Bell And Blount Cited With Marijuana Possession, Bell DUI

Really? so why do so many people who suffer from Glaucoma and other related illnesses use medicinal marijuana as a means of pain management? Do you have experience with pot?

Bman

 

I just want to know what the cop making the arrest was thinking.

 

20 grams is quite a bit. 28 grams is an ounce. Just to put things in perspective.

 

Not that I spend a lot of time on the NORML web site http://norml.org/legal/item/pennsylvania-drugged-driving

I googled "morons who smoke dope and drive in PA"

Pennsylvania Drugged Driving
In Pennsylvania, a person is guilty of DUI if he or she drives (1) with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act in his or her blood,* (2) with a metabolite of a schedule I substance in his or her blood,* (3) under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs his or her ability to safely drive, OR (4) under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual's ability to safely drive. 75 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 3802(d)(1)-(3) (West 2010).
NOTE: The Pennsylvania legislature has criminalized driving while a cannabis metabolite (which can linger in a person's system for weeks after ingestion) is present in an operator's system – even absent impairment. There is, however, a certain threshold for concentration of illicit metabolites that must be met before the results of a chemical test indicating cannabis metabolites can be introduced as evidence.
The Pennsylvania Bulletin, vol. 34, issue 7 initially specified the threshold level for THC or its metabolites at 5 nanograms per milliliter. However, this minimum threshold was amended to 1ng/ml in 2011, as noted in the April 30, 2011 edition of the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Any amount of cannabis metabolites at or above this level can be introduced as evidence of a per se violation of the statute proscribing operation with Schedule I metabolites, and can be introduced in a proceeding for prosecution for driving while impaired by drugs. However, the mere presence of metabolites are not enough to convict for offenses requiring impairment. In such a proceeding the state must show actual impairment.
[h=4]Affirmative defense[/h]The fact that a person charged with violating this chapter is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol or controlled substances is not a defense to a charge of violating this chapter.Id. § 3810.
[h=4]Implied Consent[/h]

• Any person who drives in Pennsylvania shall be deemed to have given consent to chemical tests of breath, blood or urine for the purpose of the presence of a controlled substance. Id. § 1547(a).
• If any person placed under arrest is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of the person from 6-18 months. Id. § 1547(b)(1).
• In any summary proceeding or criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with a violation arising out of the same action, the fact that the defendant refused to submit to chemical testing may be introduced in evidence along with other testimony concerning the circumstances of the refusal. No presumptions shall arise from this evidence but it may be considered along with other factors concerning the charge. Id. § 1547(e).
• The person tested shall be permitted to have a physician of his own choosing administer an additional breath, blood or urine chemical test and the results of the test shall also be admissible in evidence. The chemical testing given at the direction of the police officer shall not be delayed by a person's attempt to obtain an additional test. Id. § 1547(h).
• Officer's refusal to allow accused to consult with attorney before deciding whether or not to submit to chemical test was not unconstitutional or otherwise improper. The right to speak with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical tests is not a guaranteed constitutional right. Herbert v. Com.,460 A.2d 920(1983).

Penalties

• First offense misdemeanor - imprisonment of for a minimum of 72 consecutive hours, maximum imprisonment of 6 months; fine of not less than $1000, not more than $5000; offender required attend alcohol highway safety school; license suspension of at least 18 months; offender may be required to complete 150 hours of community service; offender may be required to attend a victim impact panel. Id. 3803(a)(1); Id. § 3804(c)(1)(i); Id. §§ 3804(c)(1)(ii)-(iii); Id. §§ 3804(e)-(f).
• Second offense misdemeanor - imprisonment for a minimum of 90 days, maximum imprisonment of 6 months; fine of not less than $1,500; offender required to attend alcohol highway safety school; license suspension of at least 18 months; offender may be required to complete 150 hours of community service; offender may be required to attend a victim impact panel. Id. §§ 3803(a)(1); Id. §§ 3804(c)(2)(i)-(iii); Id. § 3803(a)(1); Id. §§ 3804(e)-(f).
• Third and subsequent offense 2nd degree misdemeanor - minimum imprisonment for 1 year; fine of not less than $2,500; license suspension of at least 18 months; offender may be required to complete 150 hours of community service; offender may be required to attend a victim impact panel. Id. § 3803(a)(2); Id. §§ 3804(c)(3)(i)-(ii); Id. §§ 3804(e)-(f).

Sobriety Checkpoints
Pennsylvania allows law enforcement to conduct sobriety checkpoints under the state and federal Constitution.

• Law enforcement should provide sufficient warning of sobriety roadblocks through newspaper publication and signs, but need not provide an opportunity to avoid the checkpoint. Commonwealth v. Pacek, 691 A.2d 466 (1997).
• Sobriety checkpoint locations must be in an area with a high number of DUI related accidents and arrests. Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (1997).
• Performing a legal U-turn before a checkpoint is not justification to stop a motorist. Commonwealth v. Scavello, 703 A.2d 36 (1997).

[h=4]Case Law[/h]Com. v. Etchison, 916 A.2d 1169 (2007), affirmed 943 A.2d 262 – There is no equal protection violation in disallowing persons to operate with Schedule I drug or metabolite present in system; conviction does not rest on whether driver is impaired, but instead statute prohibits operation of a motor vehicle by any driver with Schedule I substances present. Pennsylvania court found all drivers are treated the same under statute.
Evidence failed to establish that defendant was under influence of drug or combination of drugs to degree which impaired his ability to safely operate his vehicle; expert witness testified under cross-examination that presence of metabolites was not indication of present impairment but only that substance was ingested sometime previously. Defendant was, however, convicted for operating with illicit metabolites in blood.
Com. v. Bishop, 126 A.2d 533, (1956) -- Statute making it unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor, or any narcotic drug or habit producing drug, defines only one offense, namely, operating a motor vehicle while under an unnatural influence. 75 P.S. § 231(f). Where defendant was prosecuted for operation of motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor and he was acquitted, he could not thereafter be tried for operation of motor vehicle while under influence of narcotic drug based upon the same incident. 75 P.S. § 624(8).
Commonwealth v. Woodruff, 668 A.2d 1158, 1161 (1995) -- An intoxicated individual may use a vehicle as shelter as long as they do not drive or operate it, and are not in actual physical control of the vehicle. "A combination of the following factors is required in determining whether a person had 'actual physical control' of an automobile: the motor running, the location of the vehicle, and additional evidence showing that the defendant had driven the vehicle."
[h=4]Per Se Drugged Driving Laws[/h]Pennsylvania has a per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances. (75 Pa. C.S.A. 3802(d) & 34 Pa.B. 919)

Under Pennsylvania's law, motorists with detectable levels of THC in the blood above 1ng/ml (reduced from 5ng/ml on April 30, 2011) are guilty of DUID.

Pennsylvania's law took effect in October 2003.

​

[h=4][/h]

 

I am probably late to the game and others have probably already answered this. But here are my questions, that some of you probably are better prepared to answer:
1.) How many games will each get and starting when - my initial guess is Blount gets one game...possibly two because of poor judgment of riding in a vehicle, starts the season opener...so he misses Cleveland and maybe Baltimore games//Bell will get 4 games because of the DUI issue and it too will start the season opener...meaning the Steelers have zero running game and Cleveland which has a pretty good defense gets to harass Ben all day.

2.) What kind of effect will this have on who gets cut/kept etc. and the roster totals, with the above suspended, I don't think it counts against their roster count does it? So I guess the Steelers look for a back off the street who is going to get cut by another NFL team. Someone like Evan Royster from the Redskins maybe?

3.) Any gut feel for how the Steelers will likely address this long term. I guess with Holmes he was so blatant about his use of ganji that the Rooneys wanted to make an example of him. But what about these guys - any chance one or both get told to hit the highway, my guess is no.

4.) Any other names you see the Steelers picking up for their running back situation?

 

I have a quick and easy solution to the problem. Maybe they can ask a favor from one of their RB brethren... Just ask Ray Rice if he would be willing to have his now fiancé take full responsibility and blame for this incident. Heck why not ,not like she hasn't done it before. C'mon Ray help a brother out....

 

Just be glad they didn't get pulled over in Ferguson.:o

 

I was reading some of the earlier posts...I guess TTF said it is unlikely either will get suspended. Did Bell get a DUI w/the blood THC testing. I would think that GOD-ell would cone down somewhat hard because of that. My guess is Bell would at least get a game or two.

Also some positives to take from this - Bell and Blount do seem to bosom buddies . They will be willing to share ball carrying duties as witnessed by their ability to share weed and the woman in the car with them . And finally - Blount does appear to be "teaching" Bell things.

 

Why do you think no team signed Blount in FAgency? After leading the Pats in rushing they let him go for a reason, he is a bad influence on players in the locker room and off the field. I did expect him to at least make it through training camp before he got into trouble but I knew it was going to happen sooner or later: That still doesn't let Bell off the hook, he knows right from wrong and he better clean up his act before he throws his career away....

 

Dwayne Bowe just received a one game suspension for pot possession and he also had a previous four game suspension for PED's. So, I would hope Bell would be looking at a one game suspension.... Two max... But the NFL's punishment has a reputation of not being consistent.

 

Dwayne Bowe just received a one game suspension for pot possession and he also had a previous four game suspension for PED's. So, I would hope Bell would be looking at a one game suspension.... Two max... But the NFL's punishment has a reputation of not being consistent.[/QUOTE]

Thanks I guess I went off the deep end, suggesting four for Bell. My guess is Blount not being charged would get nothing, but I still think the driving by Bell is going to come into play. What happened with Josh Gordon, because isn't the word that he is going to get 8 games.

 

All I know is, someone has to get a picture of bell and Blount together on the sidelines tonight.. Would make for a good week of our caption this thread lol... I could only imagine some of the responses

 

I feel that this story is obscuring the real news of the day - that BFT is back.

Good to see you, dude.

 

This one deserves more attention.....

 

HAHA wait I don't get it that cop has a broken orbital bone and those suspects were originally wanted for robbery then felony assault. I don't see the coalition.


Our guys just had weed, didn't assault the cop and from everything I've seen were cooperative. That's not similar at all.

 

"In the fetal position with drool on my chin" they better not break down and smoke weed with Willie, until they retire!
BTW love that song

 

Depends on the State and the level of crime. In your State if it's felony level drugs possession and everyone had immediate access to it then all can be charged. That's usually done for Meth or Crack under 11379 H&S. I would be surprised if all three are charged once it gets to court. Not a serious crime just a stupid mistake

 

This isn't about anyone with an illness. Do you think a bunch of kids in their early 20's are in so much pain from football that they think, "hey let me smoke some pot to relieve my pain" or are they like a lot of teens and college kids and think, "yo mang lets get HIIIIIIGGH!". Which one is more likely?

 

Stays in urine a lot longer than blood; blood processes and discards it in hours.