Pennsylvania DUI With Involuntary Intoxication

The pendulum has swung too far. Thirty years ago a police officer who encountered a friendly, well-mannered intoxicated driver behind the wheel might escort him home. If charged with DUI, the case might be pled down to Recklessly Endangering Another Person or Disorderly Conduct. Not today. Years of pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, carnage on the highways, and political pressure have resulted in a climate where DUI is dealt with very harshly. Any defense that succeeds too often in court, no matter how grounded in common sense (think relation-back evidence tying the blood test result to the time of driving) gets neutered by the legislature. Undoubtedly for the good cause of safer highways. But today it has gone too far. DUI with involuntary intoxication has been criminalized.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court today decided Commonwealth v. Whitcomb, holding that involuntary intoxication cannot be a defense to DUI in Pennsylvania. But we want safer roads, right? Think of this scenario. Your daughter, sister or mother leaves her meal at a tavern to use the restroom and someone slips something in her drink. She returns to the table and finishes the drink. On the way home she starts to feel the effects and runs over a mailbox. Police are called. She goes to jail. Today’s Pennsylvania Superior Court holding says that is justice.

Change the facts a bit. You go to the doctor for a new medical condition. She prescribes a drug. She doesn’t think to alert you that the drug won’t interact well with another drug you are taking. You drive and start to feel drowsy, crossing the solid lines on the road a few times. You get pulled over, fail field sobriety tests, and go to jail for DUI. Today’s Pennsylvania Superior Court holding says that is justice.

Ms. Whitcomb was a mother in Armstrong County who was found wandering around a gas station pump, swaying on her feet, and not checking on her young child in the back seat. The manager contacted Pennsylvania State Police who performed field sobriety tests, determined that she was intoxicated, and arrested her for DUI. One controlled substance and several prescribed drugs were found in her blood. She wanted to argue DUI with involuntary intoxication, but the Court did not let her. The Superior Court never discussed the facts of her alleged involuntary intoxication, so they don’t appear to have factored into the decision. The Court’s rational was that the legislature passed a strict liability statute – one where it doesn’t matter what the person’s intent or mental state is. Therefore they cannot read into the statute an exception for lacking awareness of the intoxication involved in committing the crime.

While this is certainly a tough situation because permitting a defense of DUI with involuntary intoxication would certainly invite abuses, the harm done here outweighs the good. In thirty years of handling a high volume of Criminal (and thus DUI) cases I have only seen two DUI cases where involuntary intoxication was argued to the Court. On the other hand, it is a great injustice to convict an innocent person who never intended to commit or would have committed a crime. Worse yet, to incarcerate that person, which is exactly what happened to Ms. Whitcomb. DUI carries mandatory jail sentences in Pennsylvania. It is an intolerable injustice when a citizen is convicted of committing a crime that she could not have prevented, and the opinion in Commonwealth v. Whitcomb has no problem with that due to the way the legislature constructed the strict liability statute.

What is the solution? We would love to hear your thoughts on the issue of DUI with involuntary intoxication – please leave a comment.