A favorite tool for law enforcement in detecting drivers operating under the influence of alcohol, DUI checkpoints have long been effective in law enforcement netting arrests on busy holiday weekends such as Memorial Day and the 4th of July.  However, drivers would be remiss to believe that these checkpoints are present only to detect potential alcohol based offenses along busy Vermont roads.  Instead, in recent years, law enforcement have honed their skills to detect other offenses, such as drug consumption that can also result in a motorist be inglead off to the mobile command post to be processed for a criminal offense.

Of the most common offenses detected by law enforcement is the possession and consumption of marijuana.  Although possession of small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized (resulting in only a civil infraction, not a criminal citation for possession of under 1 oz.), the detection of marijuana can now lead to not only a hefty fine, but also increased scrutiny by law enforcement to see if the operator is under the influence of marijuana while driving the motor vehicle.  Although this is not your standard run of the mill DUI investigation, drug recognition experts are being trained at increased levels to be able to respond quickly to a report of a potential driving while high infraction.

These offenses carry with them the same penalties as a driving under the influence of alcohol charge (maximum of 2 years in jail and loss of license for up to 6 months).  Further, even if a motorist is found not be under the influence of marijuana, but is under the age of 21, they can face up to a 6 month license suspension as a result of merely possession a small amount of marijuana.

DUI checkpoints are misleading in name and in purpose.  Law enforcement use these checkpoints to have unfettered brief contact with a magnitude of individuals to detect and arrest those suspected of violating Vermont laws.  Thus, when approaching one of these checkpoints it is important to know that all actions committed by the driver will be heavily scrutinized and that you will not be off the hook if you have not consumed alcohol, but may have something else of interest in the vehicle that a well trained Vermont law enforcement officer may be able to detect.

The announcement by the Federal Government that they intend to take cannabis off its schedule 1 classification seems logical. Considering that cannabis legalization has found its way to the desk of many governors, it was only a matter of time until marijuana, that has long shared the same classification as heroin and LSD, be classified as less serious, although still federally illegal.

Vermont passed a legalization law in 2022, becoming the 11th state to do so. Cannabis retail stores have been popping up all over the State ever since, allowing anyone over the age of 21 the ability to purchase a multitude of cannabis based products. Despite the ease of posession, the concern for the impairing effect that marijuana can have on operators of motor vehicles, continues to be a significant concern for law enforcement.

Driving While High Is as Illegal as Driving While Drunk

The DUI statute for driving while under the influence of marijuana carries the same maximum penalty ( 2 years in jail) as the DUI-alcohol statute. For a law enforcement officer to charge someone with a weed DUI, they must show that the operator was “under the influence to the slightest degree”. Any level of impairment is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements and subject the driver to a mandatory 90-day license suspension and a criminal conviction on your record.

How Does Law Enforcement Prove Impairment?

There is no per-se limit on cannabis DUIs. This differs from the .08 limit in alcohol DUIs. In response, marijuana DUI investigation focuses more on an officer’s observations and specialized training in determining impairment. Although the classic Cheech and Chong scene, where the officer approaches the two stoners who are lost in their van in a giant plume of smoke, such apparent evidence of consumption is not needed for an officer to reach an arrest decision.

Request or Demand for Blood.

An officer can also request that a suspect submit to a blood test in order to determine the presence of cannabis in their system. The Implied Consent laws for refusing to submit to a blood test are the same as an alcohol test refusal (six-month suspension for a first offense, with elevated penalties for subsequent offenses).

Depending on the circumstances of the arrest, an officer may also be able to apply for a search warrant from a judge if suspect consent is not obtained. This process is often initiated in cases where a serious injury or death has occurred, or if the suspect has prior DUI (alcohol or cannabis) convictions.

Just Because You Can Doesn’t Mean You Should

Despite cannabis being available for legal purchase throughout many Vermont towns, this permitted consumption does not extend to the road. So when you purchase that pack of joints from your neighborhood weed dealer keep in mind, that when it comes to driving while impaired, Vermont law enforcement will not look the other way just because you chose weed over booze.

The foregoing content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Readers with specific legal questions should consult with their private attorney.

However, even under optimal conditions and clear instructions from the officer, the FSTs are not conclusive proof of impairment. Although the FSTs can serve as one piece of a much more complex DUI puzzle, the burden on the state to prove each of the elements of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt require far more then an officer’s observations of the FSTs.

Can Prior Injuries or Diagnosis Explain FST Failure?

In some cases, the lack of balance, which plays a significant role in all 3 of the FSTs, can be explained due to medical conditions that impact a defendant’s ability to maintain a balanced position, especially under the stressful circumstance of a DUI investigation.

Have you suffered a lower body injury? Have you suffered a concussion or other brain injury. Do you have high sensitivity to light or occasions of Vertigo? If so, it is important to gather records of these injuries through your medical providers in order to provide some context as to the failure of the FSTs.

Did a Car Accident Occur Prior to FSTs?

In some cases, a defendant is requested to perform FSTs shortly after they were involved in a motor vehicle accident. Although there is no hard and fast rules prohibiting FSTs from being taken after an accident has occurred, the injuries sustained as a result of the crash can cast into doubt the validity of the tests.

Even in situations where the defendant is not transported to the hospital, it is still important to be evaluated by a medical professional in order to determine the extent of the bodily damage that was sustained. If a defendant declines all treatment, this important evidence as to their condition at the time of performing FSTs is lost, making it harder to explain to a judge or jury the impact this accident had on balance and the comprehension of officer instructions.

Age and Weight Can Raise Doubt as to FST Performance

Although not considered definitive, the National Highway Safety Association has found that individuals over the age of 65 and those who are 50 or more pounds overweight may have a more difficult time performing the FSTs even if not under the influence. Officers are encourage to take these factors into consideration when determining probable cause for a DUI arrest.

Even if the defendant is still arrested, using the NHTSA recommendations can cast doubt as to the validity of the FSTs, especially in cases where additional medical conditions are also a concern.

Gather Your Medical Records Early in a DUI Prosecution to Determine Whether a Defense Exists to the FSTs

It is not illegal to be off balance. Explaining the underlying cause of imbalance through medical testimony can be an impactful way to argue to a jury that the results of the FSTs in a Vermont DUI prosecution should be significantly discounted, or, in some cases, all together ignored. By putting together a medical chronology that supports a medical defense to a DUI, a defendant may be able to show that alcohol or drugs were not the underlying factor of their roadside behavior.

The information contained in this post is for informational purposes only. Any reader who has specific questions about the DUI or any other legal process should consult with their own private attorney.

The Vermont DMV has strict timelines on the filing of a uniform accident report by a motorist who is involved in a car accident where damage has been sustained. However, if there is an ongoing investigation into an accident, or if a motorist has been cited for a criminal offense, such as DUI or Negligent Operation, there are several complicated considerations that should be evaluated before submitting this report.

23 VSA  § 1129 states:

“The operator of a motor vehicle involved in a crash in which someone is injured or there is total property damage of $3,000.00 or more shall make a written report concerning the crash to the Commissioner on forms furnished by the Commissioner. The written report shall be mailed to the Commissioner within 72 hours after the crash. The Commissioner may require further facts concerning the crash be provided upon forms he or she furnishes (emphasis added).”

The Details of the Report

Much of the information requested in this report is not prejudicial to the defense of any claim that is brought against the motorist. Information such as the make and model of the car, policy number for insurance and your name and date of birth should be freely provided in a timely fashion. However, on page two of the Uniform Crash Report, there is a section that requests that you, in your own words, provide a narrative of what happened.

Filing a False Report

First off, it should be made clear that filing any type of false information in this report can be considered a crime under 13 V.S.A. § 1754.

Providing an Accurate Narrative

Further, if you provide an accurate detailed description of the events that led up to the accident, this information, which you are required to swear to the truth of, could be used against you in a criminal prosecution.

Does the 5th Amendment Apply?

All defendants in criminal actions have a right to not incriminate themselves under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Since the DMV is requesting just that in their Uniform Accident Report, declining to answer may be a viable option after you have consulted with your attorney.

What Are the Consequences of Not Filing Any Report?

The Vermont DMV can move to suspend your license should you fail to fill out any accident report. As stated above, the basic identifying information should not provide too much risk of self incrimination. However, consulting with the appropriate legal professionals before submitting this report may be the best course of action before you ultimately determine how detailed you want to be in responding to the DMV’s request for information.

The information contained in this post is for general information only. Should you need specific legal advice concerning any matter, consult with your personal attorney.

1) THC levels found in blood do not equate to a level of impairment:   One of the major tools used by law enforcement is the blood draw.  This can provide concrete proof that a motorist has used marijuana in the past.  However, it is stated several times over in the report, that the science does not support a level of impairment based on the THC level alone.  In fact, low levels of THC can be found in the blood for up to 30 days after use, which makes it difficult to equate a THC level with a level of impairment.

2) Some tests have shown that those under the influence of marijuana drive more carefully then those who are sober.  An interesting study was  released in 2015 that marijuana may in fact mitigate risky driving by those under the influence of alcohol.  It further found that those under the influence of marijuana tended to drive slower and at farther distances from a vehicle in front of them.

3) Specific cues of marijuana impairment are not available to detect impairment with reasonable certainty:  NHTSA has admitted that unlike with alcohol, law enforcement cannot point to a series of standardized evidentiary cues that can per-se, lead them to a conclusion marijuana impairment.

4) Marijuana’s role in causing crashes is “less clear”:  NHTSA has admitted in their report that it is difficult to correlate the cause of crashes due to marijuana impairment.  The hurdles to show that marijuana impairment does in fact increase the risk of a crash are the same in which NHTSA acknowledged with regards to THC levels in the blood (i.e. they do not equate to a level of impairment).  Further, the presence of THC in the blood for 30 days, skews any data they may have that states that marijuana impairment was in fact the cause of the CRASH.

5) Impairment Curve of Marijuana is sudden:  With alcohol, there has long been established a BAC curve, that shows how alcohol is processed.  Customarily, a peak BAC is reached 20 minutes after the last drink has been consumed.  With marijuana, it is much more difficult to calculate.  According to NHTSA, peak impairment occurs immediately after smoking and drops significantly thereafter.  This curve is heavily dependent on the user, as those who are regular consumers may show far less signs of impairment even after consuming large doses then those who use less consistently.

The overall takeaways from this Marijuana report, is that much is still to be learned about the effects of Marijuana and driving.  Despite this significant gap in knowledge however, one thing was made crystal clear by NHTSA’s report.  They want to see more Drug Recognition Experts trained and on Vermont roads.  This, with the impending legalization bill, will likely result in an increase in Vermont DUI-Marijuana arrests, despite the evidence that supports these arrests remaining unsettled.

“Reviewing every aspect of the blood draw and analysis is a key component to defending DUI offenses”, stated Attorney Chadwick.  “The science and law behind these analysis are constantly evolving and we, as attorneys, need to stay ahead of the curve so that we can better understand the science that supports and/or undermines the reliability of these tests.”

For more information on the training received by Attorney Chadwick, click HERE.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in COMMONWEALTH V. GERHARD has now limited police officer’s ability to use the standardized field sobriety tests as evidence of drug impairment, tests which have long been validated to detect alcohol impairment.

“The research on the efficacy of FSTs to measure marijuana impairment has produced highly disparate results. Some studies have shown no correlation between inadequate performance on FSTs and the consumption of marijuana; other studies have shown some correlation with certain FSTs, but not with others; and yet other studies have shown a correlation with all of the most frequently used FSTs.”

As has been litigated in Vermont Courts (and recently won by Attorney Evan Chadwick in a drugged driving case), a law enforcement officer who is not a certified Drug Recognition Expert should not be able to  testify as to their opinion of impairment when investigating an individual for DUI-Drugs .  The Gearhardt decision adds an extra layer of protection for these types of investigations by limiting what evidence can be presented on the roadside investigation.

Attorney Chadwick received a thorough overview in the 2015 NHTSA/IACP DRE Pre-School & DRE 7-Day training curriculum that officers attend nationwide. Emphasis was made on analyzing a DRE case file, to include, the DRE Face Sheet & DRE Narrative report, how to compare the two with one another and with the Drug Symptomology Chart, as well as emphasis on each specific step involved in a 12-step DRE evaluation. Time was also be spent covering the IACP’s rules and regulations that officers are required to follow in order to become certified and to recertify as a DRE.

“The training I received was essential in furthering my understanding of the science behind a Drug Recognition Evaluation and what errors officers make in conducting these evaluations”, stated Attorney Chadwick. “It is a training that anyone who is serious about defending DUIs in Vermont needs to take in order to best serve their clients”.

Further clarification as to the sniff test may be supported by recent decisions in Massachusetts and Colorado, that have found that the oder of marijuana alone does not give an officer probable cause.  The Massachusetts case is especially important to Vermont as at the time of the decision, possession of one ounce or less of marijuana was considered a civil infraction in Massachusetts as it is considered in Vermont.  “[W]e no longer consider the “strong” or “very strong” smell of unburnt marijuana to provide probable cause to believe that a criminal amount of the drug is present.  Commonwealth v. Rodriguez.

The wild card in the entire calculus is the fact that it is all but assured that Vermont will legalize recreational marijuana use in the near future.  In 2017, a legalization bill made it all the way to Governor Phil Scott’s desk before he vetoed it, stating that further study was needed before he signed the bill into law.  Thus, if legalization does occur, the Vermont courts may look more towards the recent decisions in Colorado to guide them in reviewing the smell test as a sole basis for a search.  “Because Amendment 64 legalized possession for personal use of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons 21 years of age or older in Colorado, it is no longer accurate to say, at least as a matter of state law, that an alert by a dog which can detect marijuana — but not specific amounts — can reveal only the presence of ‘contraband,’”.  Colorado v. McKnight

If Vermont does pass a marijuana legalization bill, expect further challenges to law enforcement’s ability to decipher criminal behavior from that of legal, including, but not limited to their ability to tell the difference between a legal amount of marijuana and that which surpasses the criminal threshold.

With momentum growing, the State elected to commission the Rand Corporation, to conduct a financial analysis of the cost benefits of marijuana legalization to the State of Vermont.

In its recently released report, it was disclosed by Rand that Vermont could generate up to $75 million in tax revenue per year. This figure certainly rings bells in the minds of legislators, as they faced a $113 million budget shortfall by the end of 2014.

With the potential benefits in mind, it should come as no surprise that Jeannette White, D-Windham County and Joe Benning R-Caledonia County, introduced a 41-page bill in December proposing legalization of the possession of up to one ounce for recreational use and cultivation of that totaled 100 square foot or less.   White has long supported legalization, as she led the effort to approve Act 76, which decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana in 2013.

Despite the optimism of passing a legalization bill in 2016, there remain some headwinds for legalization the strongest of all being the interpretation and enforcement of DUI laws when it comes to Driving while under the influence of marijuana or Driving While High (DWH). If this delay lasts too long, the bill’s approval may outlast Schumlin’s 3^rd and final term, causing the bill to be placed on the desk of an unknown governor.

Currently, Vermont law does not give much clarity on the subject of DWH, merely stating that someone is under the influence of marijuana or other drugs if the impairment, is “noticeably and appreciably” affecting a person’s ability to drive a vehicle safely.

“Noticeably and appreciably” certain appear to lend themselves subjective observations that allow for significant discretion by individual law enforcement officers.  However, convictions for DWH have posed significant challenges for prosecutors to scientifically prove that the motorist was influenced by marijuana at the time of the stop due to the lack of a numeric standard for impairment that could be relied upon similar to the current .08 law for alcohol.

Now, with legalization on the negotiating table, reports have surfaced that lawmakers are considering amending Vermont DUI laws to allow for the admission of saliva tests, which could be conducted roadside. These tests are alleged to be able to detect recently ingested marijuana and provide a reading that could give prosecutors further tools to prove DWH charges.

In a 2013 report from the Drugged Driving Coalition, Greg Nagurney, the appointed representative of the State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, stated that a majority of county prosecutors and sheriffs supported an amendment to DUI laws to allow prosecutors to charge motorists with DWH if impairment could be detected “to the slightest degree” (23 VSA 1201(a)(2). If this low standard of proof is approved as part of the legalization bill, it may be difficult for any motorist who has consumed marijuana in the last 30 days to immediately refute law enforcement suspicions of DWH. If these suspicions are supported by other evidence such as smell, bloodshot eyes or confusion, a probable cause arrest could very well ensue even in cases when the high from smoking marijuana has long subsided.

Although the law is clear that for civil violations, officers may not detain motorists for a time that would exceed the normal time for issuing a traffic ticket, law enforcement continues to challenge this rule by attempting to expand the scope of their investigation when they claim to smell a strong odor of burnt marijuana.  However, some recent cases against search and seizure have arisen recently in Massachusetts, one most notably in      COMMONWEALTH vs. MATTHEW W. OVERMYER, which states “In sum, we are not confident, at least on this record, that a human nose can discern reliably the presence of a criminal amount of marijuana, as distinct from an amount subject only to a civil fine. In the absence of reliability, a neutral magistrate would not issue a search warrant, and therefore a warrantless search is not justified based solely on the smell of marijuana, whether burnt or unburnt.”

Thus, with the increasing number of drugged driving arrests occurring on Vermont roads, and the legalization of marijuana possession in the forefront of the Vermont legislature, it is reasonable to conclude that a substantial amount of grey area continues to exist in prosecuting such cases that can only be clarified through litigation in the Vermont County court system.

In an effort to address the vague nature of the current DUI-drugs statute, the Vermont legislature introduced a bill in 2014 that lowered the standard of proving a Drugged Driving charge by being able to prove that the operator was under the influence to “the slightest degree”.  However, several lawmakers in the Judiciary Committee, including Chair, Jeanette White: D-Windham County, stated that this standard cast the net too wide.

In an effort to compromise, language to the bill was introduced that would allow someone to be arrested for Drugged Driving if prosecutors could show that drug use “interferes with safe operation of a vehicle in the slightest degree.”.

If this language is in fact adopted, it still remaining unclear exactly how law enforcement will be able to detect this level of impairment beyond the flawed Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) standard that they have used to this day.  John Flannigan, a Lieutenant with the Vermont State Police, has stated that a roadside saliva test may in fact be the answer to this question.

Flannigan’s argument is that the saliva test, which is able to detect the presence of certain drugs, including marijuana, along with the DRE testimony, would be sufficient to show impairment.

However, even with this additional evidence, under the revised drugged driving bill, law enforcement would still need to show that the motorist’s impairment “slightly” effected their ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.  Although the saliva tests and DRE testimony may be sufficient to arrest an individual, much remains to be seen if these charges can actually stick when individual cases maker their way through the Vermont Judicial system.

A motorist will get pulled over by law enforcement and during their initial interaction, law enforcement will note that they recognize certain clues of impairment (blood shot eyes, confusion, seating, nervousness etc..)  Based on these observations, the officer will inquire if the motorist has consumed any alcohol or drugs recently.  If the motorist admits to some form of consumption of drugs, the officer may, along with their observations, have enough evidence to perform certain tests aimed at detecting drug impairment.

In order to perform these tests, an officer needs to have specialized training that certifies them as a DRE.  Although prosecutors have attempted to enter DRE testimony into evidence at trial, there is still substantial question as to whether the training the officers have received is sufficient to qualify them as an expert and whether their testimony alone is sufficient to uphold a conviction for DWH.

According to the Governor’s Highway Safety Program, there are currently 35 officers across the State of Vermont that have been certified as a Vermont Drug Recognition Expert, with the aim of having an increased number of officers take the two day training each year.  The  additional training offered to law enforcement is beginning to see dividends for enforcing DWH laws as in 2014 it was reported that officers conducted 214 evaluations, a steady increase from previous years.

With marijuana legalization making its way through the Vermont legislature and additional tools being added to the arsenal of Vermont law enforcement, motorists will need to become increasingly cautious as to their driving if they have ingested drugs or alcohol recently. It appears that Drug Recognition Experts are only one small part of a significantly wider net law enforcement will be casting when they commence a DWH or DWI investigation that could ensnare many motorists who do now know the DWH laws in the State of Vermont.