SLEEP DRIVING: CAN YOU BE CHARGED WITH DUI AFTER TAKING SLEEPING PILLS?

I have encountered instances before where someone, who had not consumed any alcohol, was pulled over, seemed disoriented and had trouble answering questions. The police ask the person they pulled over to perform field sobriety tests. Police do not smell the odor of alcohol on the person's breath and there is no breath test or blood draw taken whatsoever.

During routine questioning in DUI stops, police ask the driver if they are on any medication. The driver says, “yes, I am taking Ambien and I have a prescription from my doctor.” The officer asks if that person had taken that prescription drug that night and the person who was stopped answers affirmatively. The person is then taken into custody and booked for DUI.

I was prompted to make this posting at this time due to the increasing discussion among my colleagues right now about handling DUI cases where the driver was not drinking, but had taken Ambien. In Washington State, as in many other states, you do not have to have consumed alcohol to be convicted of DUI.

You are guilty of DUI in Washington if you are driving while affected to an appreciable degree by any drug, not necessarily illegal drugs. Ambien is a powerful sleep aid and if a person drives after taking this drug, they can be charged with DUI.

As my colleagues are grappling with defenses DUI charges under these types of circumstances, I have found and old case called Kaiser v. Suburban Transportation System, which was handed down by Washington State Supreme Court back in 1965. In that case, a bus driver had taken medication that had been prescribed by his doctor.

After taking the medication, the bus driver became drowsy and fell asleep while driving a bus full of passengers. An inured passenger sued, claiming that since he violated the DUI laws by driving while under the influence of a drug, he was negligent per se and liable for damages. The Washington State Supreme Court said:

“We do not think that one who innocently takes a pill, which is prescribed by a doctor, can be convicted of a crime under this statute and thus be negligent per se unless he has knowledge of the pill's harmful qualities. To hold otherwise would be to punish one who is not culpable.”

The court said that intoxication must be voluntary in order to convict someone of DUI. The court concluded:

“In the instant case the driver took the pill completely unaware that it would have any adverse effect upon him. This involuntariness negatived the mens rea and established the driver's innocence. Viewing the evidence most favorably to the bus driver, we therefore hold that he is not guilty of negligence per se on the basis of RCW 46.56.010.”

But what about a situation in which a person was warned by his doctor and a warning label on the bottled of pills that indicated adverse effects and that one should not operate a motor vehicle after taking the drug? In a case such as that, the defendant probably would not be able to use the defense of involuntary intoxication.

It is interesting to note that if someone falls asleep at the wheel after going long periods of time without sleep, they may only be cited for negligent driving or reckless driving. But if someone falls asleep at the wheel or even only becomes drowsy at the wheel after taking drugs prescribed by a doctor, that person could be charged with DUI, a charge that carries much more serious consequences.