By: Kenneth Stecker
“Have one drink for the road” was a commonly used phrase in American culture. It has only been in the last several years that the United States has recognized the dangers of drunk driving.
Through the efforts of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), media, law enforcement, and community organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the United States and Michigan have seen a decline in the number of individuals killed or injured due to drunk driving. It is now time that we focus on the similar dangers that can occur with “drugged driving.”
Driving under the influence of any drug that acts on the brain most likely will impair one’s motor skills, reaction time, and judgment. Drugged driving is a public health risk because it puts other drivers who share the road with the drugged driver in danger.
NHTSA reports that more than 17,000 people were killed in alcohol related crashes in 2006. Studies also have found that drugs are used by 10 to 22 percent of drivers involved in crashes, often in combination with alcohol.
Further, research indicates that marijuana is the most prevalent illegal drug detected in impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Another drug implicated was cocaine. Evidence from both real and simulated driving studies indicates that marijuana can negatively affect a driver’s attentiveness, perception of time and speed, and the ability to draw on information obtained from past experiences. Studies have found that many drivers who tested positive for alcohol also tested positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.
According to NHTSA, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among young people age 16 to 20. Results from the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Monitoring the Future survey indicated that in 2006 more than 13 percent of high school seniors admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana in the 2 weeks prior to the survey.
Michigan recognizes drugged driving is a dangerous activity that places all of us in danger. In 2003, Michigan adopted an effective measure to attempt to prevent drugged driving on their highways. It enacted a per se drugged driving law.
Michigan Compiled Law 257.625(8) prohibits a person from operating a vehicle with any amount of a Schedule 1 drug or cocaine in his or her body. Schedule 1 drugs are defined as having no medical benefit and include narcotics such as heroin, hallucinogens such as LSD and peyote, marijuana, and ecstasy. The penalties for this offense would be the same as for an Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) offense.
Prosecutors in Michigan have successfully faced a number of challenges involving MCLA 257.625(8). Two of the most compelling cases that addressed MCLA 257.625(8) are People v. Derror and People v. Kurts. These cases were consolidated on appeal before the Michigan Supreme Court.
In the first case, the defendant, Delores M. Derror was driving east on snow-and slush-covered M-72 when she crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with another vehicle killing the front-seat passenger, paralyzing two children in the rear seat, and injuring a third child. The crash occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. Derror admitted that she had smoked marijuana earlier that day at 2:00 p.m. Two blood samples were taken, one at approximately 8:00 p.m. and one at approximately 11:00 p.m. The first blood sample reflected 38 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter, and the second contained 31 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter. Derror was charged with operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in her body, causing death and serious injury under MCLA 257.625(4), (5), and (8).
In the second case, defendant Dennis Kurts was stopped at approximately 9:00 p.m. for driving erratically. The officer smelled the odor of alcohol on Kurts. Kurts also had glassy, bloodshot eyes. Kurts admitted consuming two beers. During a pat-down search, the officer found a marijuana pipe in Kurts' pocket. Kurts then admitted that he had smoked marijuana a half-hour earlier. A blood sample was taken at approximately 10:00 p.m. Tests revealed that his blood contained eight nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter and 0.07 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters. Kurts was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated third offense, MCL 257.625(9), and operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the body, MCL 257.625(8).
The defendants argued in both cases that the Legislature did not intend to include 11-carboxy-THC as a Schedule 1 controlled substance because it has no pharmacological effect on the human body. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the defendants’ position. The prosecutors in both cases appealed.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled as follows:
• 11-carboxy-THC, derivative of marijuana found in defendants' blood, constituted schedule 1 controlled substance;
• Operation of vehicle with presence of schedule 1 controlled substance causing death or serious impairment of bodily function did not require proof that defendants knew they were or might be intoxicated;
• Michigan Compiled Law 257.625(8) was not unconstitutionally vague; and
• Michigan Compiled Law 257.625(8) was rationally related to government's objective to prohibit person from driving after having ingested controlled substance.
The bottom line is that Michigan Compiled Law 257.625(8) strictly criminalizes the operation of a motor vehicle with any measurable amount of controlled substances in the body.
Michigan Compiled Law 257.625(8) allows police to investigate and prosecutors to charge and convict drugged drivers. This is especially helpful to law enforcement officers and prosecutors in cases where alcohol may not be present. Those who drive under the influence of drugs should not be allowed to think their actions are harmless. Conviction of drugged drivers is not the only positive outcome of Michigan’s per se law. Under the law, drugged drivers who are found guilty can be evaluated for drug dependence and offered counseling and treatment if necessary. Michigan Compiled Law 257.625(8) sends a strong message to drugged drivers that they are not welcome on Michigan highways. It’s about traffic safety!
Editor’s Note: Details of the above-mentioned reports and studies can be found at www.dea.gov and www.nida.nih.gov and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Website, www.nhtsa.dot.gov. For more information on these cases and statutes and PAAM training programs contact Kenneth Stecker, Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor, at (517) 334-6060 or e-mail at steckerk@michigan.gov.
Please consult your prosecutor before adopting practices suggested by reports in this article. The court decisions in this article are reported to help you keep up with trends in the law. Discuss your practices that relate to these statutes and cases with your commanding officers, police legal advisors, and the prosecuting attorney before changing your practices in reliance on a reported court decision or legislative change.
