As mentioned in a recent blog
entry, someone may find themselves in an emergency situation that forces them to drive. That is the
defense of Necessity. That reminds
me of three other seldom seen but viable defense to DUI: Involuntary Intoxication,
Entrapment and Duress.
Involuntary Intoxication
involves committing a crime after properly taking your prescribed medication (not
alcohol or street drugs) and having an unanticipated adverse reaction that interfered
with your law abiding intent. Now DUI is a general intent crime, that is,
unlike most offenses where the state must prove you specifically intended to
commit unlawful acts, you do not need to intend to drive impaired to be guilty
of DUI. Still, I can see the application of this defense in certain
circumstances. Certainly, if the adverse reaction and prescription can be
documented, most prosecutors will have an open mind to consider a reduction of
the DUI to a lesser offense. By the way, if you are driving impaired due to
ingestion of something other than alcohol or a controlled substance, its not
DUI.
What about Entrapment?
Typically, this is where an agent of the police (undercover cop, snitch)
induces someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not be inclined to
commit. It is a subjective matter for the jury to decide to cancel out criminal
intent. The cop who waits for you to leave the bar and drive off has not
committed entrapment. But one who tells you to get in your car and leave probably
has done so. It will be a strange case indeed but not unheard of.
Then there is Duress,
being forced to drive due to a threat of harm. One can imagine a bad guy
forcing the driver to drive the getaway car. Also driving to flee a confrontation can arise.
This is a particular kind of emergency. These situations do happen.
For
these last two defenses, a plausible presentation at trial is key. Often, the
authorities have some involvement so independent proof exists to verify the
dilemma.
