How The Mighty Have Fallen

[Scooter]

I couldn't feel my feet enough to walk when I was prescribed Vicodin. I can't imagine even attempting to drive.

[Econoline]

He's really lucky he didn't kill himself or someone else.

I know it's not much, but I at least give him credit for pulling to the side of the road and putting it in PARK before that happened.

[BoSoxGal]

New documents released late Tuesday afternoon by Jupiter, Florida, police reveal that both tire rims on the driver's side of the Mercedes had minor damage and the front and rear tires on that side of the vehicle were flat.

Police also observed damage to the bumper on the driver's side, white scrapes and scuffs on the rear bumper, and the passenger side rear taillight was not working, according to the documents.

[RayThom]

New documents released late Tuesday afternoon by Jupiter, Florida, police reveal that both tire rims on the driver's side of the Mercedes had minor damage and the front and rear tires on that side of the vehicle were flat.
Police also observed damage to the bumper on the driver's side, white scrapes and scuffs on the rear bumper, and the passenger side rear taillight was not working, according to the documents.

No wonder Woods' pulled over to the side of the road. He couldn't escape from the accident scene.

This whole incident sure brings out the quirkiness behind corporate endorsement deals:
ALCOHOL induced DUI... BAD!
OPIOID induced DUI... GOOD!
CELL PHONE induced DUI... INDIFFERENT!

Any DUI can cause death and destruction -- and all are avoidable. Our perceptions must change.

[Bicycle Bill]

He's really lucky he didn't kill himself or someone else.

I know it's not much, but I at least give him credit for pulling to the side of the road and putting it in PARK before that happened.

I do too.  Which makes me wonder .... if an impaired person recognizes that they are impaired enough so that they pull over to the side of the road to "sleep it off", why do they still get busted?  If the cops are really there "to protect and serve" one would think that, so long as the parked vehicle itself does not present a hazard, it would be better for the cops to let the guy stay there and just confiscate the keys or 'boot' the vehicle until the next morning.

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

... Which makes me wonder .... if an impaired person recognizes that they are impaired enough so that they pull over to the side of the road to "sleep it off", why do they still get busted?  If the cops are really there "to protect and serve" one would think that, so long as the parked vehicle itself does not present a hazard, it would be better for the cops to let the guy stay there and just confiscate the keys or 'boot' the vehicle until the next morning.

The police would never be sure if the driver would "sleep it off" leaving the public in danger and the local government open to massive law suits. Besides that, if that driver is anything like me, I have two available keys hidden in, and outside, my vehicle.

Placing the driver into custody, quicker than Cheryl Crow can dump a lying liar that lies (Lance Armstrong,) is the best way to handle the incident. And everyone is safer for it.

[Jarlaxle]

Except that creates an INCENTIVE to drive impaired. Realize you're drunk, stop...get arrested. No, better to try to make it home, totally blitzed.

[dales]

If I'm not mistaken, in CA after the inebriate pulls off the road AND REMOVES THE KEYS FROM THE IGNITION, a DUI is averted.

[Crackpot]

If I'm not mistaken, in CA after the inebriate pulls off the road AND REMOVES THE KEYS FROM THE IGNITION, a DUI is averted.

Same here a bit of a problem in wintertime tho.

[BoSoxGal]

There is lots of caselaw on what constitutes actual control of a motor vehicle in every jurisdiction; some places the keys must be in the ignition, others if the keys are within the defendants grasp that suffices.

An impaired driver who pulls over has still driven drunk, and could very well still be impaired upon waking and driving again - so for reasons of liability and law enforcing, drunk & passed out in a vehicle by the side of the road means a ride to the jail (also under the caregiver doctrine, the LEO owes duty of care to the impaired driver who could freeze in the vehicle, or be hit by another vehicle).

That said, prosecutors use discretion all the time and doubtless not every single case is prosecuted - but most probably are because most prosecution offices are very tough on DUI, as they should be.

They should be every bit as tough on DUI drugs and DUI mobile device, as both are equally deadly and in fact DUI mobile device has been shown in NHTSA testing to cause greater driver impairment and likelihood of crash.

[Big RR]

the discretion not to prosecute varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well; I have defended a number of DUIs in my state, NJ, and the prosecutor's have little discretion and must provide explanations on the record if they choose to drop any charges brought by the police (which means they almost never do). Likewise, the have little discretion to plea bargain, and must state on the record why they chose to reduce changes (usually this can occur if the roadside tests indicate impairment but the breathalyzer does not--even then, there are many cases where this was sufficient to prove DUI). I one time had such a case downgraded to a reckless driving charge, but it is not common.

[Jarlaxle]

If I'm not mistaken, in CA after the inebriate pulls off the road AND REMOVES THE KEYS FROM THE IGNITION, a DUI is averted.

Same here a bit of a problem in wintertime tho.

Or with the many cars that don't use keys.

[rubato]

Driving under the influence of any drug is against the law in Calif. The difficulty comes in prosecuting for things other than alcohol. With alcohol "influence" is presumed and set in law for any blood level => 0.08 BAC. for other drugs we do not have as much data to support a dose-response curve and for some drugs individual reaction varies so much that none exists (PCP) so they have to rely on 'expert' testimony by officers with special training in determining 'influence'. And there are further problems, slurred speech and disorganzed thinking due to blood sugar variation, exhaustion, carbon monoxide exposure, or the effects of a stroke can be difficult to separate from other causes and the "experts" don't actually have the expertise to do so.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

I could convict him on the dashcam video and his statements to LEOs with just basic foundational testimony from the state crime lab technician. This case is pretty slam dunk DUI.

Long discourses about the science of inebriation by crime lab experts are only necessary when the driver doesn't look impaired on the video and there isn't any driving behavior either.

[Joe Guy]

I do too.  Which makes me wonder .... if an impaired person recognizes that they are impaired enough so that they pull over to the side of the road to "sleep it off", why do they still get busted?....

In Tiger's case, he was on the side of the road "sleeping it off" but his engine was still running. In any case, a person might wake up drunk and start driving again.

[rubato]

I could convict him on the dashcam video and his statements to LEOs with just basic foundational testimony from the state crime lab technician. This case is pretty slam dunk DUI.

Long discourses about the science of inebriation by crime lab experts are only necessary when the driver doesn't look impaired on the video and there isn't any driving behavior either.

You can illustrate "impairment" but you still need to show it is caused by a drug taken voluntarily. What surprises me is that he does not have staff to run errands and deflect him from this kind of thing.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I do too.  Which makes me wonder .... if an impaired person recognizes that they are impaired enough so that they pull over to the side of the road to "sleep it off", why do they still get busted?....

In Tiger's case, he was on the side of the road "sleeping it off" but his engine was still running. In any case, a person might wake up drunk and start driving again.

I had a DUI case where the probable driver was passed out in the back seat of a car parked partway through a fence and across the sidewalk. His BAC was 0.00 but other peaks on the GC showed he had acetone and iso-propyl alcohol in his system ( acetone is a metabolite of IPA ). Yeech.

There was another case when the Beverly Hills police contacted us about a person they had arrested for DUI who tested 0.00 for alcohol but failed the field sobriety test and later admitted he was taking risperidone (by Rx) for schizophrenia. I made a good effort to help them out by contacting the manufacturer to try to get authentic samples of the drug so I could make control samples and thus develop a quantitative method of measuring it in his blood stream. After many phone conversations discovered that they had no interest in helping us. I was sorry not to be successful because we always like to have an opportunity to help a police crime lab, since most of our work was on behalf of the defense.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

I could convict him on the dashcam video and his statements to LEOs with just basic foundational testimony from the state crime lab technician. This case is pretty slam dunk DUI.

Long discourses about the science of inebriation by crime lab experts are only necessary when the driver doesn't look impaired on the video and there isn't any driving behavior either.

You can illustrate "impairment" but you still need to show it is caused by a drug taken voluntarily. What surprises me is that he does not have staff to run errands and deflect him from this kind of thing.


yrs,
rubato

Perhaps in some states, but not all. In my state DUI is considered to be a traffic offense, and one can be convicted whatever the cause of the impairment (voluntary taking of the drug/alcohol or otherwise)--just like speeding, intent doesn't matter.

ETA: As for medical emergencies, they can be a defense if it can be shown that the person had a condition that caused symptoms mimicking intoxication, but it would be incumbent on the defendant to prove it.

[BoSoxGal]

I could convict him on the dashcam video and his statements to LEOs with just basic foundational testimony from the state crime lab technician. This case is pretty slam dunk DUI.

Long discourses about the science of inebriation by crime lab experts are only necessary when the driver doesn't look impaired on the video and there isn't any driving behavior either.

You can illustrate "impairment" but you still need to show it is caused by a drug taken voluntarily. What surprises me is that he does not have staff to run errands and deflect him from this kind of thing.


yrs,
rubato

Did you watch the dashcam? He admits taking drugs voluntarily. The blood test he was compelled by law to provide (because he refused the breathalyzer) will confirm the drugs ingested.

I don't think you've ever tried a DUI case, so I'll not defer to your advice, having tried dozens of them myself and received very specialized training in the science underlying toxicology aspects of these cases.

[rubato]

Admitting taking the drugs is not a good move but you still have to prove that the impairment is due to the drugs he admits to have taken. At minimum you have to have evidence of blood levels and evidence that the blood levels measured caused the impairment. I had a case where an elderly woman was stopped by Riverside county PD, failed the field sobriety test, was confused and 'admitted' she had been drinking some time before but the measured blood levels were 0.00. They dropped charges when they could not show any blood levels of anything.

Maybe the science is weaker where you have worked.

yrs,
rubato