State of Arizona, ex rel. William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner v. the Honorable Myra Harris…

Summary

The court held that the phrase "its metabolite" in A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3) includes only metabolites of a proscribed drug that are capable of causing impairment, not non-impairing metabolites such as Carboxy-THC. It reached that conclusion because the broader interpretation would produce absurd results and would conflict with the statute's purpose of preventing impaired driving. The court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed dismissal of the charge. Justice Timmer, dissenting, would have treated the statute as an unambiguous zero-tolerance prohibition covering all metabolites.