What are the exact levels of prescription drugs it takes to be 'driving impaired', I need statute number.?

Question

It's not "subjective", is it?!?!

Arrested for DUI, even though breathalyzer was .04

Douglass County, California.

A girl with Multiple Sclerosis got pulled over for stop sign infraction. the cops noticed her curled fingers on one hand, and asked her about it. She told them she has MS. They then tested her for drunk driving (she passed all tests INCLUDING the breathalyzer!) and arrested her anyways.

She had not even taken any meds for the previous 8 hours.

(They made her give a blood test as well, and would not give her the meds she needed until they let her out the next morning, even though her bail was paid at least 4 hours before that.)

Answer 1

Depends on the drugs, the person, etc.  But most of the time the doctors will say not to drive if you are taking these drugs.  If that's the case here, she broke the law.  As far as not giving the meds, maybe they had to wait until they heard back from the doctor.

Answer 2

In California there are no laws that state the amount of prescription drugs it takes to be DUID (driving under the influence of drugs).

The legal definition for the phrase "under the influence" is actually identical to driving under the influence of alcohol:

Affecting the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to drive a vehicle in the manner that any ordinarily prudent and cautious man, in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would drive a similar vehicle under like conditions.

If the officer suspects the individual was driving under the influence of drugs, a blood test will be administered. A times, a urine test may be used.

Aside from the blood test, evidence presented by the prosecution for a DUID case will also include the comments from the arresting officer (much like in a DUI alcohol case):

    * Physical appearance

    * Performance with field sobriety tests

    * Erratic driving

    * Incriminating statements

    * Conduct

The indicators for alcohol intoxication are much different that those of drug intoxication, which often poses a problem. The officer making the arrest is often not qualified and/or not trained to identify drug symptomology. If this is the case, the defense has the power to stop the officer from testifying. However, an increasing number of cases are calling another officer who has this skill to examine the individual in question. Also known as a "drug recognition expert", or DRE, this officer is trained specifically to identify the symptoms of numerous drugs. A qualified DRE can testify with the symptoms of the drugs, and the resulting impairments.

Answer 3

There is no concrete figure, because everyone reacts to different stimuli differently.

Answer 4

Impaired driving entails anything that affects your driving in a noticeable way.

There is no predetermined level of a drug as there are literally thousands of drugs that can affect your driving. Also, just being sleepy at the wheel can be considered impaired driving, as you are not driving as well as you should be.

Answer 5

DUI is subjective.  You won't find a specific amount of anything required to be charged and convicted with such a crime.

Given that she passed all of her motor skills tests, this is very odd because that's the standard.

Answer 6

Looks like most everyone has given the correct answer thus far.

I'd only add there is no Douglass County in California, so that makes the whole story a little suspect.