New York woman beats DUI charge by proving her body is a brewery

[Purple]

It's really not that unpredictable if you think about it. All we have to do is always err on the side of caution. If it was up to me you could in fact not get a license to drive for the rest of your life.

Yea, because you're the licensed neurologist of the bunch, am I right?

The way I see it you are a potential risk behind the wheel of a car. And driving is, let's face it just a trivial convenience. And I am perfectly willing to deny someone a trivial convenience if it helps save lives.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Anyone is a potential risk behind the wheel of a car. By your logic no-one would be allowed to drive because they might potentially hurt someone.

As for driving being "a trivial convenience" that is highly dependent on where you live. In the middle of a city with good public transport? Fine, as long as you want to go where the buses/trains etc go. In a small town where you get one bus an hour? Driving is far from being a trivial convenience. And FYI, I say this as someone who is medically disqualified from driving, and unless you are too I suspect I have a better grasp on whether driving is or is not a convenience than you do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Elephant in the room here. Driving while intoxicated is not a Strict Liability offense. It requires intent to commit the act in question. If you drive drunk, you have to know you are drunk for the law to touch you.

This woman may not have known she was legally drunk. It is a complete outside context problem, because she has been legally drunk for a long time, and the way she feels when legally drunk is normal to her. And just like how it is kind of impossible for me to know what it is like to see into the ultraviolet spectrum, she has no way of knowing that other people's subjective experiences are not like hers, and she has ZERO legal obligation to be a telepath or omniscient.

First clue she gets is when she blows .36, which for a normal person is "forget how to speak their native language" drunk.

[Napoleon the Clown]

If she was unaware of this condition, valid legal defense just like if someone's unaware they have epilepsy and crashes because of it has a valid defense. If someone has no history of heart disease and has a heart attack while driving, they're not gonna get a citation for crashing when a heart attack causes them to crash. The key here is if she knew beforehand that her body produces alcohol all on its own.

From what I can gather from the article, she didn't know about this condition beforehand. She only sought treatment when she blew a .36 after not having had any alcohol. And now that she is aware of the condition, she can be considered liable for driving with it.

[bilateralrope]

I found it somewhat unclear whether the woman is actually metabolizing alcohol, as in is her own body making her drunk, or does the alcohol just form naturally in her body? In other words, is she drunk, or is her body simply producing alcohol?

From what I read, some people suffering from this condition do actually get drunk if their BAL goes too high...but since it's a condition they have always had, they're more capable of functioning buzzed than the average person. In this instance, she was swerving a bit which is why she was pulled over.

Is there enough evidence to determine how much higher a BAL they can handle while still remaining as as a regular driver who is below the limit ?

[Bedlam]

I found it somewhat unclear whether the woman is actually metabolizing alcohol, as in is her own body making her drunk, or does the alcohol just form naturally in her body? In other words, is she drunk, or is her body simply producing alcohol?

From what I read, some people suffering from this condition do actually get drunk if their BAL goes too high...but since it's a condition they have always had, they're more capable of functioning buzzed than the average person. In this instance, she was swerving a bit which is why she was pulled over.

Is there enough evidence to determine how much higher a BAL they can handle while still remaining as as a regular driver who is below the limit ?

The law doesn't work that way, its if you are above a certain level your guilty otherwise your not. The functionality of someone when they have a certain amount of alcohol in them is going to vary from person to person and even from time to time. As it's not easy to verify someone's 'functionality' we just use the BAL, not necessarily fair in all situations but easy and objective.

[Alyrium Denryle]

From what I read, some people suffering from this condition do actually get drunk if their BAL goes too high...but since it's a condition they have always had, they're more capable of functioning buzzed than the average person. In this instance, she was swerving a bit which is why she was pulled over.

Is there enough evidence to determine how much higher a BAL they can handle while still remaining as as a regular driver who is below the limit ?

The law doesn't work that way, its if you are above a certain level your guilty otherwise your not. The functionality of someone when they have a certain amount of alcohol in them is going to vary from person to person and even from time to time. As it's not easy to verify someone's 'functionality' we just use the BAL, not necessarily fair in all situations but easy and objective.

Sure, but it is still an offense that requires Mens Rea. No intent, no crime, basically (as opposed to something like violation of the Lacey Act). You still have to intend to drive while having consumed alcohol. She didn't.

Now, there should be some sort of accommodation that can be made (ADA and other legislation). Her tolerances are medically much higher. The legal limit is set based on a normally functioning average human. Her brain has adapted to huge long-term alcohol exposure, probably from childhood (oh god, her poor liver). She is categorically not a normally functioning human and I suspect new case law might happen as a result of her case.

Medication, a legal document she has to carry in her glove box signed by a judge indicating her medical condition, something. Because the state cannot discriminate against someone based on a medical condition without using the least-restrictive means possible, and only then for a good reason. Even with laws of general applicability. Unless it impairs her driving, a medical condition cannot disqualify her from using the roads. So either they have to delineate what, for her, her impairment threshold is (and it may turn out that she has simply adapted to what is in actuality significant impairment, so she can never drive), or they have to control the condition with medication (provided that medication does not further impair her, which it might, actually). But they cannot hold her liable for this first instance at all.

Think of it like this. She is technically in violation of "drunk in public" laws every time she walks outside her house, and many of the arguments I have seen in this thread when taken to their logical conclusion would mean many of you are in favor of those laws being enforced upon her.

[bilateralrope]

(provided that medication does not further impair her, which it might, actually).

I did a quick check of wikipedia. Auto-brewery syndrome can be treated with fluconazole. From the sounds of it, one treatment completely cures the condition. But fluconazole does have side effects. Given those potential side effects, would you be happy if the law gave someone diagnosed with this three choices:
- Fluconazole to cure it at a reasonable price for the treatment.
- Be disqualified from driving.
- Prove that they are at a significant risk to suffer some serious harm from the treatment.

I wouldn't count anything under the common or infrequent adverse effects as serious harm if they end when the treatment does. Going to the paper cited by wikipedia, the treatment was:

The patient was given an oral course of fluconazole (Diflucan) 100 mg a day for three weeks followed by a three week course of Nystatin 500,000 IU 4 times a day. He also took daily Acidophilus tablets to re-colonize the gut. During this six week period, the patient followed a very strict no sugar, no carbohydrate diet and did not ingest alcohol in any form. His breath alcohol level was tested frequently throughout each day and was 0.00 from the time treatment began until 10 weeks later. Stool cultures were then repeated and returned negative. Finally, the patient was treated with a course of Tetracycline for the H. pylori.

As for reasonable price, that would be within the context of the medical system of whatever country the person is in.

[Alyrium Denryle]

(provided that medication does not further impair her, which it might, actually).

I did a quick check of wikipedia. Auto-brewery syndrome can be treated with fluconazole. From the sounds of it, one treatment completely cures the condition. But fluconazole does have side effects. Given those potential side effects, would you be happy if the law gave someone diagnosed with this three choices:
- Fluconazole to cure it at a reasonable price for the treatment.
- Be disqualified from driving.
- Prove that they are at a significant risk to suffer some serious harm from the treatment.

I wouldn't count anything under the common or infrequent adverse effects as serious harm if they end when the treatment does. Going to the paper cited by wikipedia, the treatment was:

The patient was given an oral course of fluconazole (Diflucan) 100 mg a day for three weeks followed by a three week course of Nystatin 500,000 IU 4 times a day. He also took daily Acidophilus tablets to re-colonize the gut. During this six week period, the patient followed a very strict no sugar, no carbohydrate diet and did not ingest alcohol in any form. His breath alcohol level was tested frequently throughout each day and was 0.00 from the time treatment began until 10 weeks later. Stool cultures were then repeated and returned negative. Finally, the patient was treated with a course of Tetracycline for the H. pylori.

As for reasonable price, that would be within the context of the medical system of whatever country the person is in.

I would not have much of a problem with that course of treatment, no. Though you always have to be careful when administering anti-fungals or anything else that might upset the gun flora.

[bilateralrope]

Though you always have to be careful when administering anti-fungals or anything else that might upset the gun flora.

We wouldn't want anyone shot over this treatment


Assuming you meant gut flora, not gun flora, I also agree.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh god damn it. Yes. Gut flora.

Now I have a mental image of angry E. Coli colonies inside gun barrels.

[Simon_Jester]

I do not really see why this would work as a defense. Was she over the limit? Y/N? That really is the only thing that should be on trial. The conditions of the situations should frankly not even need considering.

That's not how laws work.

Conditions are considered in nearly every type of trial involving every type of law, and that is exactly how it should be. Arbitrarily punishing people for violating the exact wording of a statute regardless of the nature of the violation, their intentions, and their control of their actions is stupid and counterproductive.

The law is a tool to take those who have control over their actions, and compel them to choose NOT to break the laws.

The law is NOT a tool to play the game of "gotcha" with citizens who lack the means to control their actions, or who are somehow coerced into breaking the law, or who had no intent of performing a criminal act.

To play that game would be stupid and counterproductive, as I said above.

[Purple]

To play that game would be stupid and counterproductive, as I said above.

I disagree. The way I see it the laws of a society are like the rules of a board game. They are set for you. And you can either follow them or get penalized. Anything beyond that is just needlessly complicating the issue.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To play that game would be stupid and counterproductive, as I said above.

I disagree. The way I see it the laws of a society are like the rules of a board game. They are set for you. And you can either follow them or get penalized. Anything beyond that is just needlessly complicating the issue.

Well, thank heavens several thousand years of jurisprudence and and political philosophy have been laid down by many thousands of people, all of whom understand how humans and the law ought interact, and were, every man-jack of them, far smarter than you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To be somewhat less flippant, the laws of any but the most draconian societies are categorically and explicitly not set up like the rules of a chess board. The objective of the laws is to organize our social interactions and ensure something that looks like justice. You cannot do that without safety mechanisms. Without punishments fitting not just the crime, but the intent behind the crime. That is why we have degrees of homicide. It is why we have Diminished Capacity defenses, juvenile courts, concepts like Mens Rea and Acutus Reas, and discretionary sentencing by judges.


Without those things, we would succeed at organizing our social interactions, but would fail when it comes to actual justice.

[LaCroix]

I found it somewhat unclear whether the woman is actually metabolizing alcohol, as in is her own body making her drunk, or does the alcohol just form naturally in her body? In other words, is she drunk, or is her body simply producing alcohol?

It is basiclly a kind of yeast infection in her intestines. This yeast converts any carbohydrates (aything, even a bite of bread) into alcohol.

That kind of yeast is very resitant to treatment. The only way to cure that state is to avoid carbohydrates completely for a time, starving that yeast. Which is really hard.

[Simon_Jester]

To play that game would be stupid and counterproductive, as I said above.

I disagree. The way I see it the laws of a society are like the rules of a board game. They are set for you. And you can either follow them or get penalized. Anything beyond that is just needlessly complicating the issue.

Which is why the first thing I said to you is "that's not how laws work."

Purple, seriously, that is not how laws work. The way you see them is wrong. You have expressed this model of law before, and quite honestly it's the kind of "law" that would only be imposed by an insane dictator, or an abusive parent.

There are two reasons you might be misunderstanding the purpose of laws:

1) Perhaps you have misunderstood why we have laws, and therefore assume they are designed to serve a purpose different from their true purpose.
2) Perhaps you understand what laws are for, but do not understand how they serve their intended purpose, or why changing them to work differently would not serve that purpose.

Before you dismiss my opinion... I am not the only one who thinks so. Don't take my word for this if you don't want to- ask people who understand law. Ask lawyers. Or read books written by theorists of law in the past.

Now, if you are prepared to take my word for it, I can explain too.
___________________________________

The purpose of laws is twofold. The one that may be easiest for you to understand is to maintain order in society. That is the basic purpose. To make this happen, we need laws that allow all citizens to live according to patterns that are comfortable and natural for them. The need for patterns is obvious (there can be no order without patterns).

But there is also the need for comfort- because if people are not comfortable obeying the patterns set down by the law, they will constantly subvert the law, or constant intervention by the government will be needed to make people obey. If constant intervention is needed, then sooner or later that intervention will fail, and there will be disorder. So the laws are designed to align with humans' instincts about how to behave, and how to avoid punishment. This is why we have a requirement for "justice," about which there will be more later.

The general goal, again, is stability. Predictability. Order. The goal is for people to live in a natural way that allows them to be content and happy, without disrupting the systems our society needs in order to function.

This goal is NOT served when the laws are a game of 'gotcha.' Or any other kind of game.

...

The rules of a game exist to simplify the game, or to create very specific complications that make the game more interesting. That is because the goal of a game is to be simple (so that people can understand all about it easily), but complicated in specific, interesting ways (so that it poses a challenge).

I repeat. Game rules are designed to make the game simple, but interesting.

Whereas laws are not intended to make life simple. By their nature, human beings will not be content living in a society that is so simple that every human understands everything that is happening. Humans want to befriend and love each other, to interact in complicated ways, to create complicated and beautiful things.

And likewise, laws are not intended to make life interesting. Game rules make life interesting by defining special victory conditions, or limitations you face while playing the game, to pose intellectual or physical challenges (such as not being allowed to use your hands when playing football). That is not what laws are for. With the exception of dysfunctional people, humans find the interest in their lives from sources other than the 'challenge' of subverting the laws that govern human civilization as a whole.

So, for example, traffic laws do not exist to make driving a car "interesting," because that's not the point. Nor are they there to make it "simple" to drive, because it is inherently impossible to make driving simple. They exist to make driving safe. Orderly. So that everyone can get where they are trying to go, without undue burdens of risk or difficulty.

So to summarize and repeat, laws are not like the rules of a game. Laws are not intended to make the world they govern simple or interesting. Laws are intended to make life safe. Orderly.

...

The goal of making people's lives safe orderly is not served by throwing them in jail as a 'consequence' of circumstances beyond their control. That makes the law unstable. Unpredictable. Capricious. Disorderly. And therefore it is stupid and self-defeating, if the goal is to maintain law and order.

Therefore, ALL well-designed legal systems include, for nearly all laws, a requirement that "criminal intent" be employed. In other words, the law only punishes you if you intended to break the law for personal gain or out of some other evil motive. If you did not intend evil, and did not do anything which was unreasonably reckless, then you are not supposed to be punished.

So yes, it very much matters why you did a thing that is against the law.
____________________________

Now, over and above this, there is also the requirement for 'justice.' Basically, laws for governing humans need to be 'just' in a sense that human beings will instinctively understand and accept. As noted above, if the laws are not 'just,' humans cannot instinctively follow them. They will constantly be bumping into the laws in ways that are unpleasant to them. This results in a lot of citizens who would otherwise be productive members of society breaking the laws, which leads to trouble and disorder. Moreover, further evil can happen when the government tries to enforce an unjust law, and hurts people needlessly.

This is where Alyrium's post comes in- because Alyrium is pointing out that it is unjust to punish people who did not intend to violate the law or who had no reasonable way of knowing they were doing so.

Likewise, I am talking about how punishing people that way leads to disorder- because it makes laws unpredictable, alarming, and more likely to be subverted or ignored.

[Lost Soal]

Unless the driving tests and instructors in the US are utter shit then this women was able to learn to drive and pass her test without the instructor or examiner even suspecting that she was drunk or considered her unsafe to drive, so I would suggest that in the normal course of events she can safely operate a vehicle. The other mitigating factor is that her car had a flat tire so it is entirely possible that it was the tire which caused her to be weaving and not her condition

[biostem]

I've heard of cases where a diabetic becomes impaired due to low blood sugar, while driving. In these types of situations, (if I'm understanding them correctly), there are a few warning signs beforehand. If this is the case, and assuming said person is aware that they have a condition, wouldn't it be their responsibility to take appropriate action - like pull over and call for help or take their medicine, instead of continuing to drive?

[Gaidin]

Unless the driving tests and instructors in the US are utter shit then this women was able to learn to drive and pass her test without the instructor or examiner even suspecting that she was drunk or considered her unsafe to drive, so I would suggest that in the normal course of events she can safely operate a vehicle. The other mitigating factor is that her car had a flat tire so it is entirely possible that it was the tire which caused her to be weaving and not her condition

Drivers tests are given assuming the student is a normal student unless something shows during the test. Forgetting the fact that the instructor isn't a doctor, that's a hilariously short period of time. Also, conditions can show later in life. The average driver's test is given during the ages of 16-17 in America. She could've been pretty normal at young ages for all we know.

[Zaune]

I've heard of cases where a diabetic becomes impaired due to low blood sugar, while driving. In these types of situations, (if I'm understanding them correctly), there are a few warning signs beforehand. If this is the case, and assuming said person is aware that they have a condition, wouldn't it be their responsibility to take appropriate action - like pull over and call for help or take their medicine, instead of continuing to drive?

There isn't always time. I've seen it happen to my mother. She ate a couple of Viennese Whirls without checking the back of the packet and within at most fifteen minutes she was on the verge of passing out, without much warning; if she'd been driving at the time I doubt she could have made it safely to the side of the road.

[Simon_Jester]

I've heard of cases where a diabetic becomes impaired due to low blood sugar, while driving. In these types of situations, (if I'm understanding them correctly), there are a few warning signs beforehand. If this is the case, and assuming said person is aware that they have a condition, wouldn't it be their responsibility to take appropriate action - like pull over and call for help or take their medicine, instead of continuing to drive?

I'd say yes-within-reason, but that phrase within reason is key. It would depend enormously on circumstances and the exact details of where they were driving, and why.

Under some circumstances, (say, on the access ramps to a major suspension bridge during a traffic jam), stopping the car may cause more disruption and risk of an accident than continuing would. Under others (say, when you are five to ten minutes from home), it may be a practical necessity to get home to a secure location where you can see to your own medical welfare, before the condition overtakes you entirely.

I mean, which is a greater risk to my own health, driving the last ten minutes of a long trip with my blood sugar crashing in order to get to my insulin, or pulling over and taking half an hour or more to get to any place or person that can supply the insulin?

Unless the driving tests and instructors in the US are utter shit then this women was able to learn to drive and pass her test without the instructor or examiner even suspecting that she was drunk or considered her unsafe to drive, so I would suggest that in the normal course of events she can safely operate a vehicle. The other mitigating factor is that her car had a flat tire so it is entirely possible that it was the tire which caused her to be weaving and not her condition

Drivers tests are given assuming the student is a normal student unless something shows during the test. Forgetting the fact that the instructor isn't a doctor, that's a hilariously short period of time. Also, conditions can show later in life. The average driver's test is given during the ages of 16-17 in America. She could've been pretty normal at young ages for all we know.

Yes- but once again you run into the "could she reasonably have known" problem. If her condition has been getting slowly worse throughout her adult life, it may well be that she's simply grown accustomed to it like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water, with her own increasing alcohol tolerance and driving experience offsetting the symptoms of her condition.

I do think Lost Soal makes a good point that "I had a flat tire" is a very good reason for her car to be weaving. Although this is really only relevant if there is question as to why the police officer(s) suspected that they should administer a BAC test. If I have a flat tire and am pulled over for 'weaving,' it would seem inappropriate to treat me as a suspected DUI unless there is other supporting evidence (like trying to drive for several miles on a flat tire which is unusual behavior, or like appearing drunk to the officer after being pulled over).

[Gaidin]

Drivers tests are given assuming the student is a normal student unless something shows during the test. Forgetting the fact that the instructor isn't a doctor, that's a hilariously short period of time. Also, conditions can show later in life. The average driver's test is given during the ages of 16-17 in America. She could've been pretty normal at young ages for all we know.

Yes- but once again you run into the "could she reasonably have known" problem. If her condition has been getting slowly worse throughout her adult life, it may well be that she's simply grown accustomed to it like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water, with her own increasing alcohol tolerance and driving experience offsetting the symptoms of her condition.

I do think Lost Soal makes a good point that "I had a flat tire" is a very good reason for her car to be weaving. Although this is really only relevant if there is question as to why the police officer(s) suspected that they should administer a BAC test. If I have a flat tire and am pulled over for 'weaving,' it would seem inappropriate to treat me as a suspected DUI unless there is other supporting evidence (like trying to drive for several miles on a flat tire which is unusual behavior, or like appearing drunk to the officer after being pulled over).

That's still to say, the driver's test is irrelevant. Because, is the condition relevant during the test? Does the condition come up during the test? Are instructors trained to recognize all relevant conditions that can come up during tests(this, epilepsy, diabetes, a long list of etcetera) and know what they are? Or are they just trained to give the test?

[biostem]

More to the point, if this woman has a condition which basically causes her body to produce alcohol, then she shouldn't be permitted to drive if said condition causes her to become impaired. What are the laws regarding, for instance, someone who has epilepsy, or any condition that could "flare up" at any time, causing a loss or impairment to normal function?

[Gaidin]

More to the point, if this woman has a condition which basically causes her body to produce alcohol, then she shouldn't be permitted to drive if said condition causes her to become impaired. What are the laws regarding, for instance, someone who has epilepsy, or any condition that could "flare up" at any time, causing a loss or impairment to normal function?

Epilepsy depends on the state. Typically you are required to go seizure free for an extended period of time. The time period is what varies. At least three months, the longest I've seen is six. Some states require a doctor's release on top of it. Basically, you've demonstrated your healthy record.