• IzzyScissor@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    DWI stands for Driving While Intoxicated, not Driving While Impaired. The restriction in the law is against “intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug”.

    A heart attack is not liquor, cannabis or a drug, therefore, it is not reasonable to charge this woman with a DWI.

    • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      The restriction in the law is against “intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug”.

      You’re right that in WA state, the laws regarding DUI tickets are specific to “intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug.” That varies state-to-state, though.

      In Washington state, the driver in this case could still be charged with negligent driving in the second degree, which includes any impairment. She shouldn’t be charged with a DUI, but she is still guilty of Negligent Driving 2 (which is a non-criminal offense), and I still think that if she’s driving in a way that is consistent with being intoxicated, it’s reasonable to be treated her as though she was intoxicated while they wait for more information. When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It depends on the state. Some states have laws for driving while impaired to take into account illegal and legal drugs. Some states have even extended impairment to include fatigue, which is a medical condition.

      That charge could be dropped later when it was discovered the impairment was due to a random and immediate medical issue, but cops aren’t doctors.