Detectable THC or metabolites in your system days after driving does not necessarily prove impairment at the time you were operating a vehicle. Because THC and some metabolites can remain in the body long after psychoactive effects have subsided, laboratory detection must be evaluated in context. Prosecutors may try to connect presence to impairment, but timing of sample collection, rates of metabolism, and individual factors all influence interpretation. A careful review of testing timelines, medical records, and scientific literature is often necessary to assess the significance of a positive result in a Stonewall case. Defenses typically address the disconnect between presence of cannabinoids and contemporaneous impairment by highlighting delays in testing, potential contamination, or other explanations for positive results. Challenging the chain of custody, laboratory methods, or the assumption that presence equals impairment can weaken the prosecution’s case. Working with counsel familiar with how local courts treat toxicology evidence increases the chances of effectively communicating these scientific limitations to a judge or jury in Clarke County.