Could smoking medical marijuana get you a DUI?

Posted: Aug 27, 2012 6:08 PM Updated: Aug 27, 2012 6:20 PM 

By Elizabeth Erwin – bio | email

PHOENIX (CBS5) -In Arizona you can get a DUI if you seem impaired – it doesn’t matter what your blood alcohol content is or what kind of drugs are in your system.  Right now the same goes for pot.
“I think a lot of this is yet to be determined, but I can tell you how I think it’s going to shake out,” said attorney Marc Victor.
Victor has seen his fair share of DUI cases.
“I’ve been doing this for almost 19 years,” he said.
He seemed like a good place to start with our questions about how Arizona’s DUI laws will work with medical marijuana.
“If a person is impaired because of any drug, whether it’s marijuana, whether it’s alcohol, then they’re going to have a problem under the DUI law,” Victor said.
Arizona’s DUI law has a couple different parts.  One we’re all familiar with said if your driving is impaired you’re probably going to get a DUI.  But there’s another part you might not know about.
“People don’t understand this section. Merely the fact that it’s in your system, without any impairment at all, which means you could be perfectly safe driving down the road, not a danger to anyone at all and yet still a violation,” Victor said.
Marijuana can stay in your system for days, meaning if you smoked Monday you could still get a DUI that weekend. That means even if you can legally smoke pot, you legally can’t drive.
“The way I believe this is going to shake out is if the person is a qualifying patient and they have a card to use marijuana, then I think and I suspect in order to harmonize the provisions of our new law with the provisions of our old law that the courts are ultimately going to say that it’s a free pass,” Victor said.
Copyright 2012 CBS 5 (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

http://www.kpho.com/story/19390372/could-smoking-medical-marijuana-get-you-a-dui

Channel 5 Interview Baby Gabriel Case

Free CCW Legal Seminar

April 25th, 2012

Free CCW Legal Seminar by Marc J. Victor

6:00 pm – 8:00 pm

The Marc J. Victor Pavilion

located at Chester’s Harley Davidson

922 South Country Club Drive

Mesa, Arizona

http://www.chestershd.com 

We are proud to be the official sponsor of Chester’s Harley Davidson in Mesa. Stay tuned for more upcoming legal seminars to be held at the Marc J. Victor Pavilion located adjacent to Chester’s Harley Davidson.

Bike Week Chester's Harley Davidson

The Law Firm of Marc J. Victor “Attorney For Freedom” is the official sponsor of Chester’s Harley Davidson in Mesa Arizona.  Marc introduced the Outlaws Band to the Marc J. Victor Pavilion on Saturday and was given an autographed guitar by the band.

For more pictures from the event check out Chester’s Harley Davidson’s website: http://www.chestershd.com/

The Law Firm of Marc J. Victor “Attorney For Freedom” is the proud sponsor of Chester’s Harley Davidson in Mesa Arizona.  We will be holding legal seminars at Chester’s in the next few weeks on many topics such as;

How to survive a traffic stop

What is an assault?

Gun Rights

Fourth Amendment rights

and much more.

Just Shut Up!

Do you know your rights?


Miranda Warnings: Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:


You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?


I recommend that you exercise the above rights and JUST SHUT UP! This is the number one bit of advice that I or any other defense attorney will ever give you, if you ever find yourself being questioned by the police in a gun matter or any other matter.


I am the only attorney authorized to speak at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix Arizona. In my speech I always give my number one piece of advice if you are ever questioned by the police... "Just shut up!" as well as other important advice.


Other important topics include:


What is an assault?


What is considered defensive display of a weapon and when is it justified?


When to shoot and when not to shoot.


What happens after I shoot?


How much force am I legally able to use to defend myself?


and much more.


There are times that you may be justified to use deadly force and then there are times when you are not.


This audio was recorded at a recent gun show in Phoenix Arizona to a very large group of people. In this audio you will hear me giving my number one piece of advice several times...JUST SHUT UP!


Listen Here: Just Shut Up!

Beware of the Dragon Slayer

I should have known better. Having previously defended a woman whose dog barked at a cow; a man who, without a permit, built a shed in his backyard; a woman whose dog stepped on the grass of a no-dog park; a girl who entered a state park without paying the three dollar entrance fee - despite the broken fee collection machine; and a man who hung a sign over his business in violation of the city zoning ordinance, I should have expected a struggle. Sadly, I had been told so many times, "The law is the law."

My client was a wife and middle-aged mother of two young children who she drove to school Monday through Friday. She also worked a full time job located a substantial distance from her home. She had no prior contacts with the law; until now.

She called me about a month ago and told me of her past evil doings. When she was a teenager living in another state, she accidentally caused an automobile accident. As a result, that state required her to purchase the expensive SR-22 insurance. She did. Many years later, she moved to Arizona where she was informed she was not required to purchase the SR-22 insurance. She didn't.

The first state then suspended her privilege to drive and promptly notified Arizona. Because she was suspended in the other state, Arizona suspended her license as well. After being notified of the suspensions, my client immediately paid a small fee to the other state and was reinstated. At my client's request, the other state sent a clearance letter to Arizona. Arizona informed her that they received the clearance letter and everything was fine. Arizona didn't inform her that she needed to pay a reinstatement fee. As a result, my client drove for years without knowing her Arizona license remained suspended.

One day, my client was the unfortunate victim of a small automobile accident. After the police officer arrived to "help," it was discovered that my client's license was suspended. Despite immediately paying the previously unknown but all important reinstatement fee, my client was nonetheless charged with the crime of driving on a suspended license.

She reasonably thought she could easily resolve the matter in court. However, after being told by the judge that jail was an option and a six-month license suspension was mandatory, I'm sure I was the first phone call. I wasn't optimistic. It was an easy slam-dunk for the prosecutor. I accepted her case and agreed to try and make a deal to resolve it quickly. I thought maybe the prospect of my client losing her job and her kids not being able to go to school would resuscitate some long lost spark of compassion buried deep in the spot where the prosecutor's heart used to reside. Yeah right!

My client's case was assigned to Ms. Hitler for prosecution. My sentimental requests for leniency were immediately smashed with an iron fist. Ms. Hitler responded with the novel argument, "The law is the law." Ms. Hitler was angered when I was not persuaded by her favorite argument and indeed wanted to joust with her supervisor instead. Not surprisingly, Ms. Hitler's supervisor Mr. Stalin was equally unimpressed with my arguments. We were forced into a trial. What fun!

As the trial began, I couldn't wait to discover what defense I would argue to the judge. Incidentally, this is not my favorite way to try a case. Ms. Hitler called the "helpful" police officer to the stand who testified that she arrived at the accident scene, obtained my client's driver's license and discovered it was suspended. No cross-examination.

Ms. Hitler then moved to admit a certified copy of my client's driving record indicating it was suspended. I objected based on every reason I could argue with a straight face. The driving record was admitted and Ms. Hitler rested the state's case.

I don't think Ms. Hitler enjoyed it when I then requested that the court enter a judgment of acquittal for my client because the helpful officer friendly didn't actually see my client driving. Just for fun, I added that I wasn't calling any witnesses so there could be no rebuttal testimony for the state. Because the judge wasn't laughing and Ms. Hitler was getting even madder, I added that the helpful officer was guessing about who was driving the cars. We won.

After the judge left the bench and my elated client departed, Ms. Hitler felt obligated to enlighten me to the fact that, "Sometimes the dragon wins." Upon further inquiry, I learned Ms. Hitler wasn't initially certain whether my client or I was the dragon she was referring to. Apparently, she was absent during "think before you speak" class at prosecutor's school. Eventually, she decided my client was the dragon.

The twenty-five minutes of Ms. Hitler bashing that followed was worth the price of admission for me. The slaying of the dragon slayer was a quiet victory that day. One nice family was rescued from a jungle of craziness inhabited by a helpful police officer and a prosecutor who treats everyone equally.

Attorney Marc J. Victor

To have freedom, 'let people be free'

Marc J. Victor, Phoenix Criminal Attorney
To have freedom, 'let people be free'
an article by Dary Matera



News item: A judge pro tem was fired Thursday, his first day on the
job, for refusing to hear drug cases.

The late March story went on to say that the Mesa criminal defense
attorney, a marijuana legalization activist and member of NORML
(National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), felt he
couldn't honestly dole out the required mandated punishment for drug
offenders.

No kidding.

Intrigued, I gave the guy, Marc Victor, a call to set up a bong
session . . . I mean an interview.
Driving to his, I had visions of Jerry Garcia in pinstripes, hanging
out in a psychedelic office with black light posters of Kurt Cobain
on the wall. Ten to one, a refurbished VW van with shag carpet would
be parked outside.

No such luck. Victor, 34, turned out to be a teetotaling, ex-Marine
sergeant who operates out of a glass and concrete business complex he
shares with mortgage brokers, life insurance companies, PR firms, and
someone who does "endodontics," a dental procedure that requires that
you get really high first.

Inside this sea of conservatism lurks a squeaky clean Desert Storm
vet with the look of a Republican but the soul of a rebel.

"It's not about drugs or legalization. It's about the violation of
the right of self-ownership," the married father of three young
children said. "I'm fighting for the right of the individual against
government intrusion. If you want freedom, then damn it, you have to
let people be free - even if you don't agree with it."

In other words, Victor is not a big fan of victimless crimes or
legislating what adults can do with their bodies.

Granted, Victor's career sacrifice wasn't derailing. Judge pro terms
are unpaid attorneys who fill in for full-timers.

Still, the legal dodge is a vengeful, good-ol'-boy network, and
Victor's stance took no small amount of courage, especially for a man
with aspirations of becoming an appellate judge.
If that's now the impossible dream, Victor can live with it. In fact,
as much as his refusal to handle drug cases was blown up in the
press, it could have been a lot worse. Victor said he also would have
refused to handle gun possession, gambling, zoning or prostitution
cases.

"If adults want to rent their bodies to other adults, they should
have the right to do so," he said.
Strong words from a bull-doggish Marine who hits the gym at 4:30 a.m.
six days a week to pump iron. A man who wouldn't think to poison his
compact, 5-foot-5 body with drugs or alcohol, but refuses to judge
those who do.

Warming up, Victor said the American judicial system is collapsing
under the weight of unnecessary drug cases. In Arizona, he said he
believes it's verging on an implosion.


He's considering running for county attorney on a platform of doing
away with drug laws and other victimless crimes, and re-emphasizing
the prosecution of quaint, old school criminals such as murderers,
thieves and rapists.

Right on! He'd get my vote.

Dary Matera, a new community columnist, is an author who lives in
Chandler. The views expressed are those of the author. He may be
reached at dary@darymatera.com.

DUI - Driving Under the Influence

The best advice I can offer regarding a DUI is not to drink alcohol and then drive a motor vehicle.  Besides risking being prosecuted for a criminal offense, driving while impaired can easily result in a serious accident or death of a person.  Such a situation will likely result in a prosecution for either an Aggravated Assault or a Manslaughter.  Prosecutors generally seek prison sentences for such crimes.  Few circumstances can change a person's life faster than causing the death of another person by driving while impaired.  Many people are unaware that driving with an alcohol level below the legal limit can also result in a prosecution for a DUI.  Even over the counter medications or prescription medications can be the basis for a DUI charge if those medications result in the slightest impairment to a driver.  If you plan to drink alcohol, take a taxi or use a designated driver.  It is better than ruining your life or some else's life in an instant.

      If you are pulled over by an officer who suspects you may be impaired, you should not answer any questions.  You are not ever required to answer questions posed by a police officer.  You are required to present your driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance.  Generally speaking, refusing all tests at the roadside is the better choice.  Even completely sober drivers can fail many of those tests.  In any event, it is the officer who decides how you performed on those tests.  You may not agree with the officer's conclusion.  You may be required to exit your vehicle whether you are the driver or the passenger.  You should always request to speak to an attorney immediately. 

      Punishments for DUI offenses include mandatory jail, mandatory fines, counseling, license suspensions, ignition interlock devices and generally cause insurance rates to increase.  Punishments are severely increased for multiple DUI convictions.  Committing a DUI while your driver's license is suspended or revoked for any reason can result in prosecution for a felony offense.  A felony conviction can haunt you for the rest of your life.  DUI is an easy crime to avoid.  Adults of legal age should feel free to drink alcohol, but are required to do so responsibly.  Driving after drinking alcohol is not responsible, and can easily result in dramatically changing your life for the worse in an instant.   In short, don't do it. 

Rainbows Festival

The Law Office of Marc J. Victor was at the Rainbows Festival in Phoenix 

RAINBOWS FESTIVAL 2011

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Rainbows Festival & Street Fair

The annual Rainbows Festival & Street Fair is a celebration of the diversity of the LGBT community. The event is located in historic Heritage Square Park in downtown Phoenix. Each year, the Rainbows Festival draws a crowd in excess of 25,000 gay and lesbians, family members and friends. This is one of the largest LGBT events in the state of Arizona.

The first ever Rainbows Festival was held in downtown Phoenix in 2002.

Date & Time

The event has expanded to a full weekend of fun and entertainment. It is both Saturday & Sunday – October 1st & 2nd, 2011.

On both days, the annual Rainbows Festival will open at 10 am and close at 6 pm.

Location

Heritage Square Park is located in downtown Phoenix at 7th Street & Monroe, adjacent to the Phoenix convention Center and the Science Museum.

Parking & Transportation

The Rainbows Festival & Street Fair is located next to Chase Field, US Airways Arena and Arizona Center. There are parking structures next to Heritage Square Park for over 20,000 cars. For additional public transportation, check www.valleymetro.org.

There are several light rail stations located adjacent to the event, just get off at the Chase Field exit, and walk to the Rainbows Festival.

FREE ADMISSION

The annual Rainbows Festival is a free admission event — there is no charge to attend this fun weekend of fun, frolic and food. The event is open to the general public.

Federalist Society Debate: Legalize Marijuana?

Complete Description:Bill Montgomery, the Maricopa County Attorney, and Marc Victor, a local attorney, will debate whether Marijuana should be legal.

http://apps.law.asu.edu/Apps/WebEvents/EventDetails.aspx?laweventid=276596

Arizona State University 420 Event

Arizona State University 420 Event - These bloopers are hilarious

Fourth Amendment Rights

Fourth Amendment Rights - For more amazing video clips, click here

Committed To Excellence

Commiteed to Excellence 2

Former Marine Now On Duty as Attorney

Marc Victor, Former Marine Is Now On Duty as an Attorney

My Journey to Libertarianville

                         

I’ve always been a loud mouth. Even as a young boy, my mother would often say, “Someday, that mouth of yours is going to get you in trouble.” Today, as a criminal defense attorney, I use that “mouth of mine” to help get people OUT of trouble. It wasn’t always that way.

Like most other loud mouths, I was always interested in politics. However, like almost all other Boston area Jews, I was surrounded by long time liberal Democrats. Although there may have been a time in my youth when I was in the presence of a Republican, such unpleasantness was always kept from me. I had always been informed that Democrats were “for the people” and Republicans were “for big business.” If there was more to the analysis, I never heard it.

Being most comfortable in the midst of any controversy, I think my youthful pronouncement that I had decided to be a Republican was more of a reaction against the Democrat Party monopoly than a statement of principle. To their credit, my parents informed me that my Republican leanings were OK so long as I did not publicize them in front of the elder generation. I think they believed it was just some crazy phase I was going through. Ultimately, they were correct.

At some point, I became a Republican because I agreed with what Republicans were saying. In addition to sounding whiny and wimpy, the Democrats always struck me as needing a babysitter to help with living their lives. The Republicans were talking about individual responsibility and low taxes. I really bought into the limited government concept. I started arguing with Democrats about everything; whether they wanted to argue or not.

I began my college career as a political science major at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. The school is not known for its great libertarian bent. I don’t know if being a socialist was a requirement to become a professor, but it sure seemed like it to me. I recall the permanent Marxist information table being a popular spot among many of the students. Everyone in my political science classes knew me. Some knew me as the loud mouth Republican idiot. Others just knew me as the loud mouth. I loved it.

Somewhere in the midst of my battles with liberals, I began to notice there were some pesky issues where the liberal Democrat voices made some sense. I couldn’t deny their good points on various individual rights issues such as free speech, sodomy laws, homosexuality, pornography, and separation of church and state.
Being tired of shoveling snow and a fan of the summertime, I transferred to Arizona State University as a justice studies major. In addition to having a few conservatives around, there was no Marxist table to be found at Arizona State University. Although my Republican views had started to moderate on some individual rights issues, I was still fool enough to extol the virtues of the war on drugs.

One day after class, I participated in a heated argument about the drug war. During my long walk to the poor man’s parking lot, the economic based argument against the drug war started to sink into my hard head. I could feel myself having to change my deeply held view about the drug war and adopt a pro-legalization position. Later, I realized those great Republican pronouncements about individual responsibility were not compatible with a war on drugs.

When I entered law school at Southwestern University in Los Angeles, I was a confused conservative; not comfortable with either the Republicans or the Democrats. In one sense I was better off because I could argue with both the Republicans and Democrats. Merely rejecting both parties didn’t stop me from being a loud mouth.

Although I had positions on various issues, I lacked a coherent philosophical base.

One day, I met Professor Butler Shaffer. He told us to refer to him either as “Butler” or “God” if we weren’t comfortable using his first name. I figured out quickly this guy wasn’t a typical law professor. He showed up to class one day wearing a tee shirt with the word “anarchy” on it. I was intrigued. Butler posed questions about self-ownership and the legitimacy of the constitution. He insisted that all political questions were really different versions of the same question, “Who makes the decision over property; the owner or someone else?” He boiled all questions down to a property analysis. I harassed the guy. After endless hours kicking around the questions Butler posed, I started to understand. Butler gave me a book by Murray Rothbard that discussed the monetary system. I also read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland while I was pouring though the required law school reading.

Butler invited me to two discussion groups entitled the Mencken Forum and the Nock Forum respectively. I attended both faithfully and became a libertarian junkie. I couldn’t get enough of the freedom philosophy.
After flirting with the Libertarian Party, I came to the realization that such a party is a contradiction in terms.
Although I sympathize with political Libertarians, I do not count myself among them. On the other hand, I do not believe there is or can exist a centralized plan for freedom. I have come to believe there are two groups of people; those who coerce others and those who do not.

After almost ten years as a practicing criminal defense attorney, I can say few libertarians have fought the state more regularly. I am a libertarian on the front lines in the war against tyranny; an epic multigenerational and honorable struggle. I have hosted regular discussion groups, given speeches, hosted a radio show and sponsored debates. In 2000, I co-founded the Freedom Summit with my partner and libertarian guerilla warrior Ernest Hancock.

Although neither the Mencken Forum nor the Nock Forum continue, the Freedom Summit exists to hopefully rescue lost libertarian souls from the intellectual chaos that prevails today. In the end, my mom was right. It is my loud mouth that will most likely get me into trouble. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

We Don't Need No Stinking Zealous Advocacy

Back in the good old days when Americans were interested in freedom, criminal defense attorneys had an ethical duty to zealously advocate for their clients. The concept being that an adversarial system of justice was more likely to produce just results than an inquisitorial system of justice. However, the Arizona Supreme Court recently decided that the age old duty of zealous advocacy is no longer appropriate. Attorneys in Arizona now have no such ethical duty.

I interpret this change to mean the government has determined it is no longer in the government's interest for criminal defense attorneys to be zealous when they fight the government. No kidding. One could expect nothing different so long as the government supplies all the judges, the prosecutors and strictly regulates all criminal defense attorneys. Imagine a situation where one baseball team unilaterally approves and pays the umpires and determines who plays for the other team. You wouldn't be shocked when they picked players for the other team who agreed not to play too zealously.

I recently tried a case for a client who was charged with a crime arising out of a bar room brawl. I suspected the arresting police officer wouldn't be able to identify my client at the trial but would nonetheless testify under oath that he could. On the day of trial, I asked my client to sit in the back row of the courtroom while his uninvolved friend accompanied me at the defense table. I informed the court my client was present in the courtroom and we were ready for trial.

As expected, the officer testified under oath that the friend sitting next to me was the man he arrested. He was absolutely certain. I immediately informed the court that I did not agree the officer had identified my client. After the government rested its case, the friend testified revealing his identity. After some expected legal wrangling, the judge entered a judgment of acquittal. My client was thrilled. The aggravated prosecutor stormed out of the courtroom.

Months later, I learned the prosecutor's supervisor filed a bar complaint against me alleging I misled the court and an investigation was commencing. My state granted privilege to enter into voluntary contracts with adults for representation was at stake. To his credit, the elected judge backed me and signed an affidavit stating I did nothing to mislead him. This did not deter the bar or the prosecutor who was determined to punish me for misleading the judge who says he was not misled. Indeed, the prosecutor argued to the bar that the judge's opinion about not being misled was not relevant. After months of haggling, the state bar grudgingly admitted I had not violated any ethical duties and the complaint against me was dismissed.

Despite the fact that we all know what happened that day in court, no complaint was ever filed against the government police officer. No government investigation was commenced against the government police officer.

None was expected. Government courts have ruled that government police officers are permitted to lie to citizens all they want. They often do. However, government prosecutors often charge citizens with crimes if a citizen lies to a government police officer.

So long as the government administers the criminal justice system, only the government will be protected.
Whenever you find yourself in a government court fighting the government, remember that the government doesn't want your attorney to have an ethical obligation to zealously represent you. They want your quick plea of guilty and the accompanying fines and various sanctions which now include your DNA in many cases. Although it may seem unfair, I'm sure the government set up this system with only our protection in mind.

My short-lived tenure as a superior court judge pro tem is a great example of how the government establishment deals with dissenting opinions among judges.