State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris
346 P.3d 984
Ariz.2014Background
- Statute § 28-1381(A)(3) makes driving with any drug or its metabolite in the body unlawful.
- Question presented: whether the phrase 'its metabolite' includes Carboxy-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Carboxy-THC), an inactive marijuana metabolite.
- Shilgevorkyan was stopped for speeding; blood test showed Carboxy-THC after admitting prior marijuana use.
- Charges: (A)(1) for driving while impaired; (A)(3) for presence of a drug or its metabolite in the body.
- Evidence showed Carboxy-THC is inactive and may remain for 28–30 days; Hydroxy-THC presence is short-lived.
- Arizona courts previously disagreed on interpretation; appellate court relied on broad interpretation to uphold (A)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'its metabolite' in § 28-1381(A)(3) | Shilgevorkyan argues singular means only primary metabolite (Hydroxy-THC). | State argues 'metabolite' pluralizes to include all byproducts of metabolism. | Ambiguous; term susceptible to multiple readings. |
| How to interpret ambiguous metabolite term | Ambiguity should favor plain interpretation limiting to impairing metabolites. | Ambiguity should be resolved to permit a flat ban on any metabolite presence. | Use secondary canons; limit 'metabolite' to impairing metabolites. |
| Application to non-impairing metabolites like Carboxy-THC | Presence of any metabolite supports (A)(3) liability regardless of impairment. | Cannot criminalize mere presence of non-impairing metabolites. | Carboxy-THC not an impairing metabolite; (A)(3) not violated by mere presence. |
| Legislative intent of § 28-1381(A)(3) | Zero-tolerance ban best furthers public safety and impairment deterrence. | Statute should not criminalize non-impairing byproducts or legal use. | Legislature intended to prohibit impairment-related metabolites; not all metabolites. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528 (App. 1998) (discussed broad interpretation of (A)(3) and impairment framework)
- State v. Phillips, 178 Ariz. 368 (App. 1994) (addressed per se driving provisions and impairment considerations)
- Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Com’n v. Brain, 234 Ariz. 322 (2014) (statutory interpretation with regard to ambiguity and context)
- State v. Cooperman, 232 Ariz. 347 (2013) (explains per se alcohol provision and impairment considerations)
- Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 212 Ariz. 255 (2006) (principles on avoiding ambiguity in statutory interpretation)