By Alexander Lomax
Dillon Brooks. Photo Credit: Scottsdale PD
Phoenix Suns forward Dillon Brooks was pulled over in Scottsdale around 1 a.m. for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. The part that has a lot of people raising an eyebrow: he passed a breathalyzer test, and the DUI arrest was marijuana-related.
Body camera footage released by Scottsdale PD shows an officer telling Brooks his vehicle smelled like a marijuana dispensary. Brooks responded that he had not smoked or drunk anything in the last six months. He performed field sobriety tests, was cooperative throughout, and still ended up in handcuffs.
Welcome to the peculiar world of Arizona marijuana DUI law.
Here is where things get genuinely strange. Arizona law charges drivers under two provisions: driving under the influence impaired to the slightest degree, and DUI for drugs and/or metabolites. There is no breath test for marijuana impairment, and there is currently no clear scientific standard for cannabis impairment. So officers rely on field sobriety tests that, as one Phoenix defense attorney noted, “are sort of like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole,” since they were designed for alcohol, not marijuana.
The metabolite issue is where the law gets particularly hard to defend. Arizona has not established a set nanogram level of THC that constitutes impairment, unlike states such as Colorado. Instead, the state relies on the mere presence of THC metabolites as evidence for DUI charges under A.R.S. 28-1381(A)(3), and prosecutors do not require proof of actual impairment. The problem is that carboxy-THC, the primary non-psychoactive metabolite of cannabis, can remain in the body for as many as 28 to 30 days after ingestion, meaning someone who legally consumed marijuana weeks ago and is stone-cold sober could, in theory, still face a DUI charge.
To be fair, the Arizona Supreme Court did rein things in somewhat in 2014, ruling that drivers cannot be convicted of a per se DUI offense based merely on the presence of a non-impairing metabolite reflecting prior marijuana use. But the “impaired to the slightest degree” provision of the law remains, giving prosecutors a wide lane to work with.
Whether Brooks faces formal charges depends on blood lab results and a decision by the Scottsdale City Prosecutor’s Office. He may well be cleared. But his arrest has done something useful: it has put a spotlight on a legal framework that has struggled to keep pace with a recreational marijuana landscape Arizona voters approved back in 2020. When the law cannot distinguish between someone who smoked three weeks ago and someone who smoked three hours ago, that is not good policy. It is just a trap.