Warnings About Marijuana Required in a DUI Arrest

Posted Friday, December 16, 2016 by Andrew Charles Huff

Now that adults can legally light up a joint in our state, did arresting officers in a DUI case have to notify Ms Murray about marijuana when requesting she submit to a breath test? The Washington State Supreme Court recently decided this issue based on a stop that occurred after marijuana became legal but prior to the breath test warnings being updated to reflect the change in the law.

First, a standard breath test machine can determine alcohol concentration in the breath, but it does not test for pot.

After the arrest, Trooper Gerrer read Ms Murray the standard Implied Consent Warnings for Breath at the police station. This incident took place approximately two days after new laws went into effect that set per se limits on THC concentration in blood. Trooper Gerrer did not provide Murray with any warnings about THC concentration in her blood.

The State argued that the trooper was not required to read the entire statutory warning and the trooper provided Murray with an adequate warning to allow her to make a knowing and intelligent decision about taking the breath test.But the Supreme Court found the State was unable to show that the officer gave all the required warnings to Murray, i.e. warnings about THC. Therefore, the breath test evidence in this case was properly suppressed.

State v. Murray