Paging Bricker. I’d be very interested in how you would approach the OP’s hypo, from both the prosecution and the defence sides.
Good luck with that in my state. No jury trials for DWI.
While sober I intended to just have a couple of drinks. I certainly didn’t intend to black out and get behind a wheel.
Let’s take it out of the hypothetical drug category. People who take Ambien should get a free pass if they get behind the wheel? It happens pretty often and doing wacky things on Ambien is a widely known occurrence.
There is also the fact that we only have the driver’s word for it that he was unaware of getting behind the wheel. The only thing we know for sure is he took the medication that has a known side effect and a warning against driving, and he drove.
What if you take an otc med like benadryl, you get drowsy and have an accident. Is that a DUI?
What about a prescription sleep aid like trazadone?
It’s complicated and probably very different in each state. In general you have to be proven to be impaired due to intoxication of a substance. It doesn’t matter if that substance is legally prescribed or not. Simply being sleepy and dozing off would not be enough to say it was impairment due to intoxication. That would be a really tough sell. Mostly likely you would pass any sobriety tests with flying colors. Knowingly taking a drug that you knew might make you drowsy would be closer to the definition of reckless driving than DWI. You also have to go state by state and see what they consider a drug for these purposes.
It all sounds simple on here but in reality it’s much harder to get a conviction with drugs. Even if you get blood or urine there is no set standard or level like with alcohol.
Not sure about the OP’s scenario but a guy I went to high school with was hit head on by a Medical Doctor and researcher that had a very small amount of alcohol with dinner. He also had taken some prescribed medication, I believe it was some kind of heart medication and combined with the alcohol it made him groggy.
Originally he was charged with a felony that was reduced to a misdemeanor, and I don’t think he even got a DUI as he technically was not over the limit because of the small amount of alcohol. He never served any jail or prison time that I am aware of and kept his job and everything.
Look I could maybe give some uneducated guy some slack in that situation if they didn’t know but this guy was a highly educated doctor and probably should have known about this interaction, the guy who was a friend of mine died at the scene. The guy who killed him swerved into the oncoming lane and hit him at around 70mph.
In my state Death by Auto or Assault by Auto requires proof of recklessness. One way to do that is to show it’s due to DWI. If the elements of DWI don’t fit you can still prove recklessness depending on the circumstances. Recklessness does imply some sort of intent.
Yes, thanks. That’s what I meant — presumption of impairment. One might be over .08% and able to drive safely, but if the registration is expired and you’re pulled over for that, and if for some reason you’re tested and popped for over .08%, you’re guilty of driving while impaired even though you may have been driving safely and following all the rules of the road (well, except the alcohol rule).
I’m in my 50s now but in my early 20s, in college, I would party and drink to excess. But not to the point of losing control of myself. I felt safe enough to drive, albeit rarely, and I did drive safely. But, and get this, the number of beers I could drink and still be able to drive was 12. From 2 beers to 12, I avoided driving but knew if I needed to, I could. And I did at times. Over 12, forget it, I wouldn’t drive.
It’s scary that I did that. Nowadays my number isn’t 12. It’s 2.
Straight forward traffic court conviction here. not a jury case. Doesn’t even have to be driving, just “in control of a motor vehicle”. Which is how you wind up with a little old lady who wasn’t driving because her new prescription made her not want to drive, in the compulsory DUI education class.
And yet there is reasonable doubt that he did so intentionally. Without intention, punishing serves no purpose, as it will not be a deterrent.
Your other situations are different, because they involve known situations, and an argument of recklessness. The alcohol situation is so well known that we know that you need to put your keys where you know you can’t get to them. The Ambien situation is newer and I would be more forgiving, but ultimately I could see it being argued that they were reckless.
What doesn’t work is the warning about using machinery, since that doesn’t say “Warning: even if you have no intention of using heavy machinery, you may still do so. Take precautions to prevent your usage of vehicles or heavy machinery.” If it said that, then I’d be fine with saying that the person with Ambien should have hidden their keys in something that would be hard to get to, like the alcohol drinker.
Most people assume “don’t operate heavy machinery” is something under their control. If it is not, it needs a different warning.
You are misunderstanding the intentional part. It is not necessary to prove that he intentionally had the side effect. The intention is that he intentionally took the medicine. You are saying what you feel it should be not what it is.
I agree that it seems like that is what the law is, but as BigT says, without intent, what is the purpose of punishment? Again, if I shot and killed someone, the intoxication would merit a diminishment of punishment, even if the intoxication was voluntary.
Now, of course, voluntary intoxication should not serve as a DUI defense because it is part and parcel of what is being punished. You cannot excuse a DUI because someone was too drunk to appreciate what they did. 
I think a better analysis would be that the driving was not voluntary. The unknown side effects of the medication excuses someone from the choice (not a real choice?) to drive. And I agree with some others than it matters not that drowsiness or confusion was one of the listed side effects; almost every medicine lists that and it is usually a very rare side effect.
Such a rule would have adverse consequences as maybe I won’t get my depression, or my high blood pressure, or my diabetes treated because I have to give up driving and I need to get to work.