[MSchu]

I dont think they would necessarily be fond "at Fault", but they surely will be sited separate from that fault finding.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by vtvette

I was sorta under the impression that anyone driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol involved in an accident is automatically at fault as it was illegal for them to be operating the vehicle at the time of the accident so, technically they are at fault as they should not have been on the road to have an accident in the first place?

Nah. If shown to be driving impaired they are potentially guilty of a crime. But that does not make them at fault. Really the difference between civil and criminal.

The earlier young lady who mowed down the teenagers picking trash got railroaded with an odd statute that makes the presence of a metabolite of Pot a proof of under the influence...even if you are not. But there is not and will not be such a law for Xanax.

[vtvette]

Originally Posted by las vegas drunk

I would love to find out where you heard that, because it is beyond ridiculous?

No idea where I heard it. Didn't say I believed it either.

I don't think it's "beyond ridiculous" to think that one could be found at fault for an accident they are involved in while in the process of committing a crime.

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by vtvette

No idea where I heard it. Didn't say I believed it either.

I don't think it's "beyond ridiculous" to think that one could be found at fault for an accident they are involved in while in the process of committing a crime.

If a prostitute gets brutally raped and murdered while performing a trick, is she guilty of her own murder since she was committing a (very minor) crime herself? If a person has a 1 or 2 beers before they drive, and some soccer mom plows them down blowing threw a red light on her cell phone automatically make the person who had a couple beers responsible? Just some scenarios to think about is all....

[Girlesq]

No-- to be guilty of the felony DUI, the accident must have been the charged person's fault. It is not the difference between civil and criminal-- civil actually has a much lower burden. The DUI must have resulted in (ie caused) substantial bodily harm or death, otherwise it is a misdemeanor, and then still only if the State can prove she was impaired (under the influence)-- there are no per se levels for Xanax unlike marijuana-- otherwise it is not a crime. They could charge her for taking the pills without a prescription-- but the DUI will be very difficult to prove. It likely will be reduced to felony reckless driving which is probationable-- felony DUI is mandatory time

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Girlesq

No-- to be guilty of the felony DUI, the accident must have been the charged person's fault. It is not the difference between civil and criminal-- civil actually has a much lower burden. The DUI must have resulted in (ie caused) substantial bodily harm or death, otherwise it is a misdemeanor, and then still only if the State can prove she was impaired (under the influence)-- there are no per se levels for Xanax unlike marijuana-- otherwise it is not a crime. They could charge her for taking the pills without a prescription-- but the DUI will be very difficult to prove. It likely will be reduced to felony reckless driving which is probationable-- felony DUI is mandatory time

Intriguing...Is it a crime to take an unprescribed drug? Do I break the law if I share my supply of pain medication with my wife? How about if we share Crestor?

[Girlesq]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Intriguing...Is it a crime to take an unprescribed drug? Do I break the law if I share my supply of pain medication with my wife? How about if we share Crestor?

It is actually a felony to give someone else one of your prescribed pain meds

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Girlesq

It is actually a felony to give someone else one of your prescribed pain meds

And is it a felony if she takes one?

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Girlesq

It is actually a felony to give someone else one of your prescribed pain meds

Quick check seems to indicate that is true only of schedule II drugs.

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Nah. If shown to be driving impaired they are potentially guilty of a crime. But that does not make them at fault. Really the difference between civil and criminal.

The earlier young lady who mowed down the teenagers picking trash got railroaded with an odd statute that makes the presence of a metabolite of Pot a proof of under the influence...even if you are not. But there is not and will not be such a law for Xanax.

That one, Jessica Williams, was IMHO a miscarriage of justice. Those kids should not have been on that median in the first place and the county knew it. It was all about the liability and PR.