DUI Test with 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

If you submitted to a urine test and the lab report shows the presence of 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, your DUI defense attorney can file a Motion In Limine in Regard to FDLE Laboratory Results.

Having 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in your urine sample does not prove or disprove any material allegation that you were under the influence of THC at the time of driving. Instead, it only proves that you used THC significantly in the past such that the body has metabolized the THC into 11-Nor-9-carboydelta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the inactive metabolite of THC.

The Typical Case with a Urine Test for 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

In most of these cases, a person is arrested for DUI. After the arrest, the arresting officer asks the driver to submit to a urine test.

The urine sample is then sent to the lab at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to be analyzed. If FDLE analyzes the urine sample, it might issue a laboratory report indicating that the sample only contained 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

The State might seek to introduce the FDLE laboratory report showing the driver’s urine contained 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in order to prove the driver was under the influence of a controlled substance, namely cannabis and specifically THC. The State might argue that the laboratory report is admissible to show the Defendant was under the influence of the following controlled substance at the time of his driving – THC, the psychoactive substance in cannabis.

The driver’s DUI defense attorney can file a Motion in Limine to exclude the FDLE Laboratory Report as irrelevant and alternatively that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

THC vs. 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

What is the difference between THC and 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol?

To begin with, 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is not a controlled substance but is a metabolite of THC which means that it is the byproduct of the body metabolizing THC.

On the other hand, THC is a controlled substance that can be detected in a person’s urine, blood or saliva. The case law clearly shows that the presence of THC would be highly relevant and therefore admissible to this prosecution for DUI.

Having THC is a Defendant’s blood indicates that the THC is in the Defendant’s system and could be causing the Defendant’s impairment.

Finding 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample does not signify that the person arrested for DUI was under the effects of THC at the time the sample was provided.

According to Drug Metabolism, Stephen T. Susa; Azhar Hussain; Charles V. Preuss, StatPearls Publishing, LLC (2025):

“THC is highly lipid-soluble, and deposit binds in the adipose tissues [commonly known as body fat] of users. This interaction drastically slows the drug’s metabolism, which is why metabolites of THC can be detected in urine weeks after the patient’s last use.”

In State vs. Freeman, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 256a (Seminole County, Case No. 2025-CT-01050, August 3, 2025), the court explained:

.”..the presence of 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in a urine sample does not axiomatically indicate that a Defendant was under the influence of THC while driving an automobile but only that a Defendant had ingested THC at some time prior to the time of providing the urine sample. This is the biggest distinction with having THC in a blood sample and having 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in a urine sample. Notably in State v. Sercey, 825 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the First Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion of a laboratory report showing a blood sample contained the cannabis metabolite as its limited probative value was substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect. Similarly, this Court believes the probative value of 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in a Defendant’s urine, which has no connectivity with impairment at the time of driving, is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice by a jury.

Therefore having 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in a urine sample is not relevant to a DUI prosecution and admission of the laboratory report, showing that this Defendant had 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his urine, could lead to jury confusion and whatever limited probative value the laboratory reports has is substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect.

However, if the State has an expert who can testify or has evidence that indicates that having 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the Defendant’s urine means that the Defendant was under the influence of THC at the time of the sample was taken, then the laboratory report would be relevant and admissible.

The State presented no such expert nor such evidence at the hearing to support this argument, nor has the Court found any such evidence in any medical literature or in any case.

In Freeman, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion in Limine in regards to the FDLE Lab Report and excluded the introduce the FDLE Laboratory Report unless it introduces testimony or other evidence indicating that having 11-Nor-9-carboy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the urine sample indicates that the Defendant is under the influence of THC at the time of the urine sample.

---

This article was last updated on Friday, January 23, 2026.