Is the Smell of Marijuana Enough to Convict for DUI ?
I was reading Flem Whited's "Drinking and Driving Law Letter " today.One case that was interesting was a case out of Illinois. In People v. McPeak , the court reversed a DUI conviction based upon the use of marijuana. The court held that the odor of cannabis coming from the defendant's person coupled with his own admission that he had " taken two hits about an hour ago" was insufficient to sustain a conviction for DUI.
Now, the next question is why the smell of marijuana is enough to justify a search of a car based upon the smell of burnt marijuana. Smell alone should not be the basis of a warrantless search absent some corroborating evidence of drug usage.
On another note, one question you should ask an attorney you are considering hiring is does he or she read the " Drinking and Driving Newsletter.'
It may be an indication of how that attorney keeps up on new developments of the drunk driving law.
Smell alone should not be the basis of a warrantless search absent some corroborating evidence of drug usage. But wouldn't the cops just claim that the person had blood shot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, fumbled documents, and was unstable exiting the vehicle?
That is the standard language you will see in most DUI arrests for alcohol. I am surprise that cops don't have a rubber stamp for these "clues" because you always see them.