Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
Jordan Love & Gerold Bright busted for smoking weed
-
USU78
- Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
- Posts: 15397
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
- Location: Sandy
- Has thanked: 7167 times
- Been thanked: 2086 times
Re: Jordan Love & Gerold Bright busted for smoking weed
It's entirely possible it's a training issue
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
Ahbye
- Posts: 2091
- Joined: September 26th, 2012, 9:50 pm
- Has thanked: 272 times
- Been thanked: 684 times
Re: Jordan Love & Gerold Bright busted for smoking weed
I can probably answer that. The problem with the blood test is that there are only a couple of phlebotomists in the valley, and one of them is a bit too high on the totem pole to be called out when this stuff typically happens.. Once you factor time and transport in, it's way too intrusive. The urine metabolite threshold for the field test is 50 nanograms per ml, which in normal people typically means there will also still be active drug, but these are athletes who hydrate like mad anyway, so they metabolize faster, and the field test doesn't test for actual THC. (You would think they could do that.) Read the documentation for iCups for more on that. Anyhow, the reason the 50 nanograms per ml is important is that it's considered prima facie evidence of possession because those who test negative (like athletes) despite being over that 50 nanogram standard on the field test are 2 standard deviations away from the mean in the experimental group who do test positive. (In other words, huge outliers.) As far as pursuing warrants, that's pretty damn standard when you can smell weed and are getting stonewalled. (Isn't Logan the safest city in America most years? Maybe there's a correlation between police officers actually pursuing crime and not deciding whether something seems nitpicky or not. I have to follow and enforce the laws the public has deemed important through means of their representative government. You as an attorney are an officer of the court sworn to uphold the law as well, so you're either a defense attorney who ignores that like all good defense attorneys or you're retired.) Anyhow, the prima facie evidence of possession turned out to be merely evidence of prior consumption in our case. Everybody made the right call except those involved in the football program.hickaggie wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 9:37 amAhbye wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 10:26 amI'd run circles around you both physically and intellectually, sport. I waited a few days to allow you apologists enough rope to hang yourselves with.
In Utah, possession of metabolite in your bloodstream is not considered possession of a controlled substance. That's why the case was dismissed. The urine tests all go to the lab, none of them tested positive for THC, they tested positive for THC-COOH. Only way to test positive for THC-COOH is to have ingested THC.
Several news organizations obtained the police report. Here are the unassailable facts:
The original caller smelled the odor.
The police smelled the odor.
The players admitted that there had been marijuana in the apartment "but not anymore."
One person was under the influence of alcohol as a minor.
All of those things in concert will get a search warrant in any court in the land.
The players gave urine samples, and field tests were positive for THC metabolite, which the state lab confirmed, using the same urine.
Under Utah code, metabolite does not constitute possession unless you're driving, and even then, it is only an element that proves the crime of DUI, not possession of a controlled substance.
There is no Utah code proscribing being under the influence of a controlled substance. You can only get entangled if you drive, act like an idiot in public, or still have it in your bloodstream.
The presence of metabolite proves they smoked weed at some point in the past month, no more, no less.
Under Utah code, they are not guilty of possessing marijuana just because they had smoked it recently. There would have to have been active THC in the urine. There was not. Case dismissed.
I think I pointed this very problem out when this first came to light about 8 pages back Metabolites are indicators but aren't the actual substance. A warrant for a urine test in this circumstance was beyond stupid unless the intent was only to embarrass. They should have asked for a blood test.
Maybe the cops were confused with Utah's insane metabolite DUI statute and didn't compute the difference in the language.
Edit: I forgot to add that Colorado has a 5 ng/ml THC DUI threshold. Guess what the metabolite to active THC ratio is in the average human? 50 ng/ml to 5 ng/ml. Which is exactly what the iCup used nationwide has a threshold at. So if you get pulled over in CO and they piss test you and you test positive for the metabolite, you go to jail on the prima facie. States are moving TOWARD the "insane" metabolite laws, not against them. And with good reason. People are getting killed by pot smokers out on the road. If you're having trouble finding the iCup documentation, shoot me a pm.
-
Ahbye
- Posts: 2091
- Joined: September 26th, 2012, 9:50 pm
- Has thanked: 272 times
- Been thanked: 684 times
Re: Jordan Love & Gerold Bright busted for smoking weed
Ahbye wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 11:28 pmI can probably answer that. The problem with the blood test is that there are only a couple of phlebotomists in the valley, and one of them is a bit too high on the totem pole to be called out when this stuff typically happens.. Once you factor time and transport in, it's way too intrusive. The urine metabolite threshold for the field test is 50 nanograms per ml, which in normal people typically means there will also still be active drug, but these are athletes who hydrate like mad anyway, so they metabolize faster, and the field test doesn't test for actual THC. (You would think they could do that.) Read the documentation for iCups for more on that. Anyhow, the reason the 50 nanograms per ml is important is that it's considered prima facie evidence of possession because those who test negative (like athletes) despite being over that 50 nanogram standard on the field test are 2 standard deviations away from the mean in the experimental group who do test positive. (In other words, huge outliers.) As far as pursuing warrants, that's pretty damn standard when you can smell weed and are getting stonewalled. (Isn't Logan the safest city in America most years? Maybe there's a correlation between police officers actually pursuing crime and not deciding whether something seems nitpicky or not. I have to follow and enforce the laws the public has deemed important through means of their representative government. You as an attorney are an officer of the court sworn to uphold the law as well, so you're either a defense attorney who ignores that like all good defense attorneys or you're retired.) Anyhow, the prima facie evidence of possession turned out to be merely evidence of prior consumption in our case. Everybody made the right call and the law was applied correctly. If only our senior leaders were better leaders.hickaggie wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 9:37 amAhbye wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 10:26 amI'd run circles around you both physically and intellectually, sport. I waited a few days to allow you apologists enough rope to hang yourselves with.
In Utah, possession of metabolite in your bloodstream is not considered possession of a controlled substance. That's why the case was dismissed. The urine tests all go to the lab, none of them tested positive for THC, they tested positive for THC-COOH. Only way to test positive for THC-COOH is to have ingested THC.
Several news organizations obtained the police report. Here are the unassailable facts:
The original caller smelled the odor.
The police smelled the odor.
The players admitted that there had been marijuana in the apartment "but not anymore."
One person was under the influence of alcohol as a minor.
All of those things in concert will get a search warrant in any court in the land.
The players gave urine samples, and field tests were positive for THC metabolite, which the state lab confirmed, using the same urine.
Under Utah code, metabolite does not constitute possession unless you're driving, and even then, it is only an element that proves the crime of DUI, not possession of a controlled substance.
There is no Utah code proscribing being under the influence of a controlled substance. You can only get entangled if you drive, act like an idiot in public, or still have it in your bloodstream.
The presence of metabolite proves they smoked weed at some point in the past month, no more, no less.
Under Utah code, they are not guilty of possessing marijuana just because they had smoked it recently. There would have to have been active THC in the urine. There was not. Case dismissed.
I think I pointed this very problem out when this first came to light about 8 pages back Metabolites are indicators but aren't the actual substance. A warrant for a urine test in this circumstance was beyond stupid unless the intent was only to embarrass. They should have asked for a blood test.
Maybe the cops were confused with Utah's insane metabolite DUI statute and didn't compute the difference in the language.
Edit: I forgot to add that Colorado has a 5 ng/ml THC DUI threshold. Guess what the metabolite to active THC ratio is in the average human? 50 ng/ml to 5 ng/ml. Which is exactly what the iCup used nationwide has a threshold at. So if you get pulled over in CO and they piss test you and you test positive for the metabolite, you go to jail on the prima facie. States are moving TOWARD the "insane" metabolite laws, not against them. And with good reason. People are getting killed by pot smokers out on the road. If you're having trouble finding the iCup documentation, shoot me a pm.