Challenging Marijuana DUI Laws: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael David Smith and the Legal Battle Over Medical Marijuana in Pennsylvania
Oct. 5, 2024
Commonwealth v. Smith, 2024 Pa. Super. 153 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)
In the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael David Smith (593 MDA 2023), the Pennsylvania Superior Court was tasked with reviewing an appeal by Michael David Smith regarding his DUI conviction. This case raised several significant legal issues, particularly concerning the use of medical marijuana and the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s DUI statute under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1)(i) and (iii). The appeal sought to address whether the state’s DUI laws disproportionately affected medical marijuana users and whether the statutes violated equal protection, due process rights, and the constitutional guarantees provided to patients legally using medical marijuana.
Background: The Initial Arrest and Trial
The events leading to Smith’s DUI conviction occurred on the night of June 23, 2019, when Pennsylvania State Police Troopers Ryan Wildermuth and Rebecca Taylor observed Smith speeding on Interstate 83. Smith, driving an SUV, was reportedly traveling over 80 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone. His driving was described as erratic, with "choppy" handling of the vehicle. Trooper Wildermuth initiated a traffic stop after pursuing the vehicle for approximately three-tenths of a mile.
Upon stopping the vehicle, the troopers detected the strong odor of burnt marijuana emanating from inside. Additionally, Smith exhibited signs of impairment, including bloodshot eyes. A subsequent search revealed a corn cob pipe and a small amount of marijuana in plain view on the center console, as well as a container of THC wax. Smith admitted to smoking marijuana roughly 40 to 50 minutes before being pulled over, providing his medical marijuana card as evidence that his consumption was lawful under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). Despite this, Smith was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana.
Smith consented to a blood test, which revealed the presence of active marijuana metabolites, specifically Delta-9-THC, in his system. As a result, he was charged with DUI under Section 3802(d)(1)(i) and (iii) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, which prohibits individuals from driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance or its metabolites in their blood. Marijuana, despite its legal use for medical purposes under the MMA, remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under both state and federal law.
The Charges and Conviction
At trial, the Commonwealth pursued the DUI charges against Smith without distinguishing between lawful and unlawful marijuana use, relying solely on the presence of THC metabolites in Smith’s blood at the time of driving. The prosecution's approach was based on established Pennsylvania law, which does not require proof of impairment when it comes to driving with controlled substances in one's blood.
Smith’s defense raised significant constitutional challenges to the charges, asserting that the DUI statute violated his rights as a medical marijuana patient. The defense argued that the statute failed to consider the lawful use of medical marijuana under the MMA and criminalized individuals who were not impaired at the time of driving. Despite these arguments, the jury found Smith guilty of DUI related to marijuana and/or its metabolites, although he was acquitted of DUI based on impairment and other related charges.
On December 7, 2022, Smith was sentenced to three years of restrictive probation, with the first 90 days to be served under house arrest with electronic monitoring. He was also fined $1,500. Smith appealed the conviction, raising several key legal issues regarding the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s DUI laws.
Constitutional Challenges: Equal Protection, Due Process, and Procedural Rights
Smith’s appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court centered on the constitutionality of Sections 3802(d)(1)(i) and (iii) of the DUI statute, specifically as they relate to medical marijuana patients. He argued that these sections violated his equal protection and due process rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution, as they criminalized individuals who legally consumed medical marijuana without requiring proof of impairment.
Equal Protection Challenge: Smith contended that the DUI statute treated medical marijuana patients differently from those using other legally prescribed controlled substances, such as Schedule II or III drugs. Under Pennsylvania law, individuals using legally prescribed medications from these schedules can only be convicted of DUI if there is evidence of impairment. In contrast, medical marijuana users can be convicted simply for having metabolites in their blood, regardless of whether they are impaired. Smith argued that this created an unconstitutional classification that unfairly targeted medical marijuana users without a sufficient justification.
Substantive Due Process Challenge: Smith also challenged the statute on substantive due process grounds, asserting that it was overly broad and punished lawful conduct—specifically, driving with marijuana metabolites in the blood when there was no impairment. He pointed out that metabolites can remain in a person's system for days or even weeks after consumption, long after any impairing effects have subsided. Smith argued that the statute did not serve a legitimate state interest in public safety, as it criminalized individuals who posed no danger on the roads.
Procedural Due Process Challenge: Finally, Smith claimed that the DUI statute created an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption of guilt for medical marijuana patients. By criminalizing the presence of any amount of marijuana or its metabolites in the blood, the statute effectively presumed that all medical marijuana users were impaired, denying them the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. Smith argued that this violated procedural due process rights by preventing individuals from defending themselves against DUI charges based solely on metabolite presence.
Court’s Ruling: Upholding the DUI Statute
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed Smith’s constitutional challenges de novo, applying a plenary scope of review. Ultimately, the court rejected all of Smith’s arguments and upheld the constitutionality of the DUI statute.
Equal Protection: The court found that the classification created by the DUI statute was reasonable and served a legitimate governmental interest in promoting public safety. The court emphasized that marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under both state and federal law, which justifies stricter regulations for drivers using marijuana, even for medical purposes. The court concluded that medical marijuana patients were not similarly situated to individuals using other prescribed medications, as marijuana's legal status and potential for impairment differ significantly from those of Schedule II or III substances.
Substantive Due Process: The court rejected Smith’s substantive due process claim, finding that the DUI statute was not overly broad. The court held that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing individuals with controlled substances in their blood from driving, regardless of whether those substances were consumed legally or illegally. The court further noted that the General Assembly has the authority to regulate driving with controlled substances in the interest of public safety and that the law does not need to be tailored to individual circumstances, such as legal medical marijuana use.
Procedural Due Process: The court dismissed Smith’s procedural due process challenge, stating that the DUI statute does not create an irrebuttable presumption of guilt. Instead, it establishes a per se offense, meaning that the presence of a controlled substance in the blood is sufficient to constitute a violation, regardless of impairment. The court found that this approach was rational and consistent with the state’s interest in road safety.
Broader Implications of the Case
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael David Smith case highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by medical marijuana patients in states where marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under DUI laws. Despite the legalization of medical marijuana under the MMA, Pennsylvania’s DUI statute continues to criminalize driving with any amount of marijuana or its metabolites in the blood, even if the individual is not impaired.
This case underscores the difficulties in balancing the rights of medical marijuana patients with the state’s interest in public safety. While Smith’s appeal raised important constitutional questions, the court ultimately upheld the existing legal framework, emphasizing that the state’s regulation of marijuana use and driving remains valid under both state and federal law.
As more states legalize medical marijuana, cases like this one will continue to shape the legal landscape surrounding DUI laws and medical marijuana use. For now, individuals who use medical marijuana in Pennsylvania must be aware of the legal risks associated with driving, as the presence of marijuana metabolites in their system could lead to DUI charges, even in the absence of impairment.
Conclusion
In the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael David Smith, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld Smith’s DUI conviction, rejecting his constitutional challenges to the DUI statute. The court’s decision reaffirms the state’s strict approach to driving under the influence of marijuana, even for medical marijuana patients, and highlights the complex legal issues surrounding the use of controlled substances and driving. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a reminder of the ongoing tension between public safety and the rights of individuals who legally use medical marijuana.