up to a year in prison. If he doesn’t show up, an international arrest warrant will be issued.

This is by no means the first brush with the law for Bieber, nor is my money on it being the last. Consider the time that he was deposed as a result of a battery suit brought against him by a photographer. Said deposition led to one of the most spectacularly asshole-like performances of all time, chronicled in this excellent mashup video created by TMZ:

I have to say, my favorite part is right at the beginning when he pretends to not know what Australia is, but he also calls the lawyer deposing him “Katie Couric,” which is pretty good. He also appears to mix up the words “instrumental” and “detrimental.”

There was also a case earlier this year when a neighbor in Calabasas, California accused Bieber of egging their house. The neighbor claimed that the incident led to damage to the house to the tune of thousands of dollars. Bieber ending up pleading no contest to the charge of misdemeanor vandalism, and was put on probation, ordered to pay restitution, do community service, and go to an anger management course. He has also been caught drinking while driving, and plead guilty to a DUI.

Overall, Bieber is pretty much the living embodiment of what can happen when a young person gets way too rich way too young and never really has to deal with any consequences of their actions. Hopefully this Argentinean suit, as unlikely as it may be, will provide some real consequences for the singer.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where in the World is Justin Bieber? His Legal Troubles Continue appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Two of my favorite things in the whole wide world have collided! The Real Housewives franchise on Bravo TV and the law! Real Housewife of New Jersey Teresa Giudice and her hubby Giuseppe “Joe” Giudice were charged with 41 counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, making false statements on loan applications and bankruptcy fraud back in 2013 and yesterday they were both sentenced.

First, “Juicy” Joe.

He received 41 months in a federal prison, has to pay $414,588.90 in restitution, plus a $10,000 fine, and has to complete an alcohol treatment program. It’s great that he has to do the alcohol program, but I think it is a little bit too late for that idea. Back in 2010, good ol’ Joe flipped his truck in a DWI crash but never really got punished for it. After losing his license in that crash, he posed as his brother to get a new driver’s license, and it’s that crime for which he might be deported to Italy — the country of which he is a citizen — after getting out of prison.

Teresa got 15 months in jail; prosecutors argued against house arrest because it would be a little fucked up for her to chill out in the house she basically defrauded others in order to build. The upside is the judge is allowing Teresa and Joe to go at separate times so that their four daughters do not suffer too much. Teresa will serve first and I imagine she probably won’t stay in for the whole 15 months. Think Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, or Nicole Richie jail time. Which makes me wonder if jails are sexist because these women were in jail for short periods of time but DMX and O.J. Simpson were not let out early (but we all know why O.J. is really in jail).

Naturally, Joe and Teresa will sit down and do their first interview after the sentencing with Andy Cohen of Bravo TV. Andy is the glue that holds all of the hot mess shows together on that network and he does a great job!

I am a huge fan of all things Real Housewives. You can get on that hot mess express and ride it around for an hour, hop off and go about your life until that next episode comes on. Originally when I started watching RHONJ I was not too fond of Teresa until she flipped that table.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Joe didn’t seem to be around much at first, but that was okay because there was enough drama to fill more hours than viewers could stand. Slowly but surely over the past few seasons Joe has stepped up his game in showing his face. I HATED Joe a season or two back when he basically made it seem like a phone call he received was from a mistress and then proceeded to call his wife a bitch. Tool bag!

But this season, if you’ve been watching, you get to see a better side of Joe and he has somehow turned into a decent guy. I can tell you one thing, even though I may have never been fond of him or how he treated Teresa he has always seemed to be a good dad!

Teresa and Joe have four little girls; Gia, Milania, Gabriella, and Audriana. Milania stole the show the moment that camera turned to her. She is one opinionated, mouthy kid but you gotta love her!

Courtesy of Tumblr.

What blows my mind about this whole situation is that there were 41 counts and all of this spanned a four-year time period. It is great to know that prosecutors were able to catch them and make them pay for their choices but I wonder how much of that is because they decided to join the Real Housewives of New Jersey. If the spotlight had not been on them would they have perhaps gotten away with it or even gone on to commit more fraud?

Our judicial system works, but does it work better when celebrities are involved?

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Jennifer Marie Puglia via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Real Housewife of NJ Teresa Giudice: Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Collect $200 appeared first on Law Street.

Matt Cordle created a stir on the internet when he posted a video to Youtube entitled “I Killed a man.”  In the video, Cordle admits to driving extremely intoxicated down the wrong side of the highway, hitting a car and eventually killing Vincent Canzani. Cordle also said that he would plead guilty to whatever crime he is charged with in relation to Mr. Canzani’s death, and that his reason for making the video was essentially to put a real face to the serious implications of drinking and driving.  He ended the video by imploring viewers to not make the same mistake he did.

On September 11, 2013, Cordle plead not guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide. This was considered legal maneuvering by his counsel, and Cordle eventually plead guilty.  On October 23, Cordle was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison and the permanent suspension of his driver’s license, pursuant to Ohio law.

There is a lot to discuss here.  The first is the criminal law aspect of Cordle’s Youtube confession.  Cordle makes a point to say that he will “take full responsibility for everything he’s done to Vincent and his family…by releasing this video, [he knows] exactly what it means, and hand the prosecution everything they need to put me away for a very long time.” This is especially true in light of the fact that in criminal trials, it is the both the judge’s and defense counsel’s legal and ethical duty to make sure that the defendant knows the consequences of a guilty plea.  To that extent, it is clear that Cordle received legal advice in making the Youtube confession, as well as his actions in court.

Second, how much did the court of public opinion factor into the outcome of this case?  As of September 12, 2011, the video has been viewed over two million times.  There is a public investment in the judicial response to Cordle’s case.  The outrage that will result would be massive, especially since judgeships are elected positions in Ohio. Though this internet confession was not the sole reason that Cordle received his conviction, this unprecedented move surely played a larger role.

During the sentencing, various parties spoke on behalf of and against Cordle.  Those who supported him throughout the trial argued that he has made such an impact with his video, and acknowledgement of the severity of his actions, that the maximum sentence of eight-and-a-half years was unnecessary.  They argued that by putting a face to drunk driving, he has effectively “scared straight” those that would consider putting themselves in a similar position. Among those who took this position were Mr. Canzani’s widow and Cordle’s attorney.

Conversely, there were arguments in court that the maximum sentence was deserved because of the heinous nature of the crime, and because a viral video does not negate the loss of life that occurred at Cordle’s hands. This position was most effectively elucidated by Mr. Canzani’s daughter, Angela, who said “my father got a death sentence and did nothing wrong.  After eight and half years, Matthew Cordle will still have his whole life ahead of him, my father is never coming back.”

This case is so interesting, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.  Was Cordle’s sentence fair? Should the video have resulted in an even shorter sentence?  Should he have received the maximum?

[Daily News] [CNN] 

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “I Killed a Man” Driver Sentenced to Six and a Half Years appeared first on Law Street.