lawyer attorney lawyers attorneys
Tell us about your case. Contact Us Disclaimer Information James O'Rourke bio information Call us at 503-221-1425 for a FREE initial no obligation telephone consultation.  
James O'Rourke - Criminal defense lawyer Portland Oregon

real phentermine online 2012
Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional

Category: Drug Crimes

Probation Officers Should Not Direct Addicts on Probation to Take Methadone – There are Better Options

As an Attorney who defends drug cases in Portland and Gresham, I deal with many clients who use methadone to prevent opiate withdrawal.  Methadone has been available in the United States since 1947.  This drug is a synthetic narcotic that is used, primarily, as a replacement drug for people addicted to heroin, morphine or other opiate drugs.  It is also used for long term management of chronic pain.  Methadone has a  potential for abuse and addiction that is similar to heroin or morphine.

An entire industry has arisen around methadone in its use to control withdrawal symptoms in opiate addicts.  Methadone clinics serve thousands of addicts on a daily basis, administering doses of the drug directly to clients.

Used in a proper treatment model, methadone can be quite useful.  When an addicted person transfers their need for heroin to methadone, engages in treatment and gradually reduces the dose of the drug (called titration) the person can end up drug free and clean and sober after a period of time.  Proper titration can take months.

The problem is that many programs simply administer methadone, fail to have clients engage in meaningful treatment and continue people on methadone indefinitely.  This is an incredibly bad idea for a number of reasons.

First, methadone is dangerous.  The drug is a powerful respiratory and cardiac depressant.  Mixing methadone with other depressant drugs, like Xanax or alcohol, can cause a person to pass out and stop breathing.  Used long term, methadone can build up in a person’s body fat.  When the body fat becomes saturated it “dumps” the excess methadone into the blood stream and can cause an overdose, even when a person is taking their prescribed dose.

Second, methadone is not a cure for addiction.  Heroin addicts who switch from heroin to methadone are just as addicted to opiates as they were before.  They experience euphoria when they dose and they experience the same symptoms of withdrawal as the dose wears off, the most common of which is extreme fatigue (called “the nods”) which people experience in the afternoon.  People who replace heroin with methadone without treatment will still think like an addict and act like an addict.  It is very common for a methadone patient to use the drug as a bridge between heroin doses.

Third, the methadone clinic milieu is a culture of addiction, not recovery.  The environment itself can lead to relapse and new criminal activity.  Heroin dealers know that methadone clinics are a good place to sell heroin and they frequent the areas around the clinics.  This environment and easy access to drugs, is dangerous for addicts trying to recover.

Some probation officers feel that addicted probationers perform better on probation when they are using methadone.  Even if that is partly true, the truth is that methadone patients are always at a high risk for opiate relapse.  Once in relapse they will return to all of the drug acquisition behaviors that led them into legal trouble in the first place.

Methadone is an old drug.  There are new, more sophisticated, alternatives that can actually help people become completely clean from opiates.  Treatment is a necessary component  in this process.  As a Portland Drug Crimes Lawyer I believe that new medication and treatment modalities that actually get people clean from drugs are preferable to the use of methadone.  I see too many of my clients who use methadone relapse into drug use and criminal activity.

Purchasing Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Can Lead to Serious Criminal Drug Charges

As a Portland Drug Crimes Lawyer, I have seen people get into trouble by acquiring prescription drugs through the internet.  It may seem like a good idea to purchase prescription drugs over the internet or purchase them in foreign countries.  After all, they advertise steep discounts on common drugs and delivery to your home by mail, which is convenient.  However, there are some clear reasons that people should avoid internet drug sales and purchasing drugs in foreign countries.

First, the vast majority of internet drug transactions are illegal.  More importantly, the DEA constantly monitors these companies and takes action against them, both at home and abroad.  They ultimately discover a companies customer list.  If a person has purchased narcotic drugs that transaction constitutes a felony possession of a controlled substance if the drug is a schedule II opiate.  If one gives or sells the drug to another person, that can be a felony drug delivery with serious legal consequences.  If a person delivers drugs to another person and that person overdoses and dies, the seller can be liable for serious Federal charges under the Len Bias Law and a long prison sentence.

Second, a person ordering these drugs has no idea of what they are actually receiving.  Pills that purport to be oxycodone could be another kind of opiate or contain no medication at all.  These drugs are almost never the product of mainstream drug manufacturers.  The drugs are made on commercial pill presses and the makers can imitate the markings of real drugs.  It is common for a drug to purport to be hydrocodone (Vicodin) and actually turn out to be Darvon, a drug that can be dangerous for people who suffer from cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac abnormalities.  Codeine is another cheap and common substitute for any drug that purports to be an opiate.

These illicit “prescription” drug manufacturers make their products in an unmonitored environment with no quality control.  The substitutions of ingredients they make can cause problems for individuals who are allergic to the substituted compound or people who have other health problems that are aggravated by the substituted drug.  These suppliers use crude binders, such as lactose, that can cause gastrointestinal problems.  No one knows the conditions under which the drugs are made and other contaminants are often present in the “offshore” drugs.

As a Portland Criminal Defense Attorney, I caution my clients not to use these sites to acquire drugs.  Obtaining of drugs through these sites is illegal and the risk of getting something other than you ordered is substantial.

Oxycontin: The Gateway To Heroin And Measure 11 Crime

In my last blog I discussed the hypothetical client named “John.”  John was prescribed Oxycontin after an on the job injury.  Like many clients, he became addicted to this dangerous drug.  Here is the story of how that happened.

John’s Portland, Oregon doctor handed out Oxycontin like candy, raising his dosage over time to the maximum of 80 milligrams per dose.  John’s doctor eventually realized he was over prescribing and got worried about getting in trouble with the medical board.  He prescribed John a month worth of Percocet, a lower dose opiate, and terminated john as a patient.  His doctor did not follow the protocol for titration (a gradual reduction in dosage) or refer him to other doctors who could replace the opiate medicines with another, less harmful, drug.  John began using heroin and sold heroin to pay for his own habit.  He was caught dealing heroin after six months.  He had a number of criminal charges and the district attorney is asking for prison.  This is a common Oxycontin scenario.

Oxycontin came onto the market in 1995.  At that time, Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of the drug, claimed that this new formulation of oxycodone, was less prone to abuse and that it could be discontinued without withdrawal symptoms. They trained their sales people to make these representations to physicians as they marketed the drug.  Because it is a long acting pain reliever, it became a favorite of physicians for the treatment of long term pain caused by cancer and back injuries.

These representations turned out to be false.  Oxycontin has an extremely high addiction potential.  Withdrawal from long term use of this drug is particularly miserable.  Although Purdue Pharma stopped making these representations in 2001, thousands of lives had been affected.  Also in 2001, the FDA required a “black box warning” that specifically warned of the drug’s high abuse potential.  In 2007, Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to making these misrepresentation and paid a fine of 634 million dollars.  Three high ranking executive at Purdue Pharma also pleaded guilty and paid millions in fines.

Purdue Pharma has made improvements to this drug.  They have developed a new formulation that can’t be crushed and injected.  It is being phased into the market.  Tie will tell if this safety feature can be defeated.

I have seen the effects of this drug first hand.  Oxycontin leads to a powerful addiction to opiates.  These addicts will do almost anything to acquire opiate drugs.  The craving to acquire and use opiates can become more powerful than the drive to eat or sleep.

As a result, I have seen people who commit crimes by forging prescriptions, stealing from their employers, using and selling heroin and even committing robberies to get opiate drugs.  The end up being charged with forgery, theft, identity theft and even Measure 11 robbery.

Like John in my hypothetical, as a Portland Measure 11 Defense Attorney, I have seen many people with no prior criminal record or addiction history become addicted to opiates and commit crimes as a result of taking legally prescribed pain medications.  Some persons forge or alter prescriptions and get charged with forgery or identity theft.  Others turn to heroin and get charged with delivery or possession of a controlled substance.  Too many resort to robbery, like John, and get charged with Measure 11 robbery.

Of course, these people are devastated and feel like their lives are over.  Fortunately, that is not true.  As a Portland Drug Crimes Lawyer, I have helped many persons through the criminal case process and they have been able to keep their positions in society.  Almost none of my clients are convicted of Measure 11 crimes.

 

Dealing with Measure 11 Cases of Honest Addiction

As a Portland Criminal Defense Lawyer, I see many people who come by their legal problems as a result of the drug addiction driven criminal behavior.  I see many cases where a client has become addicted to opiates as a result of taking prescribed medication in the course of legitimate medical treatment.

Many criminal cases unfold like this.  A person suffers an injury and is prescribed opiate based medications.  The person uses these medications as prescribed and becomes addicted.  They begin to use the medications to avoid withdrawal and use them to cope with life stress.  Often their doctors cut people off suddenly or do not follow the proper medical protocols to titrate (gradually reduce dosage) a person off of the medications.  Often people will try to get the drugs on their own.  Prescription drugs are very expensive on the street and most people run out of money quickly.  Some people acquire the money by theft, forging prescriptions, identity theft and even robbery.  Some turn to heroin as a substitute.

Heroin is cheap and easy to obtain in Portland.  We see people using this drug who one would never expect to see using heroin.  We see people with no criminal history at all engaging in the purchase and sale of heroin in order to support their habit.

Many of our clients have no criminal history and are unaware of the serious punishments and consequences involved in criminal conduct.  Forging prescriptions necessarily involves identity theft.  Repeated acts of identity theft can be added together in a single charge (Aggravated Identity Theft) and lead to a prison sentence.  A Robbery conviction can bring Measure 11 sentences of 70 to 90 months, with no time reduction.

We know how to help our clients access appropriate resources and get into treatment.  We understand how to build a strong mitigation plan and explain exactly how Finally, we present our client’s cases to the district attorney and to the Court and almost none are convicted of Measure 11 crimes.

Consider the story of a hypothetical client named “John.”  John became addicted to heroin and committed a robbery with a firearm to get money to support his heroin habit.  He was facing a 90 month Measure 11 sentence that required that he serve every day, hour and minute of the sentence.  We put together a sentencing mitigation plan.  John’s plan involved treatment of the addiction and a psychological evaluation to show that John was not dangerous.  We use these tools to persuade a district attorney that the focus of the sentence should be rehabilitation, rather than a strictly punitive Measure 11 sentence.  The goal of John’s plan was to structure a sentence that had a short prison term and access to programs that would help him reduce his sentence even further by actively engaging in rehabilitation.

As a Portland Measure 11 Lawyer, I know how to develop mitigation plans based on honest addiction and present these facts to the district attorney.  Just because you are charged with a Measure 11 offense does not mean that you will serve the mandatory minimum Measure 11 prison term.  Strong advocacy in mitigation can sway a district attorney from a Measure 11 sentence.

In most cases, the district attorney decides if the case is subject to a Measure 11 sentence.  My staff and I have worked very hard to develop respectful relationships with prosecutors who work on Measure 11 cases.  Our decades of experience and hard work pay off for our clients.  Almost none of our clients end up with Measure 11 sentences.

“Bath Salts” May Be Sold in Stores, But They Are Illegal Drugs

In my experience as a Portland Criminal Defense Lawyer, I see people selling supposedly legal substitutes for illegal drugs.  Today, many “head shops” and internet companies market items marked as “bath salts” or “plant fertilizer” or “stain remover” as legal substitutes for cocaine and MDMA.  These crystalline powders have nothing to do with bathing, plants or removing stains and are actually illegal synthetic designer drugs with dangerous properties and side effects.

The drugs are based on a substance found in a natural plant called “Khat” (Catha Edulis) called cathinone.  Khat is native to the Middle East and Africa and has been used for its stimulant effects for thousands of years.  Khat is illegal in most countries except certain places in Africa and the Middle East.  The synthetic cathinone based drugs you see in stores are solely the product of modern chemistry.

These drugs are sold under the names “Vanilla Sky” and “White Knight” and are marked “not for human consumption.”  The chemists who create these substances make minor changes to the chemical structure of the drug and purport to avoid state and federal laws banning cathinone based substances.  By marking the item “not for human consumption” these merchants hope that they are avoiding federal laws which broadly ban not only cathinone, but cathinone analogues.

Most people assume that if an item is marketed for sale in the United States it must be legal.  This is a dangerous assumption.  Cathinone itself is a Schedule I drug, meaning it is a substance that has no legitimate medical use.  Possession or delivery of a cathinone based substance carries penalties on par with the possession or delivery of heroin.

Here is an example.  John buys “Vanilla Sky” over the internet based on the representation that he is purchasing a legal substitute for cocaine.  John decides to snort the drug in a parking lot, where he is observed by the police and arrested.  The police field test the powder, and it field tests positive for cocaine.  He is arrested for possession of cocaine.  However, when he appears in Court the crime lab has done a more sophisticated drug test and discovered that the substance is really synthetic cathinone.  John is indicted for possession of cathinone, a crime that is the is equal to possession of heroin and that can never be removed from his record.

Aside from the legal consequences, the use of these drugs is highly dangerous.  While these drugs may have physical effects like amphetamine, they also can cause hallucinations, seizures and delusions.  Poison control centers throughout the country continue to report high numbers of overdoses from synthetic cathinone.  The long term physical effects of synthetic cathinones are unknown.  These drugs are often sold by dealers who pass the drug off as MDMA (Ecstacy).

We have had many clients who naively think that they are purchasing and using a legal substance.  What they discover is that cathinone is a highly addictive substance and that, even though they purchased a powder that purports to be legal they are actually in possession of an illegal substance with legal consequences equal to the possession of heroin.

As a Portland drug crimes lawyer I have one practical piece of advice: if someone is selling you something that will get you “high” you should assume it is illegal.  Also, if you don’t know exactly what the drug is, you should assume that it is dangerous.

Criminal Law Changes Try To Flat Line Prison Population Growth

In advancing House Bill 3194, Governor Kitzhaber wanted to make changes to the punishment for certain expenses and avoid the need to construct new prisons.  The Governor’s ambitious plans to make changes to Measure 11, which included allowing some minors to be remanded to Juvenile Court, were not enacted.  However, there were some sensible changes that promise to make a difference in the number of people incarcerated in prison.

As a Portland Measure 11 Criminal Defense Lawyer I have seen the horrific results of giving minors Measure 11 sentences.  I believe that mandatory minimum “one size fits all” sentences are particularly inappropriate for minors and I hope the legislature revisits this issue in the next session.

The most significant change was in reclassifying the crime seriousness of charges related to the manufacture, delivery and possession of marijuana under Oregon’s Sentencing Guidelines.  Under prior law, many marijuana manufacturing and delivery charges were ranked as a “level 8” crime seriousness, a level of seriousness that automatically called for a prison sentence unless there were mitigating factors that allowed a court to place a person on probation.  As of August 1, 2013,  marijuana offenses will have a maximum crime seriousness of “level 6.”  This effectively makes it impossible to send a person to prison for a marijuana offense unless the person has a serious criminal record.  This change will have a significant impact on prison populations.

The legislature also changed the crime seriousness ranking for Felony Driving While Suspended.  In the past, a person with a Felony Driving while Suspended charge was always exposed to a prison sentence.   However, under the new law the only people with a certain prison sentence are those whose suspensions resulted from a vehicular homicide.  People who have suspensions based on vehicular assault and DUII charges will have a chance to avoid prison.

The legislature also made a small tweak to the Repeat Property Offenders Act (REPO), which created presumptive prison sentences for people with multiple convictions for property crimes.  REPO offenses carry sentences of 24 or 18 months depending on the severity of the property crime.  HB 3194 moved Robbery in the Third Degree and Identity Theft from the 24 month category into the 18 month category. The changes to REPO under HB 3194 “sunset” on July 31, 2023.

As an Portland, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyer, I support these changes in Oregon law.  These are sensible first steps to reduce the explosive growth of prisons in our state.  Also, these changes are part of an important shift to rehabilitation based solutions for people who commit crimes.   The legislature should revisit the proposed changes to Measure 11 in the next session.

By James F. O’Rourke Jr.

Legislature Approves Some of Governor Kitzhaber’s Prison Reform Bill

House Bill 3194 started out as an ambitious plan to modify Measure 11 and to end the mandatory prosecution of juveniles in adult court.  Unfortunately, none of the changes to Measure 11 survived during the amendment process.

Significant changes were made in the way some crimes are punished and in the process in which prison inmates are released back into the community.

HB 3194 removes marijuana and hashish from the sentencing enhancements for manufacturing or delivering “substantial quantities” or in the course of a “commercial drug offense.”  As a result, the seriousness of these crimes for the purposes of Oregon’s sentencing guidelines is dramatically reduced.  It will be very difficult for a person to be sent to prison for a marijuana manufacturing or delivery crime, regardless of quantity.  This was good news for Oregon Drug Crimes Lawyers.

HB 3194 also lowers the crime seriousness of Felony Driving While Suspended, as long as the underlying suspension did not result from a vehicular homicide.  In addition, Robbery in the Third Degree and Identity Theft have been removed from the minimum sentence provisions of the Repeat Property Offender’s Act.

HB 3194 also makes some positive changes in formulating release plans and supervising inmates when they are released from prison.  In the past, some prison inmates were eligible to request “transitional leave,” where an inmate would be released early at the end of a prison sentence and live in a structured environment while they find work and a place to live.  Now the Department of Corrections is required to formulate transitional leave plans for eligible inmates.

The Bill also gives a sentencing judge the authority to order that a person be released to a “re-entry court” upon their release from prison. A re-entry court would have the authority to set conditions of supervision, monitor the former inmate and impose jail sanctions for violations of supervision conditions.  This change allows a re-entry court judge, rather that the Parole Board, to supervise and monitor released inmates.

HB 3194 also requires the Department of Corrections to use scientific tools to determine the risks and needs of released inmates.  These “Risk/Needs” tools are very effective in identifying underlying problems, such as drug dependence, and other destabilizing factors that lead former prison inmates to re-offend.  Also, the Department of Corrections is required to track outcomes and determine what strategies and programs actually work in reducing recidivism.

As a Portland, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyer, I support these changes in sentencing rules and in the manner in which inmates are released.  The assistance in reintegrating released inmates into the community should be particularly effective in keeping people from returning to prison and keeping track of “what works” is just common sense.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights And Limits Searches By Drug Sniffing Dogs

This is an important ruling for Oregon Drug Crimes Attorneys as it applies to searches in Oregon.

In 2006 Joelis Jardines’ Florida home was approached by two Miami-Dade police detectives.  The two detectives approached the front door, but they did not knock.

Under ordinary circumstances, there is nothing unusual, or illegal, with the police entering a person’s property to approach the front door.  The police are granted the same right to enter property that a peddler or a girl scout exercises when they sell their wares.  In fact, the police refer to such investigatory contacts as a “knock and talk.”

The problem in Jardines case was the dog the Detectives brought with them.  Their four legged friend was no ordinary animal, but a highly trained drug sniffing canine.  The dog “alerted” at the front door, indicating that one of several illicit drugs was present in the home.  The Detectives retreated from the porch and obtained a search warrant based on the dog’s observations.  When they executed the warrant, the Detectives found growing marijuana on the premises.

The case, Florida v. Jardines, made its way to the United States Supreme Court.  The case was decided on March 26, 2013.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most conservative person on the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia observed that the Court has long held that a person’s residence and the surrounding area are private and protected from unreasonable intrusions by the government.  He noted that, while the police are allowed to approach a front door of a person’s home, they are not allowed to engage in conduct that is beyond that which a person would expect from a visitor.

Applying that concept to the conduct of these Florida Detectives, Justice Scalia held that bringing a police dog on a visit to a person’s front door goes far beyond the scope of the customary invitation one gives to those knocking on their door.

Justice Scalia stated: “[I]ntoducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else.  There is no customary invitation to do that.  An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker.  To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to – well – call the police.”

This is a common sense ruling that firmly backs property rights.

James F. O’Rourke, Jr. is an Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyer who represents persons who have been arrested as a result of searches by drug sniffing dogs.

Random License Plate Checks by Police May Be Unconstitutional – A Potential Impact on Many Drug Cases and Oregon DUII Cases

The Oregon Supreme Court issued two unusual rulings in a pair of cases on January 10, 2013 that were pending before the Court. State v. Davis and State v. Lumpkins were “affirmed by an equally divided court,” meaning that the original rulings were affirmed because the votes on the court were tied. This is a fairly rare occurrence and happens only when the seven member Court is short one member, creating the possibility of a tie vote.

Both Davis and Lumpkins dealt with the issue of whether or not the police could randomly run license plates from their computerized mobile data terminals to find criminal activity. These random license plate checks are a routine practice for almost all police agencies. The objective, as stated by the police, is to identify stolen vehicles, people who are driving while suspended and people who have outstanding warrants. In fact, the Portland Police and the Washington County Sheriff’s Office each have a special unit that uses license plate recognition technology. This technology allows the police to simply drive through a parking lot and run every plate automatically through DMV and the Law Enforcement Data System.

The attorneys for both Lumpkin and Davis moved to suppress all evidence gained in these stops based on random license plate checks. They advanced two arguments.

First, they argued that random license plate checks were searches that required a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement under Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and that these searches require probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that some violation of the law was occurring.

Second, they argued that these completely random searches violated the “privileges and immunities clause” of Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. Both Davis and Lumpkin argued that by randomly and arbitrarily commencing a criminal investigation people were being singled out for investigation and treated differently from other members of the public. At the very least, they argued, the police should have some sort of systematic policy governing when license plates should be checked.

The ACLU filed a “friend of the court” brief. The ACLU pointed out that such practices raised grave concerns that people would be targeted by race or economic status. The police, they argued, could conduct these license plate checks simply because someone looked out of place or because their car looked like a “junker.” The ACLU argued that these checks need to be limited and controlled by some systematic policy in order to hold the police accountable if they used impermissible reasons for initiating a license plate check.

The State of Oregon argued that running a license plate is not a search and that people have no protected privacy interest in this information. Further, the State argued that there is no legal bar against a random license plate check and that there was no proof of any unequal treatment related to the random checks.

Both trial court judges in Davis and Lumpkin denied the Motions to Suppress. The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the trial court rulings, although there was a dissenting opinion.

Because the Oregon Supreme Court could not produce a majority to affirm or reverse, the issue of the permissibility of random license plate checks remains unresolved. It may take several years for another case to rise from the trial court to the Supreme Court on appeal.

Until then, this issue will come up in Drug cases, DUII cases and all criminal cases which are based on a random license plate check.

As Portland criminal defense lawyers, we deal with many cases where the constitutionality of a traffic stop can be a critical issue. This is particularly true in cases involving drug charges and DUII. Mr. O’Rourke has been a Portland Oregon drug crimes defense lawyer since 1978.

Combination DUII – Alcohol and Controlled Substances

Oregon law has special requirements for DUII prosecutions that are based on an allegation that the person was under the influence of a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance. In order to proceed on that theory the state is required to make that allegation specifically, in writing, in the charging instrument.

These hybrid DUII charges have become more common in recent years as law enforcement has become better trained to screen for drug intoxication. Every police agency now has one or more “Drug Recognition Experts;” officers who are specially trained to detect drug use. The testing is very detailed and involves taking vital signs, observing pupil response to light and looking for other physical signs of drug use. It is not unlike having a basic physical examination at your doctor’s office. A trained Drug Recognition Expert who properly administers the battery of tests is allowed to offer an opinion at trial, as an expert, that a person was under the influence of a certain type of drug and alcohol.

While a Drug Recognition Examination is important in a DUII/Drug prosecution, it is not absolutely necessary for the state to obtain a conviction. In a recent case, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that an admission to recent drug use with alcohol use can support a conviction even without a Drug Recognition Expert. In State v. Harmon (Decided December 15, 2010), the Court dealt with a case where an officer observed a subject who appeared “dazed” and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Also, the defendant admitted to consuming marijuana four hours before the arrest, as well as consuming alcohol, although there was not a strong odor of alcohol on his breath.

The Court of Appeals held that the admission of consumption of marijuana four hours before, the admission of drinking and the poor field sobriety tests was enough for a jury to find that person guilty of DUII, even though there was no Drug Recognition Examination or testimony of a Drug Recognition Expert. This was true even though the jury had no evidence before it on how marijuana and alcohol interact to produce intoxication.

The lesson is to exercise care when using any amount of alcohol when taking controlled substances, including those prescribed by a doctor. The police are waiting and trained to detect and prove that your impaired by a combination of alcohol and drugs.

As Portland DUII and Drug Crime attorneys, we at James F. O’Rourke, Jr. and Associates are committed to the vigorous defense of DUII cases based on impairment cause by the cumulative effects of alcohol and controlled substances.