ARS 28-692(A)(3) Interpretation
In State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528, 968 P.2d 601 (App. 1998), the Court addressed a constitutional equal protection challenge to 28-692(A)(3). 192 Ariz. 528,7, 968 P.2d at 603.
The appellee claimed the statute "swept more broadly than necessary by including drivers who have only a metabolite of a drug in their urine," because "the scientific evidence shows that a metabolite in the urine not only does not necessarily indicate an impairment to drive, it cannot even rule out that the drug may have been used long before the driving." Id.
The Court determined the statute did not violate equal protection by encompassing both impairing and non-impairing substances. Id.9-12.