Thor Benson / Cannabis News Box Contributor

Washington State’s Supreme Court ruled recently that the state cannot subject those who have been arrested for DWIs to random drug tests while they await trial. The court specifically said doing so would be unconstitutional, under the state’s constitution. In a statement, the court said this kind of testing would be an invasion of privacy.

“Random drug testing is overly broad in testing for an array of substances that no evidence has been shown that it was used in conjunction with operating a motor vehicle,” John Davis, a board member of the Washington-based Cannabis Alliance, told Cannabis News Box. “The court’s ruling says that there are other more effective and relevant restrictions that can be imposed on persons as a condition of release that do not have the same privacy implications.  Public safety concerns can be dealt with in better ways.”

Privacy advocates have long said random drug tests are an invasion of privacy, and many claim they’re a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Washington case came about when three people in Eastern Washington were arrested for driving under the influence in 2015, and they were required to do random drug tests after being released from jail. The Spokane County Superior Court told them they had to do it, and making them do it was within the law, but the state’s Supreme Court reversed that decision.

Regarding Washington’s DWI laws in general, many say it’s overly strict when it comes to cannabis. The state charges anyone with more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood with a DWI. However, almost any regular medical cannabis user has that amount in their blood regularly without being intoxicated. The state has effectively criminalized driving for many medical cannabis users.

“Washington’s DUID laws for marijuana are unfortunately based on faulty science,” Davis said. “It does not show a level of impairment.  It simply measures levels of “active metabolites” against a unit of blood.  A science based method of determining impairment using this method has not been established.”