The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled today that merely having marijuana in a driver’s system is insufficient for the state to suspend their license.
The court dismissed arguments from the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) that a blood test showing marijuana metabolites constituted sufficient evidence of being “under the influence.”
Appellate Judge Andrew Jacobs, writing for the unanimous court, clarified that when voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2020, Arizona law specified that penalties could only be imposed if the state demonstrated the driver was “impaired to even the slightest degree by marijuana.” He stated, “But that was not the case here. Instead, the state claims it can suspend Kirsten’s privilege of driving for his prior use of marijuana, as evidenced by metabolites of cannabis in his blood, without any impairment.”
This ruling marks the first appellate court decision on the matter since the legalization of recreational use extended beyond medical recommendations established in the 2010 law. Second, it broadens protections for marijuana users against both criminal charges and administrative license suspensions, a power the MVD can exercise without court approval.
Court records detail that Sedona police stopped Aaron Kirsten in 2022 for speeding, noting his bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unsteady gait. Although Kirsten declined a standardized field sobriety test, a preliminary blood test indicated a blood-alcohol content slightly above the 0.08 threshold for intoxication. However, a subsequent blood analysis revealed a level below that limit.
A forensic scientist from the Department of Public Safety found traces of THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana. During an administrative hearing, Kirsten testified that he had not consumed marijuana within 24 hours prior to the stop, supported by testimonies from a chiropractor and nurse practitioner stating that THC metabolites can remain in the body for weeks. Despite this, the hearing officer suspended his driving privileges for 90 days, a ruling upheld by Coconino County Superior Court Judge Stacey Lynn Krueger.
Jacobs emphasized the law enacted by voters, stating that Kirsten could only be found guilty of driving with marijuana metabolites if he was also “impaired to the slightest degree.” He noted that the judges believed the outcome could have differed if the MVD had presented additional evidence, such as observations of impairment, rather than relying solely on blood test results.
“This reinforces our understanding of the voters’ intent, expressed through their enactment of Proposition 207, that unimpaired driving after consuming marijuana cannot be penalized,” Jacobs stated.
Jacobs also remarked that the state sought to impose penalties on Kirsten for exercising his legal right to use marijuana. He highlighted that the state cannot lawfully “abrogate or limit any right or privilege conferred or protected by the laws of this state,” affirming that driving is indeed a privilege. He concluded that “The design of Proposition 207 is unambiguous. The slightest degree of impairment is required before the state may punish prior marijuana use.”
Jacobs stressed the importance of not infringing on the electorate’s legislative authority, underscoring that “voter-enacted laws are even more consequential than those enacted by the Legislature.”
