Dangerous driving charge

Sweet P

Sweet P

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
5,244
Theoretical situation:
Ok, I'm currently awaiting sentencing for a number of charges, two of them being driving on drugs (meth) and dangerous driving. I plead guilty to the first, and not guilty to the second, because I had a seizure behind the wheel which caused me to crash my car. I'm pretty sure it was from benzo withdrawal, but unfortunately the medical records from the hospital say "tonic/clonic seizure - likely caused by methamphetamine". There were also witness reports saying I was still having the seizure after I crashed, which I have copies of.

I've been talking to my lawyer, and he thinks there's a chance that I'll still be able to get a "not guilty" verdict for the dangerous driving charge, because I have evidence of having a seizure. The only problem is that the medical records say it was from methamphetamine (and I have no way of arguing against that). But still, I've already been charged for driving on meth, so wouldn't that make the dangerous driving charge unnecessary?

Just after a few thoughts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm aware that you live in NZ and it's probably different, but if you have even one seizure in the US you lose your license for a year, ESPECIALLY if you have one while driving. If you value your license your lawyer needs to find out a way to do it right and not fuck you over by causing you to lose the license
 
Sweet P said:
Ok, I'm currently awaiting sentencing for a number of charges, two of them being driving on drugs (meth) and dangerous driving. I pled guilty to the first, and not guilty to the second, because I had a seizure behind the wheel which caused me to crash my car. I'm pretty sure it was from benzo withdrawal, but unfortunately the medical records from the hospital say "tonic/clonic seizure - likely caused by methamphetamine". There were also witness reports saying I was still having the seizure after I crashed, which I have copies of.

I've been talking to my lawyer, and he thinks there's a chance that I'll still be able to get a "not guilty" verdict for the dangerous driving charge, because I have evidence of having a seizure. The only problem is that the medical records say it was from methamphetamine (and I have no way of arguing against that). But still, I've already been charged for driving on meth, so wouldn't that make the dangerous driving charge unnecessary?

Just after a few thoughts.
Click to expand...

U gotta be kidding. I can't believe the ignorance of these people that make these laws. Driving on meth isn't dangerous at all. Driving on dangerous levels of meth like any other drug or not sleeping etc if u are a tweaker is potentially dangerous but its not the meth but the lack of sleep that is the dangerous part. Meth makes u more focused and arugeably a better driver so that that is considered impaired soley because u have meth in the system(not only dangerous amount) is really really ignorant imo. treating all drugs like they cause u to be impaired more than being wasted from alcohol is just stupid. Whether i agree or disagree its still dumb. US airforce gives pilots dexedrine. Meth can even be prescribed and its not dangerous or illegal then! So its not dangerous at all unless u are taking so much as to have a seizure or heart attack or something else but that isn't like its a primary effect of meth.

When will these people learn? Being on an appropriate dose of meth could definately make u a safer driver in many cases.
 
Around here cops will try to give you a " couple tickets" for pretty much the same thing so one of them sticks... I would amuse if you can prove you have had seizure before and you have proof you had them after the accident... That would be your best angle to play... If anything they would drop that charge or if not lower the charge to something like unsafe driving which would in Nj carry no points but a higher fine...
 
Choronzon333 said:
U gotta be kidding. I can't believe the ignorance of these people that make these laws. Driving on meth isn't dangerous at all. Driving on dangerous levels of meth like any other drug or not sleeping etc if u are a tweaker is potentially dangerous but its not the meth but the lack of sleep that is the dangerous part. Meth makes u more focused and arugeably a better driver so that that is considered impaired soley because u have meth in the system(not only dangerous amount) is really really ignorant imo. treating all drugs like they cause u to be impaired more than being wasted from alcohol is just stupid. Whether i agree or disagree its still dumb. US airforce gives pilots dexedrine. Meth can even be prescribed and its not dangerous or illegal then! So its not dangerous at all unless u are taking so much as to have a seizure or heart attack or something else but that isn't like its a primary effect of meth.

When will these people learn? Being on an appropriate dose of meth could definately make u a safer driver in many cases.
Click to expand...

I seriously disagree with this whole post.
 
^^ So do I ChemicalSmiles..

Hey Sweet P!

A seizure (what they will refer to it as 'drug-induced seizure') is a serious thing and there could be a possible disqual of driving until doctors and such can prove that you're not going to have another one. Because said docs disclosed that it was 'meth related' your lawyer can try to have that information squashed or not taken into consideration based on the witness testimony, however it'll be a hard battle going against a medical professional. They kinda have the golden seat when it comes to stuff like this.. The big charge is DUI, secondary to dangerous driving. If your lawyer can scrap the secondary and you've plead out the primary, then the seizure evidence doesn't have to be brought in. Hope this makes sense, lol..

I'm third year law student, so my word isn't gospel! :p
 
fatstep said:
I'm aware that you live in NZ and it's probably different, but if you have even one seizure in the US you lose your license for a year, ESPECIALLY if you have one while driving. If you value your license your lawyer needs to find out a way to do it right and not fuck you over by causing you to lose the license
Click to expand...

I'll be losing my license for a minimum of 6 months anyway due to the driving under the influence charge, which I've pled guilty to.

Choronzon333 said:
U gotta be kidding. I can't believe the ignorance of these people that make these laws. Driving on meth isn't dangerous at all. Driving on dangerous levels of meth like any other drug or not sleeping etc if u are a tweaker is potentially dangerous but its not the meth but the lack of sleep that is the dangerous part. Meth makes u more focused and arugeably a better driver so that that is considered impaired soley because u have meth in the system(not only dangerous amount) is really really ignorant imo. treating all drugs like they cause u to be impaired more than being wasted from alcohol is just stupid. Whether i agree or disagree its still dumb. US airforce gives pilots dexedrine. Meth can even be prescribed and its not dangerous or illegal then! So its not dangerous at all unless u are taking so much as to have a seizure or heart attack or something else but that isn't like its a primary effect of meth.

When will these people learn? Being on an appropriate dose of meth could definately make u a safer driver in many cases.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree... I've driven on meth plenty of times and have never had an accident. Having said that, I wouldn't drive if I was sleep deprived or had done too much. But according to the government, drugs are drugs, and all drugs impair your abilities. 8)
 
How did the police obtain your medical record?

You CAN contest a medical record--I have done it.
 
if your lawyer tells you that having a seizure might get you off a dangerous driving charge, you seriously need to get a new lawyer. Having a seizure will get you off a dangerous driving charge if you were completely unaware that you were at risk of having a seizure.

that said, the fact that the medical report states that the seizure was caused by the meth rather than the benzo withdrawals might actually work in your favour. Benzo withdrawal -> seizure is pretty common knowledge. meth (in a reasonable dose) -> seizure is pretty unlikely afaik, and probably not something that you ought to have reasonably foreseen. what you need to do now is keep your mouth shut about the benzo withdrawal causing the seizure.
 
hat said, the fact that the medical report states that the seizure was caused by the meth rather than the benzo withdrawals might actually work in your favour.
Click to expand...

I don't see the logic in that and doubt that a jury would either.
 
let's see if I can explain. Grant me a couple of assumptions:

1) It is common knowledge that benzo withdrawal causes seizures
2) It is not common knowledge that meth causes seizures

You can argue about whether or not those assumptions are true, but that is a separate issue. I am assuming they are for the basis of the defence I am proposing.

She obviously committed the act of driving dangerously. that is not at issue here. the issue is whether she lacked the requisite mens rea. My argument is that she did. For example, in R. v. Jiang (Canadian case, but the same principles apply in NZ), the accused didn't know that she suffered from narcolepsy. Since she was unaware that she might fall asleep at the wheel, she was absolved of a dangerous driving charge that resulted from that very incident. she could not have foreseen that she would suffer some sort of illness that would cause her to be unable to operate her car safely.

A lawyer would make the same argument for sweet p. you can count on the crown presenting evidence that the seizure as caused by the meth, since that's what the medical report states. if sweet p could not have foreseen that doing meth would cause her to have a seizure, then she lacks the requisite mens rea to be convicted to dangerous driving resulting from an unforeseeable seizure caused by meth (remember, you have to separate the driving under the influence from the dangerous driving charge).

If, on the other hand, they could establish the it as benzo withdrawal that caused Sweet P's seizure, Sweet P could have reasonably foreseen that the benzo withdrawal could have caused the seizure, and therefore been reckless (sufficient for mens rea) with regard to he consequences of her operating the motor vehicle. But remember: there is no evidence, at least for now, of her having suffered the seizure as a result of the foreseeable benzo withdrawal.
 
Sweet P said:
I'll be losing my license for a minimum of 6 months anyway due to the driving under the influence charge, which I've pled guilty to.



I tend to agree... I've driven on meth plenty of times and have never had an accident. Having said that, I wouldn't drive if I was sleep deprived or had done too much. But according to the government, drugs are drugs, and all drugs impair your abilities. 8)
Click to expand...

See this is absurd though. Desoxyn is meth. It is legal to drive on Desoxyn. So somehow a piece of paper from a doctor makes it safer for some people to drive on meth. Get real. Like you said, driving in an impaired state of mind like from not sleeping and eating as a result of meth can be dangerous but driving on meth isn't in and of itself. You can be a responsible driver on meth.

I mean under the reasoning of the a person without a prescription for amphetamines gets a DUID(under influence of drugs). His neighbor has a prescription for adderall. They can take the same amount say but somehow the guy with a prescription isn't a worry but the person who happened to have amphetamines in his system in the last three day, who had that show up on the urine test is a social hazard(even if he wasn't under the influence anytime near driving?) To me stuff like this is only the result of an extremely ignorant public and equally ignorant policy makers.

I'm not saying all levels of all drugs are at all safe to drive on but you can't just distort the facts and say all drugs that are illegally used are dangerous... U have to look at each individually, just common sense.
 
You're using logic. Driving while under the influence of drugs charges are big business, even if those drugs keep you awake at the wheel...:\
 
Missykins said:
How did the police obtain your medical record?

You CAN contest a medical record--I have done it.
Click to expand...

I requested the copy of the medical record, hoping it would help my defence by stating I had a seizure, as opposed to driving like a crazed meth-head. :\
 
The dangerous driving charge, and driving under the influence charges, are likely separate. The first probably requires that you were operating the vehicle in a dangerous manner, and the second probably requires you only to be operating a vehicle while under the influence. Since the two charges contain different elements, they are separate.

Although, just speculating, I suppose it's conceivable in your jurisdiction that the offenses somehow fold into one another via some odd instantiation of lesser included offense and merger doctrine, but that's something to ask your lawyer about.

As for the meth defense, I think it'd be a very difficult argument to make. I'd imagine the only level of mental intent required for a dangerous driving charge is recklessness, which would simply mean that a prosecutor would have to show that taking an illegally purchased and powerful drug, and then operating a motor vehicle, is acting in conscious disregard of a serious danger. In fact, the prosecutor would probably have an easy time arguing that unexpected adverse effects are an obvious and serious risk to using illegal drugs.

But, again, these are questions that really depend on your jurisdiction. Your lawyer likely has experience with these types of cases, and is your best go-to source. Don't be afraid to ask him these types of questions, especially if you have doubts. He works for you, remember.

Good luck with everything!
 
oh, I wasn't saying that it was an ideal defence. my point was just that the seizure being attributed to the meth rather than the benzo withdrawal COULD work in her favour, and might be worth arguing.
 
I heard from my lawyer that the cops are thinking of dropping the dangerous driving charge to "careless driving" - which is really no worse than a speeding ticket. But I think I'm still gonna try my luck and plead not guilty to it.
 
Sweet P said:
I requested the copy of the medical record, hoping it would help my defence by stating I had a seizure, as opposed to driving like a crazed meth-head. :\
Click to expand...


I'm confused--do the police have your medical record or not? Did you fail a tox screen?
 
^ I'm not sure if they have my medical record, but they took a blood sample from me at the hospital which tested positive for meth.
 
You're argument is flawed. Methamphetamine is an illegal drug which the OP voluntarily ingested. Intent is not an issue.

toa$t said:
let's see if I can explain. Grant me a couple of assumptions:

1) It is common knowledge that benzo withdrawal causes seizures
2) It is not common knowledge that meth causes seizures

You can argue about whether or not those assumptions are true, but that is a separate issue. I am assuming they are for the basis of the defence I am proposing.

She obviously committed the act of driving dangerously. that is not at issue here. the issue is whether she lacked the requisite mens rea. My argument is that she did. For example, in R. v. Jiang (Canadian case, but the same principles apply in NZ), the accused didn't know that she suffered from narcolepsy. Since she was unaware that she might fall asleep at the wheel, she was absolved of a dangerous driving charge that resulted from that very incident. she could not have foreseen that she would suffer some sort of illness that would cause her to be unable to operate her car safely.

A lawyer would make the same argument for sweet p. you can count on the crown presenting evidence that the seizure as caused by the meth, since that's what the medical report states. if sweet p could not have foreseen that doing meth would cause her to have a seizure, then she lacks the requisite mens rea to be convicted to dangerous driving resulting from an unforeseeable seizure caused by meth (remember, you have to separate the driving under the influence from the dangerous driving charge).

If, on the other hand, they could establish the it as benzo withdrawal that caused Sweet P's seizure, Sweet P could have reasonably foreseen that the benzo withdrawal could have caused the seizure, and therefore been reckless (sufficient for mens rea) with regard to he consequences of her operating the motor vehicle. But remember: there is no evidence, at least for now, of her having suffered the seizure as a result of the foreseeable benzo withdrawal.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top